Yesterday evening, while cycling home from work, a car hooted just as it passed me.
Gave me a bit of a fright! I immediately thought it must be someone who knows me, but I didn't recognise the driver. As it dawned on me that he was actually beeping at me to make some kind of point I got a bit miffed and gave chase.
He turned into a nearby supermarket carpark and I had him.
I got off the bike, calmed down, and when he was out of the car I expressed my curiousity at why he had hooted.
He insisted that the Highway Code (UK) states that if there is a cycle path with the blue circular sign showing a bike and a pedestrian then that meant that cyclists MUST use the path and get off the road.
He expressed his frustration that the Council spends all his tax money building cycle paths and then cyclists don't use them.
I pointed out that as a car owner and a home owner, I have also contributed to the taxes and was therefore not freeloading on him.
I also pointed out his error regarding the blue signs, that the indicated that the path was for cyclist & peds only - ie motorbikes and cars weren't allowed on the path, & that cycles are vehicles entitled to use the road and have all the space they require. I encouraged him to consult the highway code when he insisted that I must be mistaken.
It ended with him apologising for having alarmed me while I was riding and we parted agreeing that more consideration is required form all road users.
Not being a confrontational person I was shaking with tension for the remainder of the ride.
Its quite remarkable when you get into the head of a motorist and discover that the see bikes as a nuisance and a danger.
(not quite the same as designated cycle paths, but this is of interest):
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Do not leave your cycle where it would endanger or obstruct road users or pedestrians, for example, lying on the pavement. Use cycle parking facilities where provided.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129
(http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.shtml)
Stew
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Its good that you 2 came to some sort of consensus and that neither of you lost your cool. The problem frequently arises where cycle paths simply are not safe or too slow. There is a stretch of cyclepath where I ride all the time. It is difficult to maintain more than 10mph will all the peds, rollerbladers, and other cyclists, meanwhile us roadies take the parallel road at 20mph or more!
nathank
He insisted that the Highway Code (UK) states that if there is a cycle path with the blue circular sign showing a bike and a pedestrian then that meant that cyclists MUST use the path and get off the road.
my single biggest complaint about Germany and cycling relates to this: in Germany you ARE required to use the path if it has a Blue Cycling sign - recently in a meeting with my bike club the question was asked of authorities if this still applied if the bike path was under snow and otherwise "unrideable". i think the answer given was "technically yes, but nobody will ticket you for doing it if it's reasonable".
here in Germany i and others quite frequently ride the street when the bike path is not suitable (usually b/c of large numbers of pedestrains that makes speeds over 20km/h VERY unsafe). this is technically illegal and cars here sometimes DO honk b/c legally in this country they are correct: that these roads with the bike paths with the obligatory signs are ONLY FOR CARS.
i have had my "story" ready for over a year now in preparation for when i get stopped by police (that it is unsafe and in my planned defense i invite them to ride the bike path with me at 30km/h) but i have never been stopped even though i've passed cops while riding in the street next to the path hundreds of times.
i think the legal basis here in Germany is very disturbing although cycling support and driver awareness of cyclists and all is generally higher. if i remember right, Holland also has mandatory bike path usage laws.
chewa
Well done on keeping your temper. My last conversation with a motorist went something along the lines of
You ******!!!""£&&*(())___""&&**((()()())))@@@@@@&&&&*********!!!
D*Alex
My last encounter went like this:
"Yeah, yer horn blows, but you $uck!!!"
wabbit
Hey, I like that line!
Chris L
Here's another:
"Honk your brains out, Spanky, it won't take long."
It never fails to surprise me just how many motorists around here are blatantly ignorant of the laws regarding cyclists being on the road. In this country, for example, there is no law requiring cyclists to use bike paths in any situation, and the law on bike lanes only requires us to use them if it is "practical to do so."
One wonders what is actually being taught in this "driving test" that they supposedly have to pass.
closetbiker
Originally posted by Chris L
It never fails to surprise me just how many motorists around here are blatantly ignorant of the laws regarding cyclists being on the road.
One wonders what is actually being taught in this "driving test" that they supposedly have to pass.
I get the same thing here. Some excuses for us getting off the road are, I pay money for insurance and, I pay for the roads in my gas taxes. Both excuses are wrong, of course. Roads are paid for from general revenue and insurance is required for potential damages caused by the car
Guest
Remind me not to go to Germany anytime soon for cycling!
Seriously, I would not know where I'd be if they forced us to ride the bike path instead of riding in the street. I went to a meeting for Chicago cyclists a few weeks ago, and the woman running the meeting said that the majority of cyclists' injuries are caused by riding on the bike path, not the street. That includes fatalities, by the way.
Having said that, I would not take the bike path from the end of April until the end of October- it is packed with pedestrians, dogs, kids, other cyclists, rollerbladers, and any other nuts out there at the time. The congestion is so bad that you spend the majority of your time off the bike walking it. How do you get the exercise in when you can't even ride your bike to begin with?
What gets me the most upset about the bike path is that it's a BIKE path- it should be an alternative for bikes only. If they want pedestrians, they should construct a pedestrian path and let them walk their dogs, kids, etc. along that and stay out of the way of cyclists. I am getting tired of ducking and weaving them all damn day. I am not Mohammed Ali- sheesh!
Today, I was riding the path headed southbound and ahead of me, there was a woman with a stroller (woman #1). On the other side of the bike path, there was woman #2 headed northbound with 2 kids- about 10 years old. Woman #2 stopped woman #1 to say something, then she began to peer into the stroller. Woman #2 saw me coming, but did nothing to get out of my way except take a small step back. As I proceeded to squeeze between all of them, one of the kids began walking directly into my path headed towards the stroller. I've never screamed so loud or braked so hard in my life. I was working on my spinning, and although I wasn't going very fast (about 14 miles per hour), I almost killed myself for some other person's kid. I was fuming for about 5 minutes. I'm seriously considering not braking the next time some stupid adult lets their kids meander into my path. I'm tired of it.
With all the crap happening on the bike path, I am perfectly content with taking the roads anyday. I feel like I have more of a fighting chance with facing an errant car than facing a stupid kid running into my way- the reason being because I am more likely to lay my life on the line to not hit the kid than to just deal with not hitting a car. I've done the same for a stupid dog running in my way, pedestrians walking their dogs on leashes that are about 6 feet long where they allow the dogs to stray across the path, and I'm racing towards the leash like I'm headed towards a finish line I never contended with... all kinds of crap that I shouldn't have to deal with in the first place.
I hope the day comes when they construct a REAL bike path- no pedestrians of any kind allowed. The city is currently putting together a plan to re-construct our highways to include bike lanes, and I think that's great, but if they let every stupid, non-thinking, podunk pedestrian on there, they'll be taking advantage- running in big groups like cows out to pasture on both sides of the bike path, running on the wrong side of the bike path, forcing us to swerve into the highways, bringing their big, dumb dogs out to run with them on the paths, running with strollers, etc. I will die if they don't do something to prevent pedestrians from taking up the paths. If any city proposes to construct bike lanes, they should restrict all pedestrians from accessing the path (including rollerbladers) and not build the bike paths in an inconvenient manner- ie. building a bike path that takes long detours to avoid intersections, car traffic, etc. They either need to build a tunnel underground if that happens, or build a bridge overhead so we aren't having to bike for 30 minutes outside of our way just to get to point B.
Dang, I am just riled up today! Motorists need to be re-educated on the rules of the road with cyclists in mind so that they aren't sitting in traffic getting p*ssed off at us about riding in the streets. We don't have a choice most of the time, and they need to get used to it. What motorists should do is make demands on the city to build better bike paths that can accomodate all the cyclists out there. Maybe then, everyone will take us seriously.
Koffee
orguasch
I had a similar well almost a similar incident but this one ended with me taking the front tire of my bike and asking him to get of his car and I ask him "now let see what you got", I was so mad I could have killed the poor guy, but after a awhile a settled down and all my anger went kaput.....
Chris L
Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Seriously, I would not know where I'd be if they forced us to ride the bike path instead of riding in the street. I went to a meeting for Chicago cyclists a few weeks ago, and the woman running the meeting said that the majority of cyclists' injuries are caused by riding on the bike path, not the street. That includes fatalities, by the way.
As I've said elsewhere, none of the motives for building bike paths are safety related. They're all political. It's all about making motorists happy by supposedly getting us off the road, and that's all. Maybe they can appear a little more PC by demonstrating a "commitment to sustainable transport". I don't buy it for one second.
The sad part is that many cycling advocates who themselves don't ride these things seem to think that government should be congratulated for it. Since when did we start congratulating people for f**king up?
Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Having said that, I would not take the bike path from the end of April until the end of October- it is packed with pedestrians, dogs, kids, other cyclists, rollerbladers, and any other nuts out there at the time. The congestion is so bad that you spend the majority of your time off the bike walking it. How do you get the exercise in when you can't even ride your bike to begin with?
Try riding to work on one. Imagine actually having a deadline. Then they wonder why so many of us prefer the road.
Originally posted by Koffee Brown
What gets me the most upset about the bike path is that it's a BIKE path- it should be an alternative for bikes only. If they want pedestrians, they should construct a pedestrian path and let them walk their dogs, kids, etc. along that and stay out of the way of cyclists.
Actually, most of them (out here at least), are designated as "shared paths". Additionally, most of them have signs asking cyclists to "give way to pedestrians" and "dismount to cross road/bridge/whatever". And we're supposed to use this?
Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Dang, I am just riled up today! Motorists need to be re-educated on the rules of the road with cyclists in mind so that they aren't sitting in traffic getting p*ssed off at us about riding in the streets. We don't have a choice most of the time, and they need to get used to it. What motorists should do is make demands on the city to build better bike paths that can accomodate all the cyclists out there. Maybe then, everyone will take us seriously.
Here's what I propose, forget about bike paths completely. Let's build a few roads that go nowhere where motorists have to give way to pedestrians all the time, then we'll see how many of them actually use the paths, then they might understand why we don't.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure that motorists are ever going to accept anybody else being on their precious road without some serious law enforcement of existing road rules. Maybe if there were a few more of us, but I can't see that ever happening while there are so many of us crying out for "separate but equal" facilities, that in reality, do nothing but ensure that this perception of danger gains momentum and scares more people away from riding. Rant over.
greywolf
Now days when someone hoots at me I just wave & smile like I know them:D . This realy seems to phase them out , all good fun.;) I only ride on the bike paths if they are better allround than the road , usualy not ! Otherwise I ignore them ;)
nathank
As I've said elsewhere, none of the motives for building bike paths are safety related. They're all political. It's all about making motorists happy by supposedly getting us off the road, and that's all. Maybe they can appear a little more PC by demonstrating a "commitment to sustainable transport". I don't buy it for one second.
Chris, i agree and disagree at the same time...
here in Germany it does annoy me that cyclists are REQUIRED to ride on the signed paths, BUT for many people like children and older adults who ride much slower (say 10-15 km/h instead of my 25-35km/h) the bike paths here are pretty good. in Germany the bike paths are separated from pedestrian paths although of course people do meander on and across them so it can be dangerous. also, everyone here has a bike-bell and you ring it and the people generally move out of the way... it is deisinged and reserved for cyclists... and at road crossing drivers must yield to cyclists (both right-turners and those from the side street) and b/c of lots of German training and strict police enforcement most drivers do a good job of looking.
also, when traffic is really bad, the bike paths are great b/c you can just whizz by without having to squeeze between cars (that is often illegal in the US anyway)... in this case i feel like i am a living advertisment for cycling: to all the drivers stuck in traffic "if you were only riding a bike, you too could zip through traffic"
so i guess what i am saying is that in Germany the system here with bike-only paths (not shared with pedestrains) and the driver training and the use of bells to warn pedestrains, it works pretty well for slow-moving cyclists. the problems are with more serious cyclists who ride longer distances at higher speeds. a right-turning car looks for a 10-15km/h cyclist, but not one going 30km/h...
outside of the cities, bikes again share the road with cars and that works great too and motorists are in general drive much more appropriately than in the US...
i actually think in the city in high-traffic areas the bike paths are not bad (i personallly like the ones next to the road-way rather than sidewalk)... they just shouldn't be mandatory. if a cyclist feels safer or more comfortable on the street then it should be allowed... this is mostly politics
the fact is, many people for a variety of reasons will never feel safe sharing the street with cars. for these people the only way to get them to cycle is on bike paths... and a slow moving cyclist who only rides for short distances on bike paths is definitely better than someone driving a 1/2 mile or 2 miles to the grocery store, school or post office...
i guess the best scenario would be obviuosly more cyclists --- with optional bike paths in congested areas for slow-moving cyclists and kids and then driver's that watch for cyclists and driver education... plus some kind of campaign/incentive program to get people to ride more (munich has far less "motivation" from the government and community to cylce than a place like Portland Oregon despite having more opportunities)
D*Alex
If you are really careful, while waving at a honking motorist behind you, drift out just a bit into his lane. This really p!$$es them of!
Pete Clark
Bless your heart, Stew.
Motorists have no idea how upsetting they can be.
I once honked at a cyclist just to say, "Hi!" just to discover that I visibly scared him!
Most motorists are as ignorant of cycling ettiquette as visitors to a foreign land.
1oldRoadie
Congrats on a situation extremely well handle StewartP:beer:
You move cycling a little further along.
And as you know hindsight is so very very much better than being there....the only improvement on your handling of the event would have been inviting him and his family to a social ride.
Juha
I agree with nathank on this. Not all bike paths are created alike. I ride about 90% of my commute on shared bike paths and for me they work well. I ride at 25-30km/h on flat sections and I very seldom have even close calls with other users of the path. I suppose we have less traffic in relation to the width of the path. A bike bell is mandatory here, too, and I do not hesitate to use it.
Closer to downtown area the designated bike-only path runs along with the pavement, at same elevated level. This is actually more dangerous, as the designated path is narrower and peds have to cross it to get to the other side of the street / to their parked cage / whatever. There's also much more traffic, both cyclists and peds.
But in my experience properly planned paths that are wide enough for the traffic are a good investment. I would ride them any day rather than ride amongst the cagers.
--J
John E
A very active member of the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition recently took a Dutch visitor on a bicycle tour of "America's Finest City." Although she was intimidated by a couple of high-speed multilane merges near Mission Bay, our guest did appreciate the freedom of mobility that American cyclists enjoy. Holland is famous for its bicycle accommodations, but they sound a bit too confining (much like Germany's, I suspect). Wisely, many California cities accommodate transportation/effective/training/fast cyclists with wide shoulders or Class II bike lanes and recreational/slow/juvenile cyclists on parallel mixed-use paths.
In this societal issue, as in so many others, the general question always seems to be, "Do you want to live in a zoo or a jungle?"
Guest
Class II? Whoa! I think we've found our answer for Chicago! Can you give me some information about your paths out there?
Thanks,
Koffee
nathank
John,
actually from my 3 days personal experience riding a bike on vacation in Holland as well as reading some articles, i think Holland's system is much more restrictive than Germany's - if not in legal theory, definitely in practice.
in the cities as well as most rurual roads there is a COMPLETE separation of bicycle and motor traffic and bikes are not at all tolerated on the roads if there is an adjacent path - i.e. motorists will honk and not respect you and you will get a ticket.
i think the Holland system also varies in that the default is that -bikes yield to cars- at intersections whereas in Germany -cars must yield to bikes- (and in general they try, but as i said they usually are expecting a 10-20km/h cyclist and aren't expecting a 25-30km/h cyclist)
(someone correct me here if i got any of this wrong)
for the serious cyclist who rides at >25km/h i do think the US system probably best seen in Oregon and California is the best.
BUT, for all users combined i'm not so sure - as i said before, there are some people that will never ride along with cars - for example often families with small kids - so without the bike-only paths they won't bike...
i think the best solution is a combination of BOTH: non-mandatory bike paths where it makes sense (congestion or high traffic) and wide shoulders or lanes otherwise...
and Portland's bike-lanes-next-to-the-road are very nice...
SOME paths are really great. actually i think most bike paths are useful to at least some type of cyclist... the only real danger with bike paths is if cyclists loose the right to ride on the road, either through strict legal prohibition or by drivers not respecting cyclists if there is a path and they're not on it --- i get this frequently in Germany, often drivers stop and tell me that "for my own safety" i should be on the path. i usually don't have the time to explain that when i am on the road it is usually because the PATH IS UNSAFE!
the total number of cyclists in even bike-popular areas like Portland or San Diego do not even begin to compare to the number of cyclists in places like Munich or Amsterdam. sure, many of the reasons are cultural/historical/geographical, but the number of "non-serious" (meaning not high speed) cyclists in Europe is WAY higher.
Pete Clark
Originally posted by nathank
...in Holland...in the cities as well as most rurual roads there is a COMPLETE separation of bicycle and motor traffic and bikes are not at all tolerated on the roads if there is an adjacent path - i.e. motorists will honk and not respect you and you will get a ticket.
i think the Holland system also varies in that the default is that -bikes yield to cars...
...the only real danger with bike paths is if cyclists loose the right to ride on the road, either through strict legal prohibition or by drivers not respecting cyclists if there is a path and they're not on it --- i get this frequently in Germany, often drivers stop and tell me that "for my own safety" i should be on the path...
This is the strongest argument against paths I've seen.
Mind you, I have deep sympathy for cyclists who enjoy paths.
But when you separate bikes from cars, you lose your right to the road and drivers are worse than ever about sharing it. Is this what we want?
A similar thing was tried with welfare. Instead of training people for careers, they were given a check -- a separate system from the rest of us. Now that we realize it didn't work, we are trying to get welfare families back into the workforce.
"Separate but equal" has never worked. Instead of an "equal" toilet, non-whites sometimes had to go around behind the store, outside.
Cyclists will find that separate paths will not work either, except for helping drivers to be free of us.
I don't know about you, but I want the best there is, not left-overs. Our streets are the best we have, designed to take every citizen anywhere they want to go. Cyclists have the right to use them as much as any driver.
Chris L
Originally posted by Pete Clark
"Separate but equal" has never worked. Instead of an "equal" toilet, non-whites sometimes had to go around behind the store, outside.
Cyclists will find that separate paths will not work either, except for helping drivers to be free of us.
In the real world, "separate but equal" simply means "separate". "separate but equal" is also an impossibility in most urban areas anyway, given that most of the space available is already taken up by the existing transport system. There simply isn't enough room for a second one. I can't see anyone in Surfers Paradise ripping up roads and high-rise hotels to put in a bike path that actually goes somewhere, can you?
The idea of being totally separate from cars is a pipedream. It simply isn't going to happen. There's always going to be some cross-over point, and if motorists are not expecting to see cyclists or trained for the fact that cyclists might actually be there, problems will occur.
Hence if we start banning cyclists from certain roads and building bike paths in their place (as some advocate) it will become impossible to use bicycles for transport. As Pete said above - Is this what we want?
Justen
Originally posted by D*Alex
If you are really careful, while waving at a honking motorist behind you, drift out just a bit into his lane. This really p!$$es them of!
Hmmm...as much as honking motorists tick me of, I am not sure if I want to pi$$ them off - after all, they're in a car and I am on a bike. I stand to get hurt much worse.
Having said that though, it is very tempting to wave at them when they honk. People will honk at just about anything here....somebody takes an extra second to go on the green and you get a big honk fest...