Which do you prefer: 4 lanes + BLs or 6 lanes?

[Helmet Head]

Which do you prefer? A 4 lane highway with bike lanes, or a 6 lane highway with narrow outside lanes?

If it depends, go by this specific example:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=265635

[SingingSabre]

Of course, everyone who answers "I prefer 4 lanes + bike lanes" is wrong. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

Of course, everyone who answers "I prefer 4 lanes + bike lanes" is wrong. :rolleyes:
No one can be wrong about a preference, SingingSabre. :rolleyes:

[Eatadonut]

I prefer 4 lane highways with super wide lanes, super wide shoulders, and plenty of grass on both sides. If there's a 20' grass median in the middle, even better.

Plenty of those in Oklahoma :) I'll take my lane when I feel safe, and when I start to feel the bad juju, I retreat to my massive shoulder.

[Brian Ratliff]

Here's the rub. Am I a cyclist or a driver? I prefer different things in each respective vehicle.

I've seen plenty of evidence that enlarging roads doesn't have the effect of decreasing car density like one would think, but rather, it simply attracts more cars. Opening the road up might make side streets more pleasant, or it might not, depending on how many people currently limit their car trips because of the traffic, but the level of congestion will likely stay constant after a year or two period of fluctuation.

I don't see anything but bad in making a current 4 lane + bike lane into a 6 laned NOL road.

[noisebeam]

I don't see anything but bad in making a current 4 lane + bike lane into a 6 laned NOL road.
What if that outer lane had sharrows or a bicycle icon or some such regular reminder that cyclist are to use its full width?

What if that road had an intersection every 200' or so, a major one every 1/4mi?

What if there was a 3mi stretch with no intersection, but a sign at the begining of the stretch said 'pass cyclist using adjacent lane' or some such language?

What if cyclists regularly used this road and it was commonplace to encounter them using the full lane?

Al

[I-Like-To-Bike]

What if...?

What if ...?

What if...?

What if cyclists regularly used this road and it was commonplace to encounter them using the full lane?

It might look like this even on two lane roads. I think I would like that; how 'bout you?

[sbhikes]

I think 6 lane roads are evil no matter what you drive. It's a sign of some sort of failure.

[Helmet Head]

It might look like this even on two lane roads. I think I would like that; how 'bout you?
How would a cyclist get anywhere with all those bicyclists in the way?

[chipcom]

How would a cyclist get anywhere with all those bicyclists in the way?

Same way all those bicyclists do I would assume. :rolleyes:

[donnamb]

It might look like this even on two lane roads. I think I would like that; how 'bout you?
Oh, I just might, ILTB. :)

[rajman]

I had a 'funny' post about condeming the communist highway builders at the expense of the free market. Seriously though - if there are six lanes worth of traffic there is money to be made in a train... Stop the communists from ramming roads down our throats!

[rajman]

oops - the 'funny' post made it through, oh well...

[Bekologist]

i guess to helmet head, cyclist and driver are interchangable, he certainly confuses his RV for a bike on occasion.

really helmet, do you really think riders will prefer highway speed roads with nothing but narrow lanes? You really are pretty out of touch with real time riding. chest beating from the armchair, sure. You're out of touch with reality, buddy.

[Helmet Head]

i guess to helmet head, cyclist and driver are interchangable, he certainly confuses his RV for a bike on occasion.

really helmet, do you really think riders will prefer highway speed roads with nothing but narrow lanes?
Sure, but the enlightened ones still comprise only a small percentage. But the numbers are growing...

[Bekologist]

hahaha. in your imagination, i guess. not compared to total ridership. your little 'dream' is a fade in the wash.

[sbhikes]

If where I ride they took a 4 lane + BL road and turned it into a 6 lane no BL road first of all, there would be such an outcry from the bicycle advocates and the sustainable transportation people that this would never happen. But if it did, I certainly would NOT ride a bike there. I'd find a secret shortcut, and if none existed I would give it up. In fact, I would move away.

No thank you. Call me what you wish. But I'd rather fire up my still, play my fiddle on the porch and eat another bowl of possum stew.

[CommuterRun]

A benefit of not having the bike lane on roads with multiple same direction lanes, particularly if narrow lanes, is it gives the cyclist the entire width of the right most lane to ride in, giving motor vehicles the other same direction lane(s) to pass. A wider lane gives the cyclist more options as to road position. A bike lane as wide as a motor vehicle lane is extremely rare.

Multiple, narrow, same direction lanes are the best facility for cyclist safety. Bike lanes tend to gather debris and lead to closer, and higher speed, passing. As if the painted line is some kind of unbreachable wall.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

How would a cyclist get anywhere with all those bicyclists in the way?
You mean a Real ÜberCyclist like the kind who would post such a question about bicyclists "in the way"? I don't worry about the "needs" of such characters for exclusivity.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Sure, but the enlightened ones still comprise only a small percentage. But the numbers are growing...
The shame and pity is that this self described "enlightened" poster is actually serious that his views on bicycling advocacy/bicycling safety are "enlightened".

[genec]

It might look like this even on two lane roads. I think I would like that; how 'bout you?

Are these dedicated bike roads or just regular streets empty of cars?

The width and appearance are similar to what I might call "bike hiways," and it is similar to a short stretch of such a "bike hiway" here in San Diego.

Although frankly riding along in that country scene just looks quite peaceful.

What is the story there ILTB?

[sbhikes]

A benefit of not having the bike lane on roads with multiple same direction lanes, particularly if narrow lanes, is it gives the cyclist the entire width of the right most lane to ride in...
Until some jack donkey decides to teach him a lesson and drive him into the curb, or until some little old lady driving her original 1965 Cadillac with her poof of white hair barely visible over the steering wheel plows into him, or until the town votes to ban the cyclists from this road because they are impeding traffic, or until...

I much prefer a city that plans alternative transportation into the system than one that leaves it to fend for itself.

[SingingSabre]

Sure, but the enlightened ones still comprise only a small percentage. But the numbers are growing...

I didn't exactly choose to be Jewish, it was just how I was raised. It made a lot more sense to me than the other religions did, but as long as we all got along, it didn't matter what religion we were. When I was a kid, many, many times people would harrass me on the bus because I was Jewish. They said that I had killed Jesus, that I was going to Hell, that G-d didn't like me, I had killed his only son, etc. Basically, they harassed me because I was of a different mindset than they were.

What can I say? It worked for me. I didn't hurt anyone, I didn't want to. I existed and didn't have any problems.

Perhaps you can see my analogy coming already, perhaps not. Either way, here it goes.

Don't put "ineffective cyclists" down simply because we like our facilities, because we don't want to ride outside the lane when we have a perfectly good lane to ride in, because we don't think like you. Don't be like the immature kids on my bus acting like they were bigger than me while hiding behind their parent's beliefs. It doesn't make you a bigger, more intelligent man who's ahead of the curve and thinks better than other people; it just irritates the snot out of many, many people on this board.

This forum does not need a jihad between VC and non VC. We all ride, that should be enough. Occasional debate is good, but turning a large number of threads into "debates" when it's really just VC proselytizing in remarkably inappropiate. Just like proselytizing on the school bus, it's out of place, out of line, and wholly ineffective.

[chipcom]

I'll take 4 lanes with a WOL or bike lane over 6 lanes and a NOL any day, because the 6 lane monstrosity will inevitably become NO BIKES ALLOWED.

[joejack951]

until the town votes to ban the cyclists from this road because they are impeding traffic, or until...

FYI, it's legally impossible to impede traffic on a roadway with more than one same direction lane.

[Speedo]

This forum does not need a jihad between VC and non VC. We all ride, that should be enough. Occasional debate is good, but turning a large number of threads into "debates" when it's really just VC proselytizing in remarkably inappropiate. Just like proselytizing on the school bus, it's out of place, out of line, and wholly ineffective.

+1

Nice post SingingSabre.

[noisebeam]

I ride home every day on a 7 lane road that becomes a 5 lane road +BL - in both cases intersection every 200-400yrds. Traffic volume is 32k/day. The three lane each direction stretch is far more enjoyable to ride on, I can just stay in the middle of the outside lane, very rarely is there a need to move over. When the BL starts it becomes a dodging game - ride in outside lane, hop in BL to let cars pass, etc, hop back to outside lane, etc.

Al

[genec]

FYI, it's legally impossible to impede traffic on a roadway with more than one same direction lane.

Legally that is true, however practically, some motorists just refuse to change lanes for some strange reason, and have even accused me of "blocking traffic" while I was in the far right lane and 2 other lanes were wide open and empty. Their mentality was the issue, not the road or the laws.

This is quite consistent with the thinking in another thread where motorists are complaining about 3 foot laws and that they would be "forced" into crossing the double yellow "into oncoming traffic."

Seems to me that the choice is the motorists, and no one is forcing them to do anything.

[Bekologist]

why keep hopping back and forth, al? the way you ride a bike laned road is not the way many bike lanes predicate for safety, visibility or rider's margins of safety. I know you've got video at the ready to prove some point or other, but riding like you do, hopping in and out of a bike lane otherwise safe to ride in, is unnecessary.

I ride on BL roads like you describe quite regularily, and the sequence of riding for greatest rider efficency is:

ride in bike lane. Approaching intersections, scan behind and ahead for hookers, adjust lane position if necessary, otherwise, continue riding in your own traffic lane- the bike lane.

[Helmet Head]

Sure, but the enlightened ones still comprise only a small percentage. But the numbers are growing...

I didn't exactly choose to be Jewish, it was just how I was raised. It made a lot more sense to me than the other religions did, but as long as we all got along, it didn't matter what religion we were. When I was a kid, many, many times people would harrass me on the bus because I was Jewish. They said that I had killed Jesus, that I was going to Hell, that G-d didn't like me, I had killed his only son, etc. Basically, they harassed me because I was of a different mindset than they were.

What can I say? It worked for me. I didn't hurt anyone, I didn't want to. I existed and didn't have any problems.

Perhaps you can see my analogy coming already, perhaps not. Either way, here it goes.

Don't put "ineffective cyclists" down simply because we like our facilities, because we don't want to ride outside the lane when we have a perfectly good lane to ride in, because we don't think like you. Don't be like the immature kids on my bus acting like they were bigger than me while hiding behind their parent's beliefs. It doesn't make you a bigger, more intelligent man who's ahead of the curve and thinks better than other people; it just irritates the snot out of many, many people on this board.

This forum does not need a jihad between VC and non VC. We all ride, that should be enough. Occasional debate is good, but turning a large number of threads into "debates" when it's really just VC proselytizing in remarkably inappropiate. Just like proselytizing on the school bus, it's out of place, out of line, and wholly ineffective.
If you or anyone else chooses to think or feel that I or anyone else is "putting them down", much less care about it, that's on them. Seems to me that was the lesson you learned on the bus.

Instead of telling the jerks to not put anyone down, perhaps you should be telling those who feel put down to not take the jerks' words to heart. Remind them about "stick and stones...". Help them see that the jerks' words are mean and vindictive, and based on irrational beliefs. Unless in this case you can't do that because it's not true, and you simply disagree with what "the jerks" are saying, based on your own irrational beliefs. In that case I guess all you can do is fling insults and draw wildly absurd analogies in the hopes that you can shame the "jerks" into no longer sharing the arguments with which you happen to disagree for reasons that you are not able to identify, much less explain. The fact that innocuous words irritate the snot out of you speaks volumes.

[noisebeam]

why keep hopping back and forth, al? the way you ride a bike laned road is not the way many bike lanes predicate for safety, visibility or rider's margins of safety. I know you've got video at the ready to prove some point or other, but riding like you do, hopping in and out of a bike lane otherwise safe to ride in, is unnecessary.

I ride on BL roads like you describe quite regularily, and the sequence of riding for greatest rider efficency is:

ride in bike lane. Approaching intersections, scan behind and ahead for hookers, adjust lane position if necessary, otherwise, continue riding in your own traffic lane- the bike lane.
You said it, its the intersections. I suspect that the roads you ride on with bike lanes have much fewer intersections. Staying in the bike lane, even monitoring rear and watching for turners is not a catch all. Much better to stay in the outside lane and move over to let faster cars pass if there is not a turn coming up or debris in the BL.

Also why should I ride 2-3' from curb in BL in possible debris, out of sight and mind, when I have a better road and better visibility (for me too) and more room for evasive action?

Al

[joejack951]

Legally that is true, however practically, some motorists just refuse to change lanes for some strange reason, and have even accused me of "blocking traffic" while I was in the far right lane and 2 other lanes were wide open and empty. Their mentality was the issue, not the road or the laws.

This is quite consistent with the thinking in another thread where motorists are complaining about 3 foot laws and that they would be "forced" into crossing the double yellow "into oncoming traffic."

Seems to me that the choice is the motorists, and no one is forcing them to do anything.

Yeah, it happens. I've had it happen while driving too (getting tailgated in the right hand lane when there is one is more lanes open to the right. One of my most embarassing moments was when my mom picked up a friend and me in Philly while I was going to school and she honked at someone in the middle lane of I495 because they weren't going fast enough (and yes, both the right and left lanes were open). People, including some members of my family, are idiots on the road (sorry, Mom). They are harmless idiots that just happen to have loud horns at their disposal.

[Bekologist]

i disagree drivers are all harmless idiots, joejack. preffering a dedicated travel lane along a highway speed road for bikes makes riding a different animal than playing angry motorist frogger, brother. You're another neophyte traffic rider, just like helmet head, aren't you?

[chipcom]

FYI, it's legally impossible to impede traffic on a roadway with more than one same direction lane.

Gotta disagree JJ, from a law enforcement perspective. OK six lanes, all congested with bumper-to-bumper, but moving traffic and you decide you want to plant yourself in front of a car in one of the lanes, preventing it from moving forward (unless it jumps the curb, runs you over or smashes into the guy next to him to change lanes) - you are impeding traffic. The number of lanes has no relevance unless those lanes are available to be safely merged into.

[SingingSabre]

If you or anyone else chooses to think or feel that I or anyone else is "putting them down", much less care about it, that's on them. Seems to me that was the lesson you learned on the bus.

Instead of telling the jerks to not put anyone down, perhaps you should be telling those who feel put down to not take the jerks' words to heart. Remind them about "stick and stones...". Help them see that the jerks' words are mean and vindictive, and based on irrational beliefs. Unless in this case you can't do that because it's not true, and you simply disagree with what "the jerks" are saying, based on your own irrational beliefs. In that case I guess all you can do is fling insults and draw wildly absurd analogies in the hopes that you can shame the "jerks" into no longer sharing the arguments with which you happen to disagree for reasons that you are not able to identify, much less explain. The fact that inoccuous words irritate the snot out of you speaks volumes.

The problem is that the jerks who put others down detract from the whole experience of learning, which is what school (even down to the busses) and the forums are all about.

You have said that people who don't ride or think like you are not "enlightened," are "stupid" and in deinal of facts, are going to die from getting hit by a car.

I'm not putting you down because of how you ride. I'm putting you down because of how you treat posters and how you hijack threads. Unfortunatly, this thread is in the process of being hijacked, and in no small part to me.

Sorry, OP.

[joejack951]

Gotta disagree JJ, from a law enforcement perspective. OK six lanes, all congested with bumper-to-bumper, but moving traffic and you decide you want to plant yourself in front of a car in one of the lanes, preventing it from moving forward (unless it jumps the curb, runs you over or smashes into the guy next to him to change lanes) - you are impeding traffic. The number of lanes has no relevance unless those lanes are available to be safely merged into.

The impeding traffic laws that I have read only apply on a one way each direction roadway. I can go dig them up if you'd like. For multilane roads, slow moving vehicles are to use the right most lane. Watch some of Al's videos (similar to my experiences on multilane NOL roadways). People might have to slow but they eventually merge into the left lane and go around. And on roads with traffic lights, there are always gaps in traffic eventually. The minute they might wait behind you is meaningless when you add up all the delays caused by other traffic (other slow moving vehicles, red lights, red light runners, pedestrians in crosswalks, etc.).

I may be misinterpretting your post though. Are you saying you disagree with me about the actual law or how some law enforcement officers might see things (regardless of what the law says)?

[joejack951]

i disagree drivers are all harmless idiots, joejack. preffering a dedicated travel lane along a highway speed road for bikes makes riding a different animal than playing angry motorist frogger, brother. You're another neophyte traffic rider, just like helmet head, aren't you?

If it makes you feel better to think that I don't ride much in traffic then go ahead. I won't argue that it's a different animal to ride on a road with an extra NOL instead of a bike lane. I will argue that it's better for cycling overall based on my experience.

[Bekologist]

i doubt you've ridden for many years joejack. nothing personal, but it seems the neophytes like helmet head have a radically skewed, inexperienced view of traffic dynamics.

[genec]

What if that outer lane had sharrows or a bicycle icon or some such regular reminder that cyclist are to use its full width?

What if that road had an intersection every 200' or so, a major one every 1/4mi?

What if there was a 3mi stretch with no intersection, but a sign at the begining of the stretch said 'pass cyclist using adjacent lane' or some such language?

What if cyclists regularly used this road and it was commonplace to encounter them using the full lane?

Al

I like this proposal. Good show. Add to it that a posted road speed of no more than 40MPH, and this sounds quite good to me.

[rando]

I like this proposal. Good show. Add to it that the road speed was no more than 40MPH and this sounds quite good to me.


I still wouldn't ride it at 40 mph. Here that means 40-60 mph... I go out of my way (not by much) to avoid roads like these.

[Helmet Head]

You have said that people who don't ride or think like you are not "enlightened," are "stupid" and in deinal of facts, are going to die from getting hit by a car.
I've never said that pepole who don't ride or think like me are not "enlightened". I have implied that those of us who are comfortable managing traffic are "enlightened".

I've never said anyone is stupid.

I've said that some people are in denial about certain things.

And I've said that certain cyclist behaviors are more likely to lead to death and injury than others, and promote those attitudes, practices, techniques and skills that I believe are less likely to lead to death and injury.

I'm not putting you down because of how you ride. I'm putting you down because of how you treat posters and how you hijack threads.
You can't put me down, because I won't let you. You can't irritate me, because I won't let you.

As to how I treat posters, and how they treat me, that's between me and them. If you feel I have mistreated you, please let me know, or report my offending post to the moderators.

If you feel I am hijacking threads in a manner that violates the guidelines of this forum, please bring that to my attention as well. If we disagree, we can let the moderators settle it. Otherwise, your accusations of highjacking amount to nothing but disruption in violation of the guidelines themselves.

Unfortunatly, this thread is in the process of being hijacked, and in no small part to me.
These things need to be said. Nothing unfortunate in that.

Now back to the topic, okay?

[joejack951]

i doubt you've ridden for many years joejack. nothing personal, but it seems the neophytes like helmet head have a radically skewed, inexperienced view of traffic dynamics.

I can guarantee that you have biked around with that huge chip on your shoulder for more years than me.

I'm curious though, what does your experience tell you about how I'm treated on the road?

[LittleBigMan]

Which do you prefer? A 4 lane highway with bike lanes, or a 6 lane highway with narrow outside lanes?

If it depends, go by this specific example:
Since I've never ridden there, I won't presume to know the answer better than those who already ride there regularly who prefer 4 lanes with bike lanes. And since I'll never ride there, I'll leave it up to those who do.

[SingingSabre]

I've never said that pepole who don't ride or think like me are not "enlightened". I have implied that those of us who are comfortable managing traffic are "enlightened".
Then how about this little gem earlier in the thread about those who would prefer 4 lanes with bike lanes as opposed to 6 lanes without bike lanes?

Sure, but the enlightened ones still comprise only a small percentage. But the numbers are growing...

Let's remember the context. A guy (Bekologist) said that, and I paraphrase, most cyclists would prefer to avoid sharing narrow lanes with highway speed traffic. You, with the quote immediately above this paragraph, said that he is not "enlightened."

I've never said anyone is stupid.

Wrong. You have said multiple times that people who disagreed with your views are stupid.

I've said that some people are in denial about certain things.
You have certainly said that, too.

And I've said that certain cyclist behaviors are more likely to lead to death and injury than others, and promote those attitudes, practices, techniques and skills that I believe are less likely to lead to death and injury.
You have hijacked entire cyclist death threads with VC proselytizing, blaming cyclists for their own deaths with wild speculation which is harmful to their families. I'm only too releived that their families haven't read one of the threads you have hijacked, yet.


You can't put me down, because I won't let you. You can't irritate me, because I won't let you.
I don't want to put you down, though. I'd rather be your friend. But I cannot be friends with someone who insists that I am going to die in traffic because of how I ride. I cannot be friends with someone who regularly hijacks threads in most offensive ways.

No, I don't want to put you down. I want to convince you to shut up.

As to how I treat posters, and how they treat me, that's between me and them. If you feel I have mistreated you, please let me know, or report my offending post to the moderators.
Let's go beyond how you treat posters. Look at how you treat the forum. You treat it like your little soapbox. What if I started saying that all these cyclists were dying because they didn't clean their navels of lint before riding, or that they were dying because they didn't accept Jesus/Allah/Buddha/FSM/hangnail-on-their-left-index-finger as their personal savior? It'd be wholly inappropiate.

If you feel I am hijacking threads in a manner that violates the guidelines of this forum, please bring that to my attention as well. If we disagree, we can let the moderators settle it. Otherwise, your accusations of highjacking amount to nothing but disruption in violation of the guidelines themselves.
Personally, I'm surprised the moderators haven't jumped on your posts like the paparazzi on Britney Spears yet. Disappointed, too.


These thing need to be said. Nothing unfortunate in that.
It's unfortunate that they need to be said. I don't want to have to type a tirade again, but I will if I need to. I have a life to live and don't care to spend it typing on forums.

Now back to the topic, okay?
If only you could realize this intention in other threads...

[Helmet Head]

You have said that people who don't ride or think like you are not "enlightened," ...

I've never said that pepole who don't ride or think like me are not "enlightened". I have implied that those of us who are comfortable managing traffic are "enlightened".


Then how about this little gem earlier in the thread about those who would prefer 4 lanes with bike lanes as opposed to 6 lanes without bike lanes?


Sure, but the enlightened ones still comprise only a small percentage. But the numbers are growing...


Let's remember the context. A guy (Bekologist) said that, and I paraphrase, most cyclists would prefer to avoid sharing narrow lanes with highway speed traffic. You, with the quote immediately above this paragraph, said that he is not "enlightened."

Again, I did imply that those who are comfortable riding in traffic are "enlightened" as compared to those who would prefer to avoid sharing narrow lane with highway speed. I don't deny that. Note that there is no mention of me, or how I happen to think, or how I happen to ride, in any of that.

I deny saying that those who don't ride or think like me are not "enlightened". How I think and ride is irrelevant to the enlightenment of anyone else; whether anyone is enlightened or not has nothing to do with how I ride or how I think. It is you who makes that personal connection, not me. That's my point.

What I object to in your assertion is that you make it sound like I'm saying people have to think and ride like me in order to be "enlightened". I've not only never said that, I never felt or thought that.

If you had originally said something like:


You have said that people who prefer avoiding sharing narrow lanes are not "enlightened," ...


I would not have objected.

EDIT
To review, because this is really important...

What Bek originally wrote, was:

do you really think riders will prefer highway speed roads with nothing but narrow lanes?

I responded to this. I wrote:

Sure, but the enlightened ones still comprise only a small percentage. But the numbers are growing...
Of course, I'm equating the "enlightened ones" with "riders [who] will prefer highway speed roads with nothing but narrow lanes".

But there is nothing about me, or how I think, or how I ride, in anything that I said.

But for some reason you twist what I said into this:


You have said that people who don't ride or think like you are not "enlightened," ...

You made it personal. If I were an egomaniac, then I might say things like you claim I do, things like, "riders who think and ride like me are enlightened". But I don't say that. I don't think that. I don't feel it. It's not me. Please do not twist my words into mischaracterizing me like that. Thank you.

If you're going to criticize what I say, fine. If you want to advise me on how I should say things, great. I welcome it. But please do so based on how I actually say things. Please try to not read into my words, because you seem to see stuff there that just isn't.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Are these dedicated bike roads or just regular streets empty of cars?

The width and appearance are similar to what I might call "bike hiways," and it is similar to a short stretch of such a "bike hiway" here in San Diego.

Although frankly riding along in that country scene just looks quite peaceful.

What is the story there ILTB?
Those are regular roads with the traffic banned for an Auto Frei Tag (Day) In Germany. There are lots of off road paths from village to village but this thread is about roads and what are our preferences; hence the pictures of my preferences. To another poster such scenarios look like cyclists "in the way."

[CommuterRun]

Until some jack donkey decides to teach him a lesson and drive him into the curb, or until some little old lady driving her original 1965 Cadillac with her poof of white hair barely visible over the steering wheel plows into him,........
This can, and does, happen in bike lanes.

........or until the town votes to ban the cyclists from this road because they are impeding traffic, or until...
Localities can't legally do this here under state law.
A cyclist, being a vehicle, but not a motor vehicle, and not a pedestrian, can't be charged with obstruction of traffic. It doesn't apply.

[joejack951]

Localities can't legally do this here under state law.
A cyclist, being a vehicle, but not a motor vehicle, and not a pedestrian, can't be charged with obstruction of traffic. It doesn't apply.

I believe that the law you are referring to was intended to keep from people from purposefully driving way below the speed limit with the sole intention of obstructing traffic. A bike, which is a slow moving vehicle, can impede traffic on a single lane each way road and is required to pull over when safe to do so to allow backed up traffic to pass. On a roadway with more than one lane in each direction, slow moving vehicles are required to use the right lane. That's all.

[CommuterRun]

Could be, I've never had to go to court over it, but here's the way it reads:

Title XXIII MOTOR VEHICLES
Chapter 316 STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
316.183 Unlawful speed.--

(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event, speed shall be controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle, or other conveyance or object on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.

(2) On all streets or highways, the maximum speed limits for all vehicles must be 30 miles per hour in business or residence districts, and 55 miles per hour at any time at all other locations. However, with respect to a residence district, a county or municipality may set a maximum speed limit of 20 or 25 miles per hour on local streets and highways after an investigation determines that such a limit is reasonable. It is not necessary to conduct a separate investigation for each residence district. The minimum speed limit on all highways that comprise a part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and have not fewer than four lanes is 40 miles per hour, except that when the posted speed limit is 70 miles per hour, the minimum speed limit is 50 miles per hour.

(3) No school bus shall exceed the posted speed limits, not to exceed 55 miles per hour at any time.

(4) The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of subsection (1), drive at an appropriately reduced speed when:

(a) Approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing;

(b) Approaching and going around a curve;

(c) Approaching a hill crest;

(d) Traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway; and

(e) Any special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.

(5) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

(6) No driver of a vehicle shall exceed the posted maximum speed limit in a work zone area.

(7) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.

There is another obstructing traffic law, but it only applies to pedestrians. Particularly when soliciting.

I've never found anything about a requirement to pull over. I've even been in situations with a long string of motor vehicles coming from behind on a two-lane, rural, 55 mph, highway, at one point passed a Florida Highway Patrol officer and at another a Sheriff's Deputy and not been told I had a legal requirement to pull over. It doesn't exist.

If you can find a law that applies here, please quote it for me. Thanks.

[chipcom]

I may be misinterpretting your post though. Are you saying you disagree with me about the actual law or how some law enforcement officers might see things (regardless of what the law says)?

I'm telling you based on my understanding of Ohio and New Mexico law and my experience enforcing both. Your state may be different. ;)