General Cycling Discussion - And now I've seen everything? :-)

I had just started out on an easy late afternoon ride; I was still on our quiet neighborhood streets. I saw ahead of me a young girl, about 10 years old, on one of those cruiser bikes - lime green, pink rims, high handlebars, complete with wicker basket and bell. She was swerving erratically across nearly the entire street. As I approached, I decided which side to pass her on (the right, because at this point, she was right on the centerline) and noticed that she had only one hand on the handlebar. As I passed, I realized SHE WAS TALKING ON THE PHONE! :eek:

I don't know, but perhaps it's her mom who I contend with occasionally in the Starbucks parking lot, as she backs her supersized SUV out of the compact parking space, latte in one hand, cell phone in the other. They teach them young these days :)

Welcome to 2002.

Welcome to 2002.
x2

Are you a good enough rider to just buzz her and grab the phone and ride off. No license plate, Or, are you easy to ID?
:)

Steven

This is the kind of situation where my Girl-Guide-leader reflexes kick in and I have that kid stopped before I think about it...

So sad..... :(

Oh I have seen adults ride with one hand holding a cellphone and NOT wearing a helmet. These are riders who probably ride for a mile and tell his friends and coworkers he went out for 15 mile ride. I avoid them as much as I can, they are dangerous to serious bicycling community.

I saw a chick on a cruiser one time almost get mowed down running a stop sign while talking on the phone. As we rode past we overheard her telling the person on the other end about these "jackasses that don't stop"; nevermind the warning signs all over that said "cross traffic does not stop".

Oh I have seen adults ride with one hand holding a cellphone and NOT wearing a helmet. These are riders who probably ride for a mile and tell his friends and coworkers he went out for 15 mile ride. I avoid them as much as I can, they are dangerous to serious bicycling community.

I hate to admit it, but I've done that (and I commute daily 12mi rt :P )

I hate to admit it, but I've done that I've done that too and I like to admit it. :p And I ride a lot. I'm even a certified cycling instructor. :p :p :p

wrafl probably hates bike messengers... A lot of them ride w/o a helmet and talk into their radio while riding no-handed. Just don't tell me they ride one mile a day... :rolleyes:

Riding with a cell phone is no worse than riding with music/radio in the ears, IMO. Or riding with a handbag hanging from the handlebar.

When you ride, RIDE, don't do anything else. Simple as that. If you do, expect angry looks from other people, as you almost universally will be unable to be a good and safe rider at the same time.

I'm even a certified cycling instructor.

Huh? Does Canada have a bike license system? I can't imagine any other reason for there to be a cycling instructor certification. I can't even imagine what a cycling instructor would do, since parents teach their kids to ride, not professional instructors...

Huh? Does Canada have a bike license system? I can't imagine any other reason for there to be a cycling instructor certification. I can't even imagine what a cycling instructor would do, since parents teach their kids to ride, not professional instructors...

Most parents teach their kids how to pedal and balance a bike. They do not teach them how to safely interact with other traffic and follow the rules of the road. Based on the way I see people riding, it's not only kids that need proper training, but many adults also.

Driving education is supposed to do the same, but mostly fails to do so. Or rather, people don't give a ***** once they get their license. Same thing with bikes. Most people who ride are drivers as well, so they should (and usually do) know the rules...

Oh I have seen adults ride with one hand holding a cellphone and NOT wearing a helmet. These are riders who probably ride for a mile and tell his friends and coworkers he went out for 15 mile ride. I avoid them as much as I can, they are dangerous to serious bicycling community.

I never exaggerate my distance. But then again, I can hold a straight line while text messaging.

Huh? Does Canada have a bike license system? You're not required to have a license, but you can take nationally-approved CAN-BIKE courses if you want to. Like LAB courses in the U.S. Actually, if you're an employer and your employees are required to ride bikes as part of their job, then you're required to hire an instructor for them and get them certified. Some places require this certification of bike messengers too.


I can't even imagine what a cycling instructor would do, since parents teach their kids to ride, not professional instructors... :roflmao: Yep, all those cyclists you see every day weaving, riding the wrong way, hugging the curb, turning without looking are great skilled cyclists who know everything they need to know. Nobody could possibly teach them anything useful. :roflmao:

I saw a chick on a cruiser one time almost get mowed down running a stop sign while talking on the phone. As we rode past we overheard her telling the person on the other end about these "jackasses that don't stop"; nevermind the warning signs all over that said "cross traffic does not stop".:lol:

I nearly got run down myself last night by a driver who was too busy talking on her phone to notice that I was in the crossswalk. No, she couldn't be bothered to look to her right before she made a right turn.

JABs and JAMs, just variations on a theme.

Driving education is supposed to do the same, but mostly fails to do so. At least people know which side on the road to drive on... for starters... :rolleyes:


Or rather, people don't give a ***** once they get their license. Same thing with bikes. Bikers might be inclined to give more of a ***** because they have more to lose in the collision.


Most people who ride are drivers as well, so they should (and usually do) know the rules...
1) Many people who ride are NOT drivers. This assumption that everyone drives a car is just an unfortunate byproduct of the pervasive car culture. But it is a false assumption - even in North America.

2) There are lots of cycling-specific tips and tricks to learn. You don't just want to cycle legally - you want to cycle SAFELY as well. Knowing the rules of the road isn't going to help you choose lane position when you're biking...

You're not required to have a license, but you can take nationally-approved CAN-BIKE courses if you want to. Like LAB courses in the U.S. Actually, if you're an employer and your employees are required to ride bikes as part of their job, then you're required to hire an instructor for them and get them certified. Some places require this certification of bike messengers too.

That's insane!


Yep, all those cyclists you see every day weaving, riding the wrong way, hugging the curb, turning without looking are great skilled cyclists who know everything they need to know. Nobody could possibly teach them anything useful.

Oh, it's not that they don't know better. They simply don't care, because they think they're immortal. There's nothing you can teach them, since they don't care.



Bikers might be inclined to give more of a ***** because they have more to lose in the collision.

Yet, they don't. I see this every day.



1) Many people who ride are NOT drivers. This assumption that everyone drives a car is just an unfortunate byproduct of the pervasive car culture. But it is a false assumption - even in North America.

Maybe not in NA, but over here, an overwhelming majority of all cyclists are drivers as well. Most people who ride are 20-60, commuting to work or riding to the local store. Very few over 25 don't have a driver's license.



2) There are lots of cycling-specific tips and tricks to learn. You don't just want to cycle legally - you want to cycle SAFELY as well. Knowing the rules of the road isn't going to help you choose lane position when you're biking...

I find this hard to believe. Besides, one person's opinion on the matter might be quite different from another's. Who's to say your version is the best?

That's insane!



Oh, it's not that they don't know better. They simply don't care, because they think they're immortal. There's nothing you can teach them, since they don't care.



Yet, they don't. I see this every day.



Maybe not in NA, but over here, an overwhelming majority of all cyclists are drivers as well. Most people who ride are 20-60, commuting to work or riding to the local store. Very few over 25 don't have a driver's license.



I find this hard to believe. Besides, one person's opinion on the matter might be quite different from another's. Who's to say your version is the best?

While there's more than one way to do anything, there's often one way that is more effective than the alternatives. I recently read an excellent book on this very subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Urban-Cycling-Lessons-Street/dp/0762727837
Available also through your local public library. Highly recommended. Also recommended is an earpiece for the cellphone, either wired or Bluetooth.

To even recommend (and not straight out warn against) any form of hearing obstruction such as an earpiece (with or without sound on), is reckless and irresponsible. If anything is unsafe cycling, it's riding with anything in your ears!!! Few things cyclists do upset me more than wearing those *%£# iPods or mobile phone earpieces!!! :mad:

Oh I have seen adults ride with one hand holding a cellphone and NOT wearing a helmet. These are riders who probably ride for a mile and tell his friends and coworkers he went out for 15 mile ride. I avoid them as much as I can, they are dangerous to serious bicycling community.

Guilty as charged (except the 1 miles thing). I've got about 70 miles in so far this week. I have no problem talking on the phone without swerving... I do avoid it around intersections... just not enough head movement. I also don't carry on conversations... but I'll check in with people, let people know where I am.

:lol:



JABs and JAMs, just variations on a theme.

The difference is that a JAM is likely to take out someone else... a JAB is only likely to take out themselves.

The difference is that a JAM is likely to take out someone else... a JAB is only likely to take out themselves.That's only true in a car/bike collision. And the likelihood goes down the more people get out of their cars and onto their bikes.

wrafl probably hates bike messengers... A lot of them ride w/o a helmet and talk into their radio while riding no-handed. Just don't tell me they ride one mile a day... :rolleyes:


No, I don't hate bike messengers. I am actually impress with these guys for their swift and agile riding manuevers around downtown in heavy traffic. Some cops patrol on bicycles and talking on their radio, but most of them wear helmets. I say some occasional riders exaggerate their ride like few guys I know who doesn't own bike computers but regard the distance in miles by the estimated total time in the saddle. Just as sports fisherman coming home and relating to others that he hooked with a big one but it got away.

Guilty as charged (except the 1 miles thing). I've got about 70 miles in so far this week. I have no problem talking on the phone without swerving... I do avoid it around intersections... just not enough head movement. I also don't carry on conversations... but I'll check in with people, let people know where I am.

I got 22 miles so far this morning, first ride of the week. I need to schedule a ride everyday now to meet my 150 mile per week. So many obstacles prevented me from riding since Sunday. Be careful with your rides while talking on the phone.

The difference is that a JAM is likely to take out someone else... a JAB is only likely to take out themselves.

That's only true in a car/bike collision. And the likelihood goes down the more people get out of their cars and onto their bikes.One more thing, if I'm driving down the road (I don't own a car, but *if*), I don't want some uninsured JAB causing several thousand dollars damage to my car on the lame theory that he's only harming himself.

and then there's the people who think downtown Chicago bike paths are ideal for 25 mph sprints at 6pm on a Wednesday. . .the problem at the heart of most unsafe situations on the road, i find, is not ignorance or hubris, but pure arrogance.

and then there's the people who think downtown Chicago bike paths are ideal for 25 mph sprints at 6pm on a Wednesday

Which is precisely why bikes don't belong anywhere but on the real road/street.

and then there's the people who think downtown Chicago bike paths are ideal for 25 mph sprints at 6pm on a Wednesday. . .the problem at the heart of most unsafe situations on the road, i find, is not ignorance or hubris, but pure arrogance.


I agree. Was downtown one night and saw these riders not only sprinting but they have no lights and not wearing helmets. Arrogance that's asking for BIG trouble.

To even recommend (and not straight out warn against) any form of hearing obstruction such as an earpiece (with or without sound on), is reckless and irresponsible. If anything is unsafe cycling, it's riding with anything in your ears!!! Few things cyclists do upset me more than wearing those *%£# iPods or mobile phone earpieces!!! :mad:

Whoa. Chill out, pal. My point was that a cell phone earpiece would allow the rider to keep both hands on the handlebars. Frankly, I don't see the problem with a cellphone earpiece while biking. The volume of a conversation doesn't compare with the sound immersion of music, and the levels of distraction are totally different. I personally wouldn't listen to music while biking, but can and will have the occasional phone call on the earpiece. I can think of many things more unsafe to do while cycling than that, and I've seen a bunch of them: no helmet, no lights at night, weaving through traffic, and so on. Of course, Grandma told me not to put anything but my elbow in my ear, and I haven't figured that one out yet ;)

That's insane! Which part of it is insane? I think it's very reasonable. If your employees are required to operate any tools as part of their job duties, you're usually required to provide training (or only hire people who are already certified to handle same tools).


Oh, it's not that they don't know better. They simply don't care, because they think they're immortal. There's nothing you can teach them, since they don't care. Wrong. Some are like that, but they would never take a CAN-BIKE course anyway, so let the natural selection take care of them. But a lot of cyclists are exactly the opposite. They are terrified of traffic, usually, and are trying to minimize dangers - they just don't happen to do it very well. They choose a certain riding style because they underestimate certain dangers and overestimate others. Cycling courses help them put things in perspective. Lots of people actually do very dangerous thing precisely because they are the safest. Examples include riding on the sidewalk, riding right next to parked cars (away from the scary overtaking cars), riding too close to the curb, riding on the wrong side of the road.

Also, there is more to cycling than safety and rules of the road. There is efficiency, proper nutrition, hydration, cycling accessories, choosing bikes. A ton of stuff. I mean, look how big this forum is, and that's precisely what gets discussed here.


I find this hard to believe. Too bad. I find it hard to believe that any cyclist will find it hard to believe (that there are cycling-specific road tips). Perhaps you just do things intuitively without realizing it (not all people are like that though) and perhaps your riding could really use improvement and you just don't know it.


Besides, one person's opinion on the matter might be quite different from another's. Who's to say your version is the best? Oh, come on! There are plenty of commonly accepted defensive driving techniques that get taught by nearly all driving schools. Similarly there are very basic defensive cycling techniques that just WORK (as most students attest to - they often say the course has really transformed them into much more confident riders and really cut down on the number of close calls and conflict with drivers). CAN-BIKE is not about dogma - in fact, discussion and independent decisions are greatly encouraged, and at the end you are told to rely on your judgement a lot - but the combination of statistical research and accumulated wealth of experience of many many cyclists who wrote the course curriculum (which does not happen to be just "my opinion") is worth something. You don't have to accept it all as a holy gospel (I certainly don't; I disagree on several points), but anyone who denies that there is great value in being exposed to this information is simply a fool.

Some cops patrol on bicycles and talking on their radio, but most of them wear helmets. So what? That's not going to protect them from crashing, and once they crash the helmet is probably not really going to do much.

Besides, one person's opinion on the matter might be quite different from another's. Who's to say your version is the best?


To even recommend (and not straight out warn against) any form of hearing obstruction such as an earpiece (with or without sound on), is reckless and irresponsible. If anything is unsafe cycling, it's riding with anything in your ears!!! Few things cyclists do upset me more than wearing those *%£# iPods or mobile phone earpieces!!! :mad:

Oh my God, these were posted by the same person! :roflmao: What a clown.

Oh my God, these were posted by the same person! :roflmao: What a clown.

Eh?

On almost every ride, I see other cyclists using these things, and they are almost universally very unsafe because of it. They seem to be completely unaware of their being anyone else around them, and thus they often turn, weave or brake without looking behind them. Not only that, but when you have to go past them, it's often impossible because they can't hear my bell or my shouting. Nothing any cyclist does HERE (might be different where you live) is more unsafe to others. Not wearing a helmet, as someone else mentioned, is only unsafe for the cyclist himself, not the person he collides with. That doesn't count. I'm only talking about behaviour that affect others.

And I still think that an unsafe and reckless cyclist, just like an unsafe and reckless motorist, will always be just that, regardless of how much they're taught about safety.

Nutrition, hydration and all that is completely irrelevant for someone commuting typical distances or riding errands in the city. Besides, it has nothing to do with safety.

And chephy, if you ever visit Sweden, you'll understand my point of view. The cycling culture is probably very different here compared to Canada, based on what you have said here.

Which is precisely why bikes don't belong anywhere but on the real road/street.


Now that's an interesting idea, one that bespeaks a vision of a more perfect world wherein cars and bikes truly share the "real road/street." That more perfect world exists, actually, it's called the Netherlands.

I do like riding the real road, and when I do I try to ride, as much as makes sense and is safe, as though I were a car. But I have to admit I'm a little confused as to your point: if bikes are not to ride on bike paths, what exactly is the reason for those paths? Perhaps I misunderstand you. As it is, Chicago's lake front trail is one of the city's greatest boons, crowded as it is with irresponsible riders, wildly swerving roller-bladers, unpredictable children and oblivious pedestrians.

x2

Yea welcome to 4004...

But I have to admit I'm a little confused as to your point: if bikes are not to ride on bike paths, what exactly is the reason for those paths?.

There is no point to them! That's my point!!! They should be banned, torn up and replaced with a wider street/road instead.

There is no point to them! That's my point!!! They should be banned, torn up and replaced with a wider street/road instead.

At the risk of pouring fuel on the fire...what would you do with this?
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/parks/Trails/cw-trail.htm

Many areas of the U.S. have these dedicated pathways, often converted rail lines. Seattle has the Burke-Gilman Trail, Portland has one as well, the list goes on. They help provide an alternative, non-motorized infrastucture and they get people outdoors on bikes! because they are separate from motor vehicle traffic. Surely you don't refer to these, do you?
There are many tasty brands of decaf available, BTW.

There is no point to them! That's my point!!! They should be banned, torn up and replaced with a wider street/road instead.

Very well, let us put a moratorium on the building of any new bike paths anywhere in the country and concentrate on revamping our entire roadsystem instead. But in the meantime, while we're waiting for that to happen, I reckon we can leave the old, quaint bike paths up so that people have routes -- some of them very practical and convenient, such as the one I ride to work every week -- on which to ride their bikes, which, after all, was the original, innane point of the poor, misguided things.

And by the way, there is at least one more fringe benefit, as it were, to these bike paths -- at least to the one I ride regularly: they attract a rather astonishing number of very attractive, fit people, providing a sort of entertainment not generally found at street level.

I've used my cell phone while biking. no biggie. course I was on the (DESERTED) sidewalk.

To even recommend (and not straight out warn against) any form of hearing obstruction such as an earpiece (with or without sound on), is reckless and irresponsible. If anything is unsafe cycling, it's riding with anything in your ears!!!

Really? Doesn't it get rather cold in Sweden in the winter? Put anything over your ears then? Or is that somehow different and safer then headphones, just because you say it is.

There is no point to them! That's my point!!! They should be banned, torn up and replaced with a wider street/road instead.

I'm sure all of our agressive motorists would agree, they'd love to see more pavement they can take over.

Just think of all the exciting new ways they could speed and illegally pass.

On almost every ride, I see other cyclists using these things, and they are almost universally very unsafe because of it. They seem to be completely unaware of their being anyone else around them, and thus they often turn, weave or brake without looking behind them. That's just dumb. To be aware of what's around you, you LOOK. Stuff in your ears doesn't interfere with looking. So those cyclists are dumb, but not for wearing headphones - they are dumb because they don't look around them.


Not only that, but when you have to go past them, it's often impossible because they can't hear my bell or my shouting. There are two possibilities here:

1) There is room to pass. In this case, a cyclist should already be on the right and easy to pass regardless of whether he has headphones or not. If he is taking up way too much room than the situation requires, then he's a jackass regardless of what's in his ears.

2) There is no room to pass. In this case, you shouldn't try to pass anyone, regardless of whether he can hear your bell or not. Again, headphones are completely irrelevant.


And I still think that an unsafe and reckless cyclist, just like an unsafe and reckless motorist, will always be just that, regardless of how much they're taught about safety. I am not arguing with this. (Well, actually attitudes can change, but it does take more than a few hours of instruction, agreed.) But lots of people would love to be safer, they just don't know how to best achieve safety.

Haven't you read any of the forums on here? The commuting forum for example, in which people are constantly asking questions about traffic situations and how to best deal with them?? Those people are the opposite of careless, they really want to learn how to operate a bike in traffic. It's not rocket science but it's not just instinctive either.... And knowing how to drive a car is NOT enough to know how to ride a bike in traffic.


Nutrition, hydration and all that is completely irrelevant for someone commuting typical distances or riding errands in the city. Lots of people who take these courses do a lot of riding. They often have quite long commutes, for which nutrition and hydration ARE crucial. Lots of people who take these course also plan to do tours on bikes and go long distances. Lots of people who take these courses also take them because their job requires them to ride all day. Nutrition and hydration ARE crucial in these circumstances.


Besides, it has nothing to do with safety. False again. It has little to do with traffic safety (although it may, since a very tired and dehydrated cyclist will probably not ride as well as a rested one), but it does have to do with safety. People can DIE from dehydration. It happens.


And chephy, if you ever visit Sweden, you'll understand my point of view. The cycling culture is probably very different here compared to Canada, based on what you have said here. Probably the two cultures are indeed different. And yet you are you trying to talk about Canadian cycling culture and judge Canadian cycling courses even though by your own admission you know very little about cycling in Canada. Talk about arrogance.

I'm sure all of our agressive motorists would agree, they'd love to see more pavement they can take over.

Just think of all the exciting new ways they could speed and illegally pass.

+1

At the risk of pouring fuel on the fire...what would you do with this?
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/parks/Trails/cw-trail.htm

Many areas of the U.S. have these dedicated pathways, often converted rail lines. Seattle has the Burke-Gilman Trail, Portland has one as well, the list goes on. They help provide an alternative, non-motorized infrastucture and they get people outdoors on bikes! because they are separate from motor vehicle traffic. Surely you don't refer to these, do you?
There are many tasty brands of decaf available, BTW.

I don't have a problem with dedicated bike roads (i.e. bike-specific roads that have no other type of traffic, and that doesn't follow real roads.

I also don't have a problem with bike lanes, as they enable bikes to get past stuck traffic, while still allowing cyclists to "take the lane" at any moment, should an obstacle appear ahead. A bike lane would also have no pedestrians, which is the main problem with bike paths.

Bike paths, on the other hand, are always MUPs here, and that usually means that it's very hard to ride efficiently. It also means that they're maintained for peds, which means that they pour thousands of tons of gravel onto them when the colder season begins. This gravel is left on them until late Spring, and makes it very unsafe to ride, since you skid very easily on them, and braking becomes hazardous. Wouldn't happen in a bike lane - they use salt there instead, which accelerates rust, but doesn't compromise safety.

There are almost no bike roads or bike lanes here, only bike paths (i.e. MUPs parallel to real roads).

That's just dumb. To be aware of what's around you, you LOOK. Stuff in your ears doesn't interfere with looking. So those cyclists are dumb, but not for wearing headphones - they are dumb because they don't look around them.

There are two possibilities here:

1) There is room to pass. In this case, a cyclist should already be on the right and easy to pass regardless of whether he has headphones or not. If he is taking up way too much room than the situation requires, then he's a jackass regardless of what's in his ears.

2) There is no room to pass. In this case, you shouldn't try to pass anyone, regardless of whether he can hear your bell or not. Again, headphones are completely irrelevant.

The headphones prevent the rider from being aware of his surroundings. They're dumb not to look, but by wearing them, other traffic will be unable to alert them. If the same, dumb people weren't using headphones, they would at least look when they'd hear a bell, horn or a shout. Or take action even if they chose not to look. So you could always argue which is the real problem, but being dumb and wearing headphones is a poor combination. Unfortunately, I've yet to encounter a smart headphone-wearing cyclist (i.e. one who looks around at regular intervals)...



Lots of people who take these courses do a lot of riding. They often have quite long commutes, for which nutrition and hydration ARE crucial. Lots of people who take these course also plan to do tours on bikes and go long distances. Lots of people who take these courses also take them because their job requires them to ride all day. Nutrition and hydration ARE crucial in these circumstances.

False again. It has little to do with traffic safety (although it may, since a very tired and dehydrated cyclist will probably not ride as well as a rested one), but it does have to do with safety. People can DIE from dehydration. It happens.


For people without eating disorders, rides under an hour and a half or so in length require absolutely no special care regarding nutrition. Very few people commute longer than that, and those who do either do it so slowly that there is no problem anyway, or they are already seasoned cyclists who have the knowledge it takes.

Really? Doesn't it get rather cold in Sweden in the winter? Put anything over your ears then? Or is that somehow different and safer then headphones, just because you say it is.

Yes, a woolen cap or a helmet cap doesn't impede hearing significantly. And compared to headphones, they provide no distracting sounds.

The headphones prevent the rider from being aware of his surroundings.

Do they? The *facts* just keep coming. When will they stop?


Yes, a woolen cap or a helmet cap doesn't impede hearing significantly. And compared to headphones, they provide no distracting sounds.

So then "yes, just because you said so". Odd, because I have found wind noise, with or without a winter cap on, is often much louder than I would ever realistically set headphones.

With a headwind, it's often enough to completely drown out traffic noise until the cars are right beside me.

How reckless of me to ride into the wind like that. I guess a cyclist truly concerned about safety would wear ear fairings, or wait for the wind to die down.

Do they? The *facts* just keep coming. When will they stop?



So then "yes, just because you said so". Odd, because I have found wind noise, with or without a winter cap on, is often much louder than I would ever realistically set headphones.

With a headwind, it's often enough to completely drown out traffic noise until the cars are right beside me.

How reckless of me to ride into the wind like that. I guess a cyclist truly concerned about safety would wear ear fairings, or wait for the wind to die down.

I've very rarely found wind noise to be a problem, and I can hear cars a long distance away even through plenty of noise. But when I can't, I look around me (more frequently than otherwise - as I always look around me at fairly regular intervals). Someone wearing headphones could as well, but I've never seen anyone do it yet. which means that in practice, riding with them makes the wearer unaware and impossible to alert through sound. Wind noise and music also affect the brain in very different ways. Music will take some focus away from the present, while noise won't.