Advocacy & Safety - Road or paved path?

I'm sure this has been talked about 20,000 times, but I'm curious.

I'm in the market for a new bike and I will be commuting to work 3 days a week. One of the roads is very busy and there is a nice paved path right next to the road. (It's basically a mini road for bikes) Every morning while I drive in my car there is always bikes in the middle of the right lane holding up traffic and adding extra time to peoples commute since they will not move out of the center of the lane.

Although I support people who ride bikes for their primary mode of transportation and I will be riding very soon as well... I find it very frustrating they are not using the bike path created for this exact purpose. The worst situation is when there is only one cyclist taking up an entire lane!

Do you think cyclist should take a paved path dedicated for them, or take up an entire lane during rush hour traffic? Even if there wasn't a paved path, do you think one - four cyclist should take an entire lane rather than riding as close as they can to the curb?

I'm sure this has been talked about 20,000 times, but I'm curious.

I'm in the market for a new bike and I will be commuting to work 3 days a week. One of the roads is very busy and there is a nice paved path right next to the road. (It's basically a mini road for bikes) Every morning while I drive in my car there is always bikes in the middle of the right lane holding up traffic and adding extra time to peoples commute since they will not move out of the center of the lane.

Although I support people who ride bikes for their primary mode of transportation and I will be riding very soon as well... I find it very frustrating they are not using the bike path created for this exact purpose. The worst situation is when there is only one cyclist taking up an entire lane!

Do you think cyclist should take a paved path dedicated for them, or take up an entire lane during rush hour traffic? Even if there wasn't a paved path, do you think one - four cyclist should take an entire lane rather than riding as close as they can to the curb?

Have you evaluated the path as a cyclist... or are you just looking at it as a motor car driver... both from a distance and without viewing the issues a cyclist may face.

Is the path full of glass? What kind of access does the path offer? Does it come to the same intersections as the road, with more dangerous uncontrolled transitions? What is the condition of the actual pavement... is it cracked and broken? Is the path filled with slow moving pedestrians wearing iPods walking "Fluffy" on a long leash?

If there are multiple lanes on the road, what keeps motorists from moving to the other lane... just as you expect cyclists to move to the path?

Along my commute I have a section that is much like you describe. Here's how it works for me. The path emerges from a regional park near my home. I ride into the regional park and follow the path to a road. The path continues adjacent to the road but I choose to exit the path and join the roadway. Why? The path turns away from my path about a mile and half past the park. To rejoin the roadway at that point I would have to jump a grass median and curb, cross a traffic lane back to the other side of the road while not at an intersection. In that mile and half, all the cars that go by me no doudt wonder why I'm not over on that nice path next to the road. Well, I've got 13 more miles to cover and that path dosn't go there. So I choose not to use the path for that short distance. I feel I put myself in more danger by having to merge with the traffic at an unexpected place if I followed the trail as far as possible (no vehicle would expect a ped or bike to be crossing where the trail veers from my route).

I'm not trail adverse. I use trails for about 1/3 of my commute. But they are some of the best designed bicycle commuter trails in the country. How's that trail you pass. Do you have to share with other users like peds? Is built with transportation in mind or recreation? Is it at least 10 feet wide? Does it provide enough access points to allow the transportational cyclist to get on and off when they need to? Is it a integrated of the transportion arteries in the region or just kind dropped in where there was space?

Do you understand better why they might make the choices they do?

Scot

By the way, this describes every bike commuter in the country

The worst situation is when there is only one cyclist taking up an entire lane!
No other cyclist leave from my driveway and ride to my office. There's only ever one cyclist doing that trip a day.

Scot

There is an asymmetry to consider, as well. If a two-way bicycle path is adjacent to northbound travel lanes, then a southbound cyclist must make at least two awkward and potentially dangerous crossings, one to get to the path, and the second to return to the road. In addition, each cross-street intersection generally presents extreme danger for such contra-flow cyclists, because motorists are simply not looking in that direction. (It is bad enough for the northbound cyclists in my example, who must contend with being set up for a right-hook at every intersection.)

Most collisions occur at intersections rather than mid-block, and most Class I paths increase the risk of being struck at an intersection.

As you are finding out, the answer is usually - it depends! If the path is convenient, if it is on one or both sides of the street, if it doesn't have too many intersections, if it is not full of non-cycling users or cyclists who don't know how to share a path, if it is in good condition...

As to taking up a lane, that is recommended for narrow lanes where passing is not safe. But that said, I think it can be overdone, where sometimes simply riding a bit out into the lane will suffice, so that cars cannot pass without moving left somewhat, but don't have to move all the way into an adjacent lane. I think it's mostly about visibility and body language. It is also common courtesy if you have to take the lane for some time, to pull over and let cars pass for a while if they are building up behind you.

At signalized intersections, bikes often take a lane, or at least half of one, to properly position themselves for their destination. See Street Smarts (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm), especially chapters 2 and 3.

Good luck with your soon-to-be commuting! See you in the Commuting forum?

Part of the point of the OP if I understand what he is saying is that some bicyclists not only 'take to the road', but TAKE OVER THE ROAD. This is unnecessary in most cases. Bikes can usually travel within 24 inches of the curb safely, and THEY OUGHT TO. Bicyclists should not ride abreast of one another and they should not be out in the middle of a lane unless there are good reasons to be out there--drainage grates, debris on the curbway, or similar unsafe materials, or b/c the bike needs to move over to make a left turn, etcetera. This would allow cars on most roadways to go around the biker with more than adequate clearance, rather than forcing the faster-moving auto to creep along at the slower pace of the biker. I ALWAYS try to be considerate of the fact that my bike is an impediment to cars. I WALK my bike across most crosswalks, I don't pretend I have any right to 'own' a lane, and whenever needful I take to a sidewalk so that neither I nor the automobile traffic are 'crowding' one another. (If there are pedestrians on the sidewalk, I dismount and walk my bike; since virtually no one actually walks anywhere these days, this is rarely necessary).

I realise that motorists also need to be conscious of and sensitive to the needs of bike riders as well. I realise that some are incredibly rude and obnoxious. But I have also experienced more than my share of very rude bike riders. The roadways simply are not designed for bicycling, and very few have bike lanes. In my community, the bike trails are scenic but generally useless for getting anywhere practical. Roads and sidewalks are the most-direct route to places people actually need to go every day.

Here's one point of view on paths next to roads: http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/issues.htm


I think it can be overdone, where sometimes simply riding a bit out into the lane will suffice, so that cars cannot pass without moving left somewhat, but don't have to move all the way into an adjacent lane.
I agree on a two-lane road, but disagree on a multilane road - but this is really just a fine tuning of a concept which is probably best suited for another thread. Good luck on the commuting!

Part of the point of the OP if I understand what he is saying is that some bicyclists not only 'take to the road', but TAKE OVER THE ROAD. This is unnecessary in most cases. Bikes can usually travel within 24 inches of the curb safely, and THEY OUGHT TO.
Road widths, conditions, speeds, etc. differ from place to place, so I don't think such a sweeping generalization is a good idea. On some roads, if I ride within 24 inches of the curb I will get passed too closely every time. Yet on other roads, I can ride even only 12 inches from the curb and be considerate without the expense of my safety.

Without more information from the OP, it's really hard to make a judgment about whether the cyclist in question was being unnecessarily inconsiderate or needed to use the full lane for his own safety.

Part of the point of the OP if I understand what he is saying is that some bicyclists not only 'take to the road', but TAKE OVER THE ROAD. This is unnecessary in most cases. Bikes can usually travel within 24 inches of the curb safely, and THEY OUGHT TO. Bicyclists should not ride abreast of one another and they should not be out in the middle of a lane unless there are good reasons to be out there--drainage grates, debris on the curbway, or similar unsafe materials, or b/c the bike needs to move over to make a left turn, etcetera. This would allow cars on most roadways to go around the biker with more than adequate clearance, rather than forcing the faster-moving auto to creep along at the slower pace of the biker. I ALWAYS try to be considerate of the fact that my bike is an impediment to cars. I WALK my bike across most crosswalks, I don't pretend I have any right to 'own' a lane, and whenever needful I take to a sidewalk so that neither I nor the automobile traffic are 'crowding' one another. (If there are pedestrians on the sidewalk, I dismount and walk my bike; since virtually no one actually walks anywhere these days, this is rarely necessary).

I realise that motorists also need to be conscious of and sensitive to the needs of bike riders as well. I realise that some are incredibly rude and obnoxious. But I have also experienced more than my share of very rude bike riders. The roadways simply are not designed for bicycling, and very few have bike lanes. In my community, the bike trails are scenic but generally useless for getting anywhere practical. Roads and sidewalks are the most-direct route to places people actually need to go every day.I would love watching you and the OP do my 20 mile one way commute. I wonder how much of it you would be walking.

It would be especially fun to watch you (cyclist should just stay out of the way) guys ride this section:

http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/4881/exhibit20hitptbb4.th.jpg (http://img487.imageshack.us/my.php?image=exhibit20hitptbb4.jpg)
Hope you enjoy riding 6 inch shoulders!

Good luck on your commutes.

I would love watching you and the OP do my 20 mile one way commute. I wonder how much of it you would be walking.

It would be especially fun to watch you (cyclist should just stay out of the way) guys ride this section:

http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/4881/exhibit20hitptbb4.th.jpg (http://img487.imageshack.us/my.php?image=exhibit20hitptbb4.jpg)
Hope you enjoy riding 6 inch shoulders!

Good luck on your commutes.

I would not ride a bike along that route. I'd drive to a safe juncture and bike the remainder. Or not bike at all. I don't block traffic just for the fun of riding a bike.

I would not ride a bike along that route. I'd drive to a safe juncture and bike the remainder. Or not bike at all. I don't block traffic just for the fun of riding a bike.
If you don't want to ride in a place where you may delay faster traffic, that is certainly your choice. I don't see that riding a bike is a lesser use of the roads than driving a car - especially when I'm riding home from work and car traffic going to a concert or ballgame slows me down. I agree with your point about rude bike riders - but on the other hand, I'm not going to be a doormat out there and risk my safety/convenience for the sake of not delaying motorists.

But in this picture, it looks to me like the two lane portion is uphill and the one lane portion is downhill. The speed limit sign looks like it says 35, a downhill cyclist would ride close to that speed and not significantly delay anyone. On the uphill side, a cyclist would be going much slower, but faster traffic can use the left lane to pass.

I would love watching you and the OP do my 20 mile one way commute. I wonder how much of it you would be walking.

It would be especially fun to watch you (cyclist should just stay out of the way) guys ride this section:

Hope you enjoy riding 6 inch shoulders!

Good luck on your commutes.

But there's plenty of room between the rail and the grass...

And stop posting pictures of Hawaii. That place isn't real. (Now where did I put my jacket?)

Without more information from the OP, it's really hard to make a judgment about whether the cyclist in question was being unnecessarily inconsiderate or needed to use the full lane for his own safety.
+1

OP, if a bike lane is held to the same scrutiny and safety standards as the adjacent road, then I'd expect cyclists to use it.

Until then, they have to be taken on both a case-by-case basis, and a cyclist-by-cyclist basis.

Perhaps you would like to share the exact location, so we can look it up and give specific opinions. Otherwise we might start making silly assumptions.

For example, you mention bicycles being in the middle of the "right" lane. I wonder then if this is a multi-lane road, and if so, why you don't just move one lane over?


I would not ride a bike along that route. I'd drive to a safe juncture and bike the remainder. Or not bike at all. I don't block traffic just for the fun of riding a bike.
And I don't wear white shoes after labor day.

But there's plenty of room between the rail and the grass...

And stop posting pictures of Hawaii. That place isn't real. (Now where did I put my jacket?)
Hey, you got better soccer.:D Sorry, football.

I would not ride a bike along that route. I'd drive to a safe juncture and bike the remainder. Or not bike at all. I don't block traffic just for the fun of riding a bike.
I would suggest you not drive your car on this road either, YOU can just use the FREEWAY, which is where you belong!:p

I would not ride a bike along that route. I'd drive to a safe juncture and bike the remainder. Or not bike at all. I don't block traffic just for the fun of riding a bike.
So what do you suggest to those of us who do not own cars?

So what do you suggest to those of us who do not own cars?
Probably a cell-phone belt clip and blue tooth ear piece, a sales job to pay for it, group think, and ass sweat.

Do you think cyclist should take a paved path dedicated for them, or take up an entire lane during rush hour traffic?

I think you can only deal in specific cases regarding this question. There is no one 'correct' answer.

I suggest you try both the path and the road, both kerb-hugging and lane claiming, and decide which is best for you.


Even if there wasn't a paved path, do you think one - four cyclist should take an entire lane rather than riding as close as they can to the curb?

I think they can, and should, if the situation demanded it.

In freely moving traffic, I prefer single file on narrow lanes, but claim enough of it to discourage drivers from thinking they can pass within the lane. However, if the next lane over is clogged, it makes no difference if you ride single of double, they can't pass either way. In that case, doubling up makes for a shorter group, and a more sociable one.

flameburns623,

I feel sorry for the IL cyclist that have to put up with you driving a bus!:eek:

Hopefully, a little more cycling experience will change your attitude. (not holding my breath)

I would not ride a bike along that route. I'd drive to a safe juncture and bike the remainder. Or not bike at all. I don't block traffic just for the fun of riding a bike.
Neither do I. But I don't mind slowing down a motorist for my safety's sake. Sometimes cagers slow me down. Sometimes I slow them down. Big deal.

But as to the OP's question, I agree with those who say, "it depends." I have a path I can take almost the whole way to work, but it adds 10-15 minutes to my commute (20-25 minutes via street to 30-35 minutes via the path). It's also a real pain on nice afternoons because it's filled with idiots who don't know how to share a path.

Good info so far, thanks guys. I just want to make myself clear again... I'm not bashing riders, or complaining, I'm just trying to figure out why people will take a full lane up rather than use a bike lane.

To give you a little more info; It is a four lane road, with a 3 - 5 foot shoulder, right next to the road on one side is the bike lane/paved path. It looks to be in pretty good shape, it's not as flawless as the road, but defiantly not in bad shape. There are your one in a while joggers, walkers and mothers pushing their strollers, but not enough to make a bike not use it. It is also wide enough for two or three bikes to travel on it wide. Attached is a google shot of the road and path. The path is on the right side and looks like a mini road. I tried to mark it up in paint, but I suck! I used my personal address to get close to the road, so that is why I blacked it out.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/319/untitledqd5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The problem with those 'side of the road' paths is when you get to intersections - drivers aren't looking there, and they're exceptionally dangerous.

I live in Reston, VA which has those sorts of 'bike roads' along side the major roads. To their credit, they often have them on both sides of the road. However, they're usually not usable, simply because they cross intersections at odd angles that give you and drivers poor visibility of each other.

Here's a map of an intersection of one of our road-side bike paths. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=fairfax+county+parkway,+herndon,+va&sll=38.96974,-77.38548&sspn=0.026492,0.067892&ie=UTF8&ll=38.952225,-77.37441&spn=0.000828,0.002122&t=k&z=19&om=0 The path intersects 4 onramps to the freeway, and on this one riders come out from behind a barrier that screens them from seeing or being seen by drivers, then puts us right into the onramp at a bad angle. Drivers making the turn onto the onramp see riders very late. They are also not in a mood to stop as they approach the freeway.

I originally started commuting on these sorts of roads. After almost getting plowed by drivers who either 1) didn't see me, or 2) didn't think I should exist there, I stopped using them. I found another way to work where I can ride in the road - on a road with lower speed limits - for part of my commute, then connect to a MUP for the rest. Our MUP is great, it actually gets overpasses for all of the bad intersections.

So I would say, before you complain about why cyclists don't use that path, try it yourself for a month and see how you feel then.

I think it comes back to the question of if the path is suitable for the type of cycling that the riders are doing. A good bit of my commute is paralleled by a multi-use path. I don't use it for several of the reasons stated (poor access, sketchy intersections...) and also for the fact that it is paved in the same manner as a sidewalk, with seams every 10' or so. At speed (aprox 15mph), these make for a very uncomfortable ride. I'm trying to get to work as quickly and easily as possible and the path just doesn't cut it.
This does bring up an interesting observation though. I receive more crap from drivers on multi-lane roads than I do on 2 lane roads. It seems that if there is an easy way to pass me (another lane proceeding in the same direction), drivers would be able to get around with ease. But I suppose changing lanes is simply too much work for some people to handle. From the picture above it looks like there should be no problems with a cyclist on the road. Even in heavy traffic, cars can change lanes and pass easily adding only a few moments to their commute. As a cyclist I would also take the lane in that situation. Anyone who can't be bothered to change lanes to pass me needs to check their priorities or leave 15 seconds earlier tomorrow.

So I would say, before you complain about why cyclists don't use that path, try it yourself for a month and see how you feel then.

For the third time, I'm not complaining, I'm just curious if there was a reason why they are not using the path dedicated for them!

Please read what I'm saying/asking.

The problem with those 'side of the road' paths is when you get to intersections - drivers aren't looking there, and they're exceptionally dangerous. ...

Yes, that was precisely my point, as well. pjrocco, please provide zoomed-in aerial shots of the path's intersections with the rest of the road grid, as these may be the most crucial key to path safety (or lack thereof).

Yes, that was precisely my point, as well. pjrocco, please provide zoomed-in aerial shots of the path's intersections with the rest of the road grid, as these may be the most crucial key to path safety (or lack thereof).

This is the busiest intersection along the entire path.


http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4529/interil7.gif (http://imageshack.us)


I'm not trying to turn this into a federal case, I'm just curious what makes a cyclist take the roads when they have a bike path. I think I have my answer, so I thank all of you that added valuable information to this thread.

I'll see you guys on the road and in the commuting section soon!

For the third time, I'm not complaining, I'm just curious if there was a reason why they are not using the path dedicated for them!

Please read what I'm saying/asking.

I did read what you asked/said, and I provided you a detailed explanation. Since that appears to have been too complicated for you, I'll simplify it:

There are three main reasons they aren't used:

1. RIDERS DON'T USE THOSE PATHS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO DIE.
2. Riders don't use those paths because they're poorly maintained.
3. Riders don't use those paths because they are narrow and choked with pedestrians.

At least that's the case for the ones near me. I looked at your intersection, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be riding through those crosswalks, trying to find cars coming from many different directions who might hit me without seeing me.

You can get chippy about it, but the best thing to do is to try it yourself for a month, like I suggested before, and see what you think then. Otherwise you're complaining about something you don't have any experience with.

In general, these paths are made by people who aren't bike commuters. Lots of things seem like a good idea when you don't know what you're doing, like splitting those paths away from the main road and then bringing them back together at intersections. As they've done in the one you've posted. I used to ride paths like that, and after enough near-wreck experiences I stopped doing it. I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard, and that's why riders don't use those things.

You can get chippy about it, but the best thing to do is to try it yourself for a month, like I suggested before, and see what you think then. Otherwise you're complaining about something you don't have any experience with.

Hence the reason why I'm asking a question, I don't know. You can get "chippy" as well because I'm asking a question and make remarks about me complaining when clearly I stated I'm not complaining, I'm curious.

And yes, it is frustrating when one cyclist is taking up an entire lane when there is a bike path right next to the road. Now that I got this information here, I understand why they do it.

I appreciate your insight on the matter, but I don't appreciate people accusing me of things that I am not.

Thank you and good day.

I don't block traffic just for the fun of riding a bike.

Usually I wouldn't either. But I would do it for transportation.

I don't block traffic just for the fun of riding a bike.

Just so I understand your mentality, what do you call it when you are driving in your car and you get a major arterial with a traffic light which you trigger to turn red, bringing every single vehicles on that road near that intersection to a complete STOP just so that you can cross? Is that blocking traffic or is that just using the roadway like you are entitled to use it? How is that any different from a cyclist using a road and causing some motorists to slow for a bit before they can pass?

Just so I understand your mentality, what do you call it when you are driving in your car and you get a major arterial with a traffic light which you trigger to turn red, bringing every single vehicles on that road near that intersection to a complete STOP just so that you can cross? Is that blocking traffic or is that just using the roadway like you are entitled to use it? How is that any different from a cyclist using a road and causing some motorists to slow for a bit before they can pass?

+1; I never thought of it that way before.

Just so I understand your mentality, what do you call it when you are driving in your car and you get a major arterial with a traffic light which you trigger to turn red, bringing every single vehicles on that road near that intersection to a complete STOP just so that you can cross? Is that blocking traffic or is that just using the roadway like you are entitled to use it? How is that any different from a cyclist using a road and causing some motorists to slow for a bit before they can pass?

It's not any different. But try telling that to the 12 motorists behind you that feel that they own the road...

It's not about the rights, it's not about the quality of the road, it's not whether it can be done or not, it is about the attitude that one has to face daily to do it.

When those motorists can treat a cyclist like they themselves would want to be treated... that will be a great day.

Part of the point of the OP if I understand what he is saying is that some bicyclists not only 'take to the road', but TAKE OVER THE ROAD. This is unnecessary in most cases. Bikes can usually travel within 24 inches of the curb safely, and THEY OUGHT TO. Bicyclists should not ride abreast of one another and they should not be out in the middle of a lane unless there are good reasons to be out there...

Here! Here!

It's not any different. But try telling that to the 12 motorists behind you that feel that they own the road...

It's not about the rights, it's not about the quality of the road, it's not whether it can be done or not, it is about the attitude that one has to face daily to do it.

When those motorists can treat a cyclist like they themselves would want to be treated... that will be a great day.

My question was directed at another cyclist. If we can't get rid of the can't-slow-down-the-motorists attitude amongst cyclists, how can we ever expect to get motorists to accept it? I attempted to point out the irony of the attitude that driving a car means you'll never delay a large number of motorists like a single cyclist could. It happens every day and people just accept it as part of using the roads. If enough cyclists got out there, motorists would learn to get over it just like they get over having to stop for one other motorist to cross the street. The end result of any of these delays is a hardly noticeable (if any) increase in trip time, probably less than the amount of time we each waste tying our shoes in the morning.

[QUOTE=LCI_Brian;4933549]But in this picture, it looks to me like the two lane portion is uphill and the one lane portion is downhill. /QUOTE]

Uhmmm, I think that would depend upon your direction of travel . . . would you not agree?

Caruso

I would not ride a bike along that route. I'd drive to a safe juncture and bike the remainder. Or not bike at all. I don't block traffic just for the fun of riding a bike.

If you are riding your bike and not driving a car, then, you either ride that road, find an alternate route that takes you where this road does, or, you have to ride this road. This is one condition where, if my direction of travel were in the one lane direction, I would expect autos to respect me at whatever speed I at which I needed to ride in order to navigate this particular section.

Good drivers should be able to deal with me.

Caruso

If you are riding your bike and not driving a car, then, you either ride that road, find an alternate route that takes you where this road does, or, you have to ride this road. This is one condition where, if my direction of travel were in the one lane direction, I would expect autos to respect me at whatever speed I at which I needed to ride in order to navigate this particular section.

Good drivers should be able to deal with me.

Caruso

I think the OP feels he has had his original question answered but . . .

I don't bike on any road that I have not already driven over, in broad daylight, and determined to be a road that I can ride a bicycle on without obstructing traffic. Period. Not only is this safe, but it is respectful. People who drive cars do so because they are in a hurry. When I drive a car, it is because I am in a hurry. I don't want some elderly crone in a 1966 Dodge Rambler rambling along at barely half the posted speed limit in front of me. I CERTAINLY don't want a bicyclist riding at not even a third of the speed limit in front of me. IMHO, people who can't operate their vehicle at the posted speed limit for a given road have no business on that road. Whether that vehicle has an internal combustion engine or not.

If I'm riding my bike, I'm not in a hurry. Even if I'm riding it to work. I allow WAY more time than I actually need in order to arrive at my workplace. I need the time to clean up and to recover--I'm overheated and perspiring like a showerhead for at least an hour after riding any distance on a bike. So I would do exactly as you suggest--I would take a different, safer, less-obstructive route, or I just would not ride my bike on that road. Period.

People who can't operate their vehicle at the posted speed limit for a given road have no business on that road.

Says you?

Says you?

OK. I edited the post at the point you questioned.

IMHO, people who can't operate their vehicle at the posted speed limit for a given road have no business on that road. Whether that vehicle has an internal combustion engine or not.

Thankfully that's your opinion and not the law. It's speed limit, not speed minimum.

I think the OP feels he has had his original question answered but . . .

I don't bike on any road that I have not already driven over, in broad daylight, and determined to be a road that I can ride a bicycle on without obstructing traffic. Period. Not only is this safe, but it is respectful. People who drive cars do so because they are in a hurry. When I drive a car, it is because I am in a hurry. I don't want some elderly crone in a 1966 Dodge Rambler rambling along at barely half the posted speed limit in front of me. I CERTAINLY don't want a bicyclist riding at not even a third of the speed limit in front of me. IMHO, people who can't operate their vehicle at the posted speed limit for a given road have no business on that road. Whether that vehicle has an internal combustion engine or not.

If I'm riding my bike, I'm not in a hurry. Even if I'm riding it to work. I allow WAY more time than I actually need in order to arrive at my workplace. I need the time to clean up and to recover--I'm overheated and perspiring like a showerhead for at least an hour after riding any distance on a bike. So I would do exactly as you suggest--I would take a different, safer, less-obstructive route, or I just would not ride my bike on that road. Period.
Why don't you quite your job then?
You are a bus driver, you go slow up hills - slowing people down to less than the speed limit; you make stops - slowing people down to way less than the speed limit and even forcing them to stop; you accelerate slower than other traffic, especially cyclist. Many cyclist here in BF move faster than buses in the city; you guys often end up slowing the cyclist.
If you cannot stop slowing everyone down, then quite your job because you are just being an inconsiderate jerk!:rolleyes:

http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/4881/exhibit20hitptbb4.th.jpg (http://img487.imageshack.us/my.php?image=exhibit20hitptbb4.jpg)
Hope you enjoy riding 6 inch shoulders!

Good luck on your commutes.

Am I the only one who instantly visualized ripping down that hill like a grinning maniac? :D

Oh, yeah, I'd be out in that right lane. The faster I go the further I stay away from that nasty old bicycle eating road margin, and if that hill descends like that for a reasonable stretch, I wouldn't be holding up traffic.

On the other hand, I ascend like molasses. Give me a separated path off the road and I'd putter up it at somewhere near walking speed all day. That's my usual off road path philosophy. Uphill, yes, and I'll greet every street crossing as a reprieve from cranking up the hill. Downhill, no. Off road paths are no place to go fast, and descending a hill I've been climbing all day is no time to go slow; mixing the two can only lead to madness.

Why don't you quite your job then?
You are a bus driver, you go slow up hills - slowing people down to less than the speed limit; you make stops - slowing people down to way less than the speed limit and even forcing them to stop; you accelerate slower than other traffic, especially cyclist. Many cyclist here in BF move faster than buses in the city; you guys often end up slowing the cyclist.
If you cannot stop slowing everyone down, then quite your job because you are just being an inconsiderate jerk!:rolleyes:

Not a bus driver any more. Thanks for reminding me my profile needed changing.

For the record bus drivers are specifically trained to stay as much out of the way of traffic as possible. To yield the right of way to swifter vehicles whenever possible. On Interstates and open highways buses can achieve the same speeds as other vehicles. Etcetera.

Not to mention that many or most bike commuters in my area use buses to transport themselves and their bikes from point-to-point. Bikes may be able to outpace buses on short stretches of roadway where the bus is stopping almost continually for other riders. But I doubt many bikers would ride the buses so regularly as they do except for the fact that over longer distances where the stops are less frequent, buses far-and-away are faster than bikes.

Not a bus driver any more. Thanks for reminding me my profile needed changing.

For the record bus drivers are specifically trained to stay as much out of the way of traffic as possible. To yield the right of way to swifter vehicles whenever possible. On Interstates and open highways buses can achieve the same speeds as other vehicles. Etcetera.

Not to mention that many or most bike commuters in my area use buses to transport themselves and their bikes from point-to-point. Bikes may be able to outpace buses on short stretches of roadway where the bus is stopping almost continually for other riders. But I doubt many bikers would ride the buses so regularly as they do except for the fact that over longer distances where the stops are less frequent, buses far-and-away are faster than bikes.
So it is OK to slow up traffic for short distances. Fine, over how many miles has a cyclist slowed you down:
1 mile,
2 miles,
3 miles,
10 miles?

More likely only 100 feet to 200 yards.

Get a clue, the most cyclist hold anyone up is 30 seconds of time that would have taken up sitting at a red light at some time in the commute anyway.

Gain some actual cycling experience with actual road riding.


Side question: if all the cyclist are riding on the buses, how are they slowing you down on the road? Which side of the mouth do you wish to stick with?

Am I the only one who instantly visualized ripping down that hill like a grinning maniac? :D

Oh, yeah, I'd be out in that right lane. The faster I go the further I stay away from that nasty old bicycle eating road margin, and if that hill descends like that for a reasonable stretch, I wouldn't be holding up traffic.

On the other hand, I ascend like molasses. Give me a separated path off the road and I'd putter up it at somewhere near walking speed all day. That's my usual off road path philosophy. Uphill, yes, and I'll greet every street crossing as a reprieve from cranking up the hill. Downhill, no. Off road paths are no place to go fast, and descending a hill I've been climbing all day is no time to go slow; mixing the two can only lead to madness.

The cool thing is I do not have to visualize it.:D:D

It is correct that the single lane is downhill, it gets steeper right after the bend, and has a few nice curves. The bad thing is that the asphalt is getting badly broken. Speed limit goes from 45 to 35 at that sign. Total run is 1 mile down with about 0.6 miles up the other side of the gulch.

Use to run 45 mph max speed, but now keep it at 35 mph with the pot holes. Hoping it will get repaved soon.

Aerial view:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=21.434534,-158.013096&spn=0.042983,0.061197&t=h&z=14&om=1
99 between Lanikuhana Ave and Ka Uka Blvd

For all those that keep suggesting cyclist should find an alternate route, including you flameburns623; what alternate would you suggest and how many miles would it add to my commute?

Aerial view:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=21.434534,-158.013096&spn=0.042983,0.061197&t=h&z=14&om=1
99 between Lanikuhana Ave and Ka Uka Blvd

So it is OK to slow up traffic for short distances. Fine, over how many miles has a cyclist slowed you down:
1 mile,
2 miles,
3 miles,
10 miles?

More likely only 100 feet to 200 yards.

Get a clue, the most cyclist hold anyone up is 30 seconds of time that would have taken up sitting at a red light at some time in the commute anyway.

Gain some actual cycling experience with actual road riding.


Side question: if all the cyclist are riding on the buses, how are they slowing you down on the road? Which side of the mouth do you wish to stick with?


You're missing my point on several points. Re-read my posts. I'm not suggesting bikes never use the road, only that they not impede traffic needlessly in doing so. I realize there are times when a bicyclist must move further than a foot or two from the curb--in my area- drainage grates often run parallel to the curb and could 'trip' the wheels of a road bike. The curb or shoulder often contains debris that would not jeopardise a car but is a real obstruction for a bike. And on-and-on.

First: buses do what they can NOT to slow anyone else up. They try to stay out of the way. Much harder for a bus, 40-plus feet long and 8 to 9 feet wide (roughly), but that's what buses are supposed to do. My problem in this thread is that it is populated by bicyclists who are taking the radical position that they do NOT have to do what they can do--usually a great deal more than what a bus can do, owing to the greater agility and smaller size of a bicycle--to not impede traffic.

Second. The radicals in this thread CERTAINLY appear to be advocating complete bicycle domination of one or more lanes of road traffic--which could indeed result in multiple miles of impediment. Especially if one or more said bikers gets struck by a car and traffic must be stopped to allow emergency assistance to the scene. This even when other alternatives exist--the use of bike paths where possible, the use of sidewalks if needful, or quite simply--staying as close to the curb or the shoulder as possible so that motorized traffic can get by. If all else fails, get off the bike and walk it. Or load the bike onto a bus, or onto a bike rack on your own car, and bypass the narrow bottlenecks where the only alternative is to impede traffic.

Third, I certainly did not suggest that 'all bike riders are riding the bus'. I spoke of "many or most bike commuters", a discrete subset of "all bikers" and not even the entire population of that subset. That aside, if they're loading a bike onto the bike rack on a bus, they obviously rode the bike to the bus stop, at least. And they probably plan to ride the bike again, from wherever they de-bus to wherever they ultimately plan to go. My point was that buses are faster in the long run than bikes, even if bikes can go a little faster in some congested areas where bus ridership is high. If a bicyclist gets behind a bus in my immediate neighborhood, they'll possibly have to ride against traffic, get on the sidewalk, or use a side road to get around the bus, only because the bus pulls into the same space on the roadway the bike should be occupying, and only because the bus can overtake the biker several times between stops, only to again obstruct the biker when the bus must again stop to service passengers. (Cars, by the way, will usually only be passing the bus once--the bus is not likely to overtake them).

So far as being a 'serious' bike rider: I ride often enough on the roads to have had a driver heading northbound call me a '******' as I rode southbound--not impeding him in any way. I've had someone throw trash at me as I road an enclosed walkway separated from the roadway by concrete barriers. My wife and I went for a bike ride this evening, in between some of my posts to this forum. As we stood on a parking lot, a car went by and someone shouted at us to 'get off the road, idiots'. So I've seen rude drivers out there. But I've also seen rude bicyclists, some riding not just two abreast but three, four, five abreast. Or a single bicyclist travelling a full five to six feet away from the curb, on a straight lane of traffic, when drivers could not pass the rider, and where the rider could easily have moved to the curb to allow passing room for cars.

For all those that keep suggesting cyclist should find an alternate route, including you flameburns623; what alternate would you suggest and how many miles would it add to my commute?

Aerial view:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=21.434534,-158.013096&spn=0.042983,0.061197&t=h&z=14&om=1
99 between Lanikuhana Ave and Ka Uka Blvd

I'd suggest buying a bus ticket, frankly. Or putting a bike rack on your car. Anything to bypass that stretch of road.

For the third time, I'm not complaining, I'm just curious if there was a reason why they are not using the path dedicated for them!

Please read what I'm saying/asking.
1) Is it really dedicated for cyclists? Or are peds and rollerbladers allowed? I'd rather deal with cars than an idiot jogging with a dog on a 12' leash or idiot peds who don't know how to share the path (and before the flames start, it's the cyclist's responsibility to pass peds safely, even if that means stopping).

2) Speed limits: Many bike paths have 15 mph speed limits. That's reason enough to avoid them.

3) Intersections. You can't judge a path by any short segment. You have to look at the whole ride. If the bike path forces cyclists to stop more often or for longer, the road is often better.

4) Getting on and off the path: Bike paths can be like freeways. If the entrance and exit ramps are in the wrong place, they aren't practical.

5) Path condition: Sometimes paths are poorly maintained. Even one nasty patch can make the whole impractical. My path is sometimes flooded. When it has rained hard for several days I stay away from it because I don't want to ride a couple miles only to find a flooded path.