I shouldn't have bothered you with the facts?

You already know what is correct. Are you a physicist?

No, I'm a statistician and bikes stop faster 78% of the time.

I don't believe that "in your face, its the law" is the way to gain ground.
I do believe that the answer has to lie with us because motorist just don't care.

Well, what do you believe?

The subect has been discussed exhaustively so I don't know what you hope to accomplish. There are a few different camps but they all come to basically the same conclusions. You ride in a way that holds up traffic the least, balanced against safety. When you have to take the lane you take it and otherwise you try to stay out of the way (simply put).

Did you know that 70% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Well, what do you believe?

The subect has been discussed exhaustively so I don't know what you hope to accomplish. There are a few different camps but they all come to basically the same conclusions. You ride in a way that holds up traffic the least, balanced against safety. When you have to take the lane you take it and otherwise you try to stay out of the way (simply put).

Really? I didn't know the subject was exhausted. Is that the way they do it in China where bicycles are one of the chief modes of transport? Is that why so many motorist hate bikers to the point where they will get physical and run them off the road?

You ride in a way that holds up traffic the least... Except that when you ride, you aren't "holding up" traffic, you are traffic.

Their not jerks, their just spoiled brats (road rage=temper tantrum) that act like crybabies whenever they have to share.



Don't bother arguing Temp1. If they think my webpage ISN"T about cycling, they must be morons in the extreme. I know alot of cyclists who ride with their style and attitude. Alot of em are dead...natural selection. For those that remain, we can always hope!

roughstuff

Except that when you ride, you aren't "holding up" traffic, you are traffic.

Except when you're holding up traffic.

True case in point. I was on a road (slightly lost) that was a fairly steep incline, two lanes with little to no shoulder (that means one lane each way), extremely windy, 45 mph speed limit and very heavily traveled. End result was me doing 12 mph in front of a long line of cars that had no possibility of safely passing me (although many did anyway).

I could chant "I'm not holding up traffic, I am traffic" until I'm blue in the face, but it wouldn't change the fact that I was holding up traffic majorly.

When the shoulder widened a bit for an intersection I pulled over and let the traffic by. I avoid that road now because I would have too big of an impact on traffic on that road by riding on it.

True case in point. I was on a road (slightly lost) that was a fairly steep incline, two lanes with little to no shoulder (that means one lane each way), extremely windy, 45 mph speed limit and very heavily traveled. What's wrong with this picture? That combination is simply unacceptable from a design and safety standpoint. The road engineers have several options:

Set the speed limit to 30 MPH
Put in paved shoulders
Make it four lanes
Decrease the traffic volume by encouraging car drivers to use other routes (or by any of a host of other means; setting the speed limit lower would, in part, have this effect)
Straighten the road or flatten the hills (extreme, but it's been done)

This sounds like a road with a speed limit at or above the design speed, even for cars. But such roads aren't made just for cars (well, it sounds like this one was, but that's exactly its flaw). In much of this country, two-lane roads are used by farm vehicles as well as bicycles and cars. Roads that don't accomodate all the kinds of traffic for which they're intended are either poorly designed or misused. (Or the human development it was put down to serve was poorly planned, or some other such force is at work.) So when you're going 12MPH in a traffic lane, when there should be a shoulder, you still aren't blocking traffic.

I'm a biker myself and I'm sorry but I have to say this and I don't want to flame, but I have to say it anyway.
Many bikers are seem so rude and thoughtless. They ride in the middle of the road holding up traffic with their expensive bikes going 20 MPH in a 30 or 40 zone. Some ride in clubs like gangs blocking the road for cars. They don't pull over in single file. They just keep on going. It may be legal but its also stupid.
Is there an answer to this problem on our highways???

Personally, I don't so this. I pull over to allow cars to go by and I even stop to give them the right of way. I know I can't go as fast as a car and I certainly won't win out in a contest. I believe that roads were built first for cars and trucks, then for other things.
please opine.

www.southernblades.com

First of all in most states the law is a cyclists is allowed one half of one lane on any road, street, county or state highway where there is not a minimum posted speed limit. Then it is suggested that cyclists should right as far to the right as is safely possible.

Second, you are wrong is stating that roads were built for cars & trucks first.
Improved roads were originally built for bicycles, if you can believe that. Look at the history of the League American Wheelmen, now called the League of American Bicyclists. Plus roads are built for all legal traffic, which includes bicycles.

Now with that said, yes some cyclists can be considered "bad apples" like the ones you mentioned. And unfortunatley they spoil it for the rest of us. They are the reason legislation is adopted and passed against cyclists.

You want to do something positive about it, here's how:

1. Don't make comments like roads are built forst for cars and trucks, that will only cause trouble for you amongst your fellow cyclists.

2. Join the League of American Bicyclists, they are a great resource for national advocacy and information on the issues you have brought up here.

3. After you join the LAB join a local bicycle advocay group if one is available.

4. If a local advocacy group is not available then form one of your own. It is not that difficult. Here's how:

4A. All it takes is one phone call to start with. All you need is one person's name and number that would be interested in helping you with this.

4B. After you talk to the first person, he or she will hopefully give you more names and numbers and maybe you can think of more yourself.

4C. Call everyone else on the list. It is good to have about 8 to 12 people to start with.

4D. After you have those who agree to join you lined up then plan for your first meeting.

4E. On the LAB's web site there are instructions on how to organize a local advocacy group after you have the group of people willing to do so. Read and follow the instructions. Because you will need a 501(c)3 status, Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws.

4F. It is a great idea to have at least one attorney and accountant as part of your group, they can help the 501(c)3 status, articles & by-laws.

4G. It is a good idea to have as much stucture as possible in your group, pres, VP, treasurer, etc.

One focus that your group should definatley have is education, for both cyclists and motorists.

Good luck.

What's wrong with this picture? That combination is simply unacceptable from a design and safety standpoint. The road engineers have several options:


Yeah, when you live in an area that was founded in the 1600s you have a LOT of those roads around. Old horse and buggy trails with properties coming down right to the road (and quite often houses right there). It was all they could do to barely squeeze two lanes in when they paved them into roads.

Might be wrong though about the 45 mph, might have been 35. Hard to remember. But even if it was 25 (which it definitely wasn't) a bike would be holding up traffic majorly.

Ah, Philly. I drove there once, in '99. Good thing I didn't have another coat of paint on the car, or it wouldn't have made it down some of those streets.

Again, that's the problem. Planners thinking they can turn horse-and-buggy trails into 45-MPH (or even 35-MPH) thoroughfares. At 12 MPH, you're going faster than the vehicles that originally used that space. These roads were made for non-motor vehicles before they were made for motor vehicles.

When a school bus stops to let out kids, is it "holding up" traffic? No, it is traffic. Traffic isn't defined by the fastest thing that can hurtle down a given thoroughfare, it's defined by what the thoroughfare can safely carry at the moment. The fastest just happen to wield the most power in this day and age (backed by some of the most powerful lobbies), but they don't set the standard for what "is" traffic vs. what is "holding up" traffic. When cars going the speed limit prevent me from using a thoroughfare safely, they're "holding up" traffic (namely, me), in that I can't use it.

No, I'm a statistician and bikes stop faster 78% of the time.

No, you are a troll, and trolls NEVER stop!

What I think gets in motorist crow...They see us moving and they can't..I just came on a errand from town on my bike..Traffic was backed up probably 3/4 of a mile at rush hour..
In fact, I once rememeber...Traffic was backed up for road construction..The bike lane was not.I moved ahead of the blockage... When I got to the construction spot there were traffic cops moving cars. Some silly young high school looking girls yelled to the cop..About me . "You are not going to let him get through, are you." It was summer all windows were down...
Guess they were kidding...I was kidding too. It was a pickup truck... I kidded to them.. "I am so sorry your truck won't fit through the bike lane."
Kidding aside, I think this is a portion of their rage..They can't move, so why should anyone else... Sorry, get a bike.

I'm a biker myself...

Many bikers are seem so rude and thoughtless. They ride in the middle of the road holding up traffic with their expensive bikes going 20 MPH in a 30 or 40 zone.

Personally, I don't do this. I pull over to allow cars to go by and I even stop to give them the right of way.
Widmn,

I respect your right to your opinion. But I disagree with the thrust of your original post for the simple reason that I believe, however sincere and well-meaning you are in your assertions, that your inexperience in cycling is made
clear by your wording.

You say, "Personally, I don't do this. I pull over to allow cars to go by and I even stop to give them the right of way." Yes, there are times a cyclist should pull over and let motorists pass, if the cyclist is indeed preventing motor traffic from passing for a prolonged period. This is the law, as I understand it (in Georgia.)

But in my personal experience riding in Atlanta rush hour traffic while I commute to work 28 miles round trip from the suburbs (Atlanta is known by some as one of the most bicycle-unfriendly cities in America, though I would challenge that,)
I have only found it necessary to pull over and let motor traffic pass in one instance: when a large bus or truck gets stuck behind me. This is very rare, since these drivers are usually very skilled and know how to navigate city traffic better than most motorists.

So you see, I can't relate to your statement, "I pull over to allow cars to go by" and the rest of the sentence, "and I even stop to give them the right of way" points to your lack of knowledge about right-of-way; as a cyclist, you are a vehicle and therefore have the right-of-way over any passing motorist. Overtaking vehicles must always yield right-of-way before attempting to pass.

But I don't mean this as a personal attack, I just want you to know that I don't agree with your post for the above stated reasons.

I hope you continue to ride your bike with enjoyment and I commend you on your willingness to work with motor traffic, even if you are riding with an excessive degree of timidity. I would suggest you learn more about how to assert yourself in traffic, since any other stance might turn out to be dangerous for you.

As for those who say you are a "troll," that cannot be determined by your status as a relatively new member. Perhaps if you stay on and become a part of the BikeForums discussions in months to come, people will get to know you and realize you are not a "troll."

:beer:

What I think gets in motorist crow...They see us moving and they can't..I just came on a errand from town on my bike..Traffic was backed up probably 3/4 of a mile at rush hour..

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a more ironic name than "rush hour".

No, you are a troll, and trolls NEVER stop!

Yes, that would appear to be the case. Can I just ask that people use the ignore feature in such circumstances?

If you have the right of way, don't ever give it up.

I believe doing something unexpected causes more accidents, bicycling and motor vehicle, than anything else besides DUI.

Scott

Case in point.

It is all too common here, when trying to make a left turn across two lanes of traffic going the same direction, for someone in the lane nearest you to stop and wave you to cross in front of them. What they fail to notice is that you, making the left turn, can not see what may be passing them on their right. Be nice, cause an accident!

O, and while your at it, get those traffic impeding farm tractors and Menonite horse drawn buggies off the roads. Boy they really slow down the traffic! ;)

Yes, many of us are determined cyclists. None the less, I feel I am curtious to those motorized fiends.. I respect those bigger than I, because they also have rights to the road and not all of them are spoiled brats..

I am not a timid rider, but I respect the weight and speed of cars. I know that their kiss can hurt alot. I find it safest to ride out in the street a bit more than some cyclists, and look and listen for cars coming from behind. When the drivers see me at some point out in "their lane", they slow down when approaching, and give me a wider berth, even after I've pulled in close to the curb. If it's not safe for me to pull over quickly, I ride as fast as I can, and pull over as soon as I can.

This is all about respect for them as well as for me. I think most motorists respect my pulling out of their way and don't mind the very brief delay. When I've ridden as close to the shoulder as I can, I've noticed cars pass at greater velocities and much closer to me. I'm too faint of heart for that! I don't even think a lot of drivers respect this.

Lastly, I think that it is important to have the motorists respect us, because they make the rules, with their vast numbers, in our precious democracies. Clearly what is right has little to do when "majority rules" if the majority perceives a spoke up their collective butt. So lets get out there and be friendly, smiling riders next to our polluting, less enlightened motor driven cousins. Of course, we shouldn't kowtow either, or they'll eat us alive!

OR, we could stage a world wide revolution and impose our rules on those immoral *******s. But this ain't for me; I might have some timidity after all.

I found in general most cyclist are not rude. The only place I ever rode where that was an issue was in Santa Barbara California (where I once lived). These bike jocks think their so special are literally snobbish! They refuse to wave at fellow riders, heck they won't even look at you, and they will not help anyone who has a problem. This was the only town that I ever rode in that acted like this. As far a clueless goes, depends on the individual, but not all are clueless. In fact usually I find that most are willing to exchange ideas to learn more.

At least that's been my experience.

When bikes are travelling at a slower than traffic pace speed they are then considered "slow moving vehicles" in Pennsylvania, and then must abide by that standard, which says that if they are uneccesarily holding up traffic they must attempt to let traffic pass in a safe manner. This is open to interpretation I believe, how long do you have to be holding up traffic before it becomes necessary to let them pass? Well I think a reasonable time is 10-15 seconds in my experience, anything other and the drivers get quite irritated and there is no use in that happening. This is also very apparent in central PA due to large numbers of amish and mennonites who commonly travel by horse and buggy, so drivers need to be aware of how the interactions between cars and other vehicles work and our job is to educate not infuriate. By all means take the lane and keep it when necessary but be considerate and give up the lane when necessary. Or have we forgotten the golden rule?

I am not a timid rider, but I respect the weight and speed of cars. I know that their kiss can hurt alot. I find it safest to ride out in the street a bit more than some cyclists, and look and listen for cars coming from behind. When the drivers see me at some point out in "their lane", they slow down when approaching, and give me a wider berth, DING-DING-DING; Don, tell 'im what he's won! This is a key factor many novice cyclists and non-cyclists don't get. They think it's safer to be "hugging the curb" so you're out of the way of car drivers. But along the curb is exactly where they are not likely to see you. Up to a reasonable point, the further away from the curb you are, the more noticeable you are to other traffic. Motorists may not like having to slow down for you or give you the three feet to which you're entitled (well, that's how it reads in WI), but that's still better than not being seen and subsequently "coming out of nowhere".

When bikes are travelling at a slower than traffic pace speed they are then considered "slow moving vehicles" in Pennsylvania, and then must abide by that standard, which says that if they are uneccesarily holding up traffic they must attempt to let traffic pass in a safe manner. This is open to interpretation I believe... I can just imagine. When a thousand cars create a traffic jam on a Philly freeway, are they "unnecessarily holding up traffic", and must they let the next person hurtling at full speed toward the tail end of said traffic jam "pass in a safe manner"? Since when is it "unnecessary" for me to operate my vehicle at a speed at which I'm physically capable of doing so? To paraphrase Ah-nold, that language has got "rloopholes big enoff to dlrive my Hummah thlrough!"

I can just imagine. When a thousand cars create a traffic jam on a Philly freeway, are they "unnecessarily holding up traffic", and must they let the next person hurtling at full speed toward the tail end of said traffic jam "pass in a safe manner"? Since when is it "unnecessary" for me to operate my vehicle at a speed at which I'm physically capable of doing so? To paraphrase Ah-nold, that language has got "rloopholes big enoff to dlrive my Hummah thlrough!"

That made no sense. If there is a line of traffic then you are by definition, not holding up traffic. If traffic is clear for miles ahead of you and backed up behind you, then you are holding up traffic, whether you are on a bike, on a tractor or in a car.

This is not that complicated, folks.

DING-DING-DING; Don, tell 'im what he's won! This is a key factor many novice cyclists and non-cyclists don't get. They think it's safer to be "hugging the curb" so you're out of the way of car drivers. But along the curb is exactly where they are not likely to see you. Up to a reasonable point, the further away from the curb you are, the more noticeable you are to other traffic. Motorists may not like having to slow down for you or give you the three feet to which you're entitled (well, that's how it reads in WI), but that's still better than not being seen and subsequently "coming out of nowhere".



Well I don't think anyone has said hug the curb at any point. On a road with a decent shoulder and a white line, I ride just to the left of the white line. There is much less debris in the main lane of traffic and I can see people behind me (with my rear view mirror).

When a car approaches from the back, I glance frequently to see if they are moving to the left at all to give me some additional space. 99% of them do. Of the 1% who don't its often because an oncoming car makes it dangerous for them to do so. That is the situation where I move further to the right and often wave the car by. They are so stunned in many cases that I even knew they were there!

As I said many posts ago, if it looks like all 3 of us are gonna be at the same point at the same time, it is a piece of cake to speed up a bit or brake a bit to make sure it doesn't happen. I realize for some people this is a horrid unilateral surrender of their roadway sovereignity (perhaps they can take their case to the UN Security council...I notice Kofi Annan rides his bike on Manhattans' East Side all the time) but for me it is courtesy, to say the least.

If the road is a lousy, narrow road...no white line, a dangerous ragged drop to a dirty shoulder, well then yes..I get out right in the middle of my lane (and pick up the pace, noticeably [I am a very slow rider]) and scoot along as fast as I can until the situation improves. If the situation isn't going to improve and the folks behind me are discovering the joys of riding at 15 mph behind me, I skedaddle off the road for a minute and let them all pass.

And I place the blame on the inadequate road...not on people who have the misfortune of driving on it.

Pretty simple to me.

roughstuff

When bikes are travelling at a slower than traffic pace speed they are then considered "slow moving vehicles" in Pennsylvania, and then must abide by that standard, which says that if they are uneccesarily holding up traffic they must attempt to let traffic pass in a safe manner.

This is also very apparent in central PA due to large numbers of amish and mennonites who commonly travel by horse and buggy...
There are many types of vehicles that are capable of holding up traffic--tractors, buses, utility vehicles and so forth. But the bicycle is much different because it is very narrow and allows a) much greater visibility for drivers behind them and b) a much better opportunity for other vehicles to pass. Not only can bicycles be passed with much more room to spare, but drivers can see exactly when it's safe to do so, unlike buses and trucks, which block all visibility. Therefore, of all slow-moving vehicles, bicycles are the least likely to hold up traffic if operated properly.

Which brings me to my point: bicycles are the easiest, safest vehicles to pass and leave much more room to do so, yet they are the only vehicles expected to leave the lane completely to let traffic pass. All other slow-moving vehicles might pull over as far as possible, but they are never expected to hop up on the sidewalk. This is absurd and reflects the basic ignorance that those who have drafted traffic law have when it comes to bicycles and their operation.

But of course, as I've said before, most drivers find it extremely easy to pass me. But since there are already laws in place to deal with impeding traffic, no bicycle-specific laws are needed. In fact, this law might actually do more harm than good and put more people in harm's way.

Well I don't think anyone has said hug the curb at any point. On a road with a decent shoulder and a white line, I ride just to the left of the white line. There is much less debris in the main lane of traffic and I can see people behind me (with my rear view mirror).

When a car approaches from the back, I glance frequently to see if they are moving to the left at all to give me some additional space. 99% of them do. Of the 1% who don't its often because an oncoming car makes it dangerous for them to do so. That is the situation where I move further to the right and often wave the car by. They are so stunned in many cases that I even knew they were there!

As I said many posts ago, if it looks like all 3 of us are gonna be at the same point at the same time, it is a piece of cake to speed up a bit or brake a bit to make sure it doesn't happen. I realize for some people this is a horrid unilateral surrender of their roadway sovereignity (perhaps they can take their case to the UN Security council...I notice Kofi Annan rides his bike on Manhattans' East Side all the time) but for me it is courtesy, to say the least.

If the road is a lousy, narrow road...no white line, a dangerous ragged drop to a dirty shoulder, well then yes..I get out right in the middle of my lane (and pick up the pace, noticeably [I am a very slow rider]) and scoot along as fast as I can until the situation improves. If the situation isn't going to improve and the folks behind me are discovering the joys of riding at 15 mph behind me, I skedaddle off the road for a minute and let them all pass.

And I place the blame on the inadequate road...not on people who have the misfortune of driving on it.

Pretty simple to me.

roughstuff

the law says we are entitled to as much road as we need.
I am curtious and do not exceed that but many unknowing or bratty motorists don't know or don't care. Where there is no white line, the curb is often filled with debris, rough, or too soft with sand, etc.
Some riding advocates groups say you should not necessarily ride to the extreme right...Let the motorists have their way they would put up on the dirt or grass.

the law says we are entitled to as much road as we need.
My safety comes first. Convenience of passing motorists doesn't even come close in importance.

When bikes are travelling at a slower than traffic pace speed they are then considered "slow moving vehicles" in Pennsylvania, and then must abide by that standard, which says that if they are uneccesarily holding up traffic they must attempt to let traffic pass in a safe manner. This is open to interpretation I believe


In California, I believe, the rule is stated as law. If there are three vehicles that are trailing a driver, one needs to pull over and let the group pass, as soon as it's safe. Unfortunately, there are many bicylists and motorists who either don't know about this rule, or don't care.

I think that I would make a lot of people upset if I rode this way in the city. It would be needless and rude.

That made no sense. If there is a line of traffic then you are by definition, not holding up traffic. If traffic is clear for miles ahead of you and backed up behind you, then you are holding up traffic, whether you are on a bike, on a tractor or in a car. But that "line of traffic" didn't appear out of nowhere. Somewhere at the front of that "line" is someone or something causing it to form. It may be the sheer number of vehicles causing the "line of traffic" to form. In any event, whatever the cause, it is not seen as "holding up traffic", because it is an inherent part of the whole phenomenon of traffic. So are tractors. So are bicycles. So are pedestrians crossing. They are as much a part of traffic as a car going the speed limit.

If, as a bicyclist, I can't use a road lane simply because the road wasn't designed to allow people to pass without me pulling off and stopping, then I am the traffic that's being held up. One might lamely attempt to argue that in that situation, the cyclist's right of way doesn't count for as much, because there are more car drivers than cyclists. Why should one cyclist be allowed to "hold up" fifty cars?

That's a specious argument at best, based primarily on a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are more cars than bicycles on the road in great part because cars' right-of-way is respected much more than cyclists' right-of-way. Moreover, rights don't operate by majority rule. One pedestrian doesn't have to wait for fifty cars to pass before crossing in a crosswalk. When s/he steps off the curb, all fifty approaching cars are required by law to yield.

This whole notion that a line of cars is somehow a more legitimate reason for traffic to slow down than a single bicycle comes from that conventional, but mistaken notion that cars are the "primary" users of roads (and the "primary" reason for their existence. As has been stated (or was that in another thread?), history tells us otherwise. So do the uniform vehicle codes in all fifty states.

Most modern lanes are wide enough to allow motorists to pass cyclists without even crossing into the next lane. Cyclists holding up traffic is a non-issue. As some (including me) have stated correctly, many things hold up traffic.

For example, when a black-and-white (old terminology) has a motorist pulled over for any reason on the freeway, rubbernecking goofballs just can't resist slowing down and looking at the guy who got a ticket.

Get over it, move along. But, noooooo! I just have to seeeeeee!

This affects traffic sometimes for miles, making people crawl for an extra 5 or 10 minutes before they pass the "emergency" :eek: and see for themselves it was all about absolutely nothing. Magically, traffic picks up to the maximum within moments of passing the blue lights.

I ask the intelligent among us: what laws govern "rubbernecking" and if there are any, when are they enforced?

N-e-v-e-r. And why is this? Because you would have to arrest the whole freeway. Cyclists are just outnubered, that's all there is to it.

Plain and simple: the reason cyclists are singled out by the law and intimidated is because they are not viewed as legitimate road users. Period.

What humor!! When cars and cyclists interact on the road, the main theme usually is that we are within our rights under the law, and we never give them up. When a topic involves interaction between cyclists and pedestrians, the main theme seems to be that pedestrians need to learn to "share". The pedestrians have the same priority right of way over cyclists as we have over cars when they are where they are allowed to walk by law. I believe one member correctly stated that the originator of this topic was an inexperienced cyclist. If we didn't go over topics that had been discussed before, this forum might not have any new topics. I ride where I'm allowed, but I won't be so obstinate that I become a hood ornament for some idiot that's not paying attention.

In California, I believe, the rule is stated as law. If there are three vehicles that are trailing a driver, one needs to pull over and let the group pass, as soon as it's safe. Unfortunately, there are many bicylists and motorists who either don't know about this rule, or don't care.

I think that I would make a lot of people upset if I rode this way in the city. It would be needless and rude.

Without doing a long search, the CHP told some of us sailors returning from overseas that it was 5 vehicles.

Why should the cyclist have to pull over and stop? Why not the cars? .

If you are slower than traffic you are to yeild to traffic so a car or bike slower than traffic is to pull over as soon as it is safe to do so. I know its the law down there I do a lot of riding in the area.

Whew, heated stuff.

If cyclists are expected to follow the same rules of the road as motorists, then they have a right to take up a lane. If the speedlimit is 30 mph, and a cyclist is in front of a car riding 15-20 mph, the cyclist should not be expected to give credence to the motorist behind him/her just to let the car by. It comes down to sharing the road. Many motorists hold up auto traffic by driving slow for various reasons. They aren't expected to pull off the road, and let traffic pass. Many urban areas have gridlock during rush hour where traffic literally crawls! The ideaology that cyclists should pull over and let motorists pass, holds cyclists to one standard, and motorists to another.

As for holding up ambulances, firetrucks, etc. Look at all the motorists who don't even stop when an EV approaches. Most people will hear the EV when it's far enough away to be able to pull over, but they don't. They try to keep driving as long as possible, until the EV is almost upon them. Most of the ones who stop don't pull over, they just stop in the lane they are driving in. Everyone doesn't have to move to the far right lane, but everyone should try and evacuate the left most lane allowing clear passage of the EV. Most times these EV's will find it necessary to utilize the median strip, to circumvent their blocked route.

It sounds like you're asking for sympathy for the motorist, for having to reduce speed due to a cyclist riding ahead. What about the cyclists who are obeying the rules of the road, and yet getting killed by motorists? Go tell their families that if they had gotten off the road and let traffic by, they would still be alive today. When a bike, and car collide, the cyclist always loses. For this reason alone, motorists need to realize they have a responsibilty to be extra cautious when sharing the road with cyclists.

Roughstuff, My point exactly. You are a defensive good rider IMHO. A secondary vehicle who realizes that bikes are more manueverable and can stop quicker than cars. You are not who I am talking about. Its the 25 club guys Lance A.'s all in formation going 15 or 20mph who block traffic forever who are the problem for all bikers.


Before I got back into biking, the occaisional biker never bugged me...but this behavior does. I usually make a comment along the lines of "single file guys, we have rights to the road too" as i'm passing or something similar.

I have also seen some seriously rude cyclists. One a-hole was riding on the sidewalk be SJSU (normal, I do that myself too, since you WILL get hit by cars in the street, no IFs about it). Well, he didn't stop for pedestrians, he just plowed right past them while calling them chickensuckers and f---ts. This kind of crap doesn't help things at all. I made my own comment back "This is a WALKway, not a bikeway, and cut the language". Needless to say he turns around and starts cussing me out. This is just cracking me up, I couldn't help but laugh at him. Basically he just got real red in teh face and started screaming at me...he was a crap talker in it's purest form...the best part was he got all mad and called me some rather unique things and turned ot take off...he messed up and endoed into the sidewalk where a pedestrian called him an a-hole and told him to watch where he was going...he turned pale in teh face and quietly rode off :D

Definately some people need to lay off the crackpipe and understand that we are not kings of the sidewalk and road. We have rights to use the road only. In the SJSU area, police allow sidewalk riding since that area is very high traffic and if you don't accidents will happen...BUT, you can ride around all that and avoid it altogether, so that is really a moot point. I still do it, but I am very courteous to everyone around me...I won't call "on your left" or try to make close passes around anyone unless they invite me to...I will coast at 1-2mph, slightly wobbly sometimes, just because it IS their path, and I have no right to obligate them to anyhting. On the other hand, I have had some very strange gestures of kindness as well. Some people holding hte light rail doors open for me if i'm about to miss it, etc. Guess the karma does work :)

Really, we just need to chill out. Many drivers are safe, the few that aren't concern me, but I've been good at avoiding them. I had one collision this year (prick flew through a red light and got my back wheel...at least he offered me $80 to replace my back wheel and some extra. In truth the bike I had at that time was worth less than what he gave me, so it was all good there. I did have a sore ankle all week, but no biggie. I also had a near collision where sme guy ignored that i was crossing hte street (by SJSU), and nearly rammed into me...nevermind he was going nearly 30mph around that turn (tire marks like that do not happen form going anywhee near a safe speed)...fortunately I saw him and turned out of his way....of course that guy had to be macho and lay more rubber right after I got out of his way, as well as chucked a cup of soda at me...oh well, went home, washed my bike in the morning...life goes on.

It's jsut those few drivers that seem to think that bikes have no place in the road that are hte dangerous ones. Truh is bicycles ARE valid means of transit...what's really funny is going home on my bike is only twice hte time of using a car, but still faster than light rail...go figure i'm faster than MOTORIZED public transit using a mountain bike...a heavy one at that.

Either way, just wear a helmet, have tons of good lighting, and have proper gear for emergencies (cell phone, tools, bandages & gauze, etc). I agree biking is far safer than driving a car, it's just not seen as very safe by the common joe.

Like bad milk man check the dates

danrit, heh got caried away with reading these...i'll let em die in peace now :p

[QUOTE=ChezJfrey]Personally, I'll hold up as many autos as I please if the road warrants it. If I can stand getting to my destination at a speed of 18-20mph, so can everyone else - they'll just have to wait. Everyone behind me should have left earlier, or taken a different route.

This is a childish and petty attitude. It is also not without the bounds of possibility that it will one day backfire lethally.
Sometimes I do make it obvious where I'm going to go, like I'll slip directly behind traffic in a right turn and wait with everyone else, so they know I'm at that moment demanding to be taken seriously as another part of the traffic, but this is usually when it is a lot safer than hiding at the side and trying to sneak in. Being safe sometimes means shouting to everyone, "Hey" I'm here". But to do this in a situation where you will definitely hold up traffic for a significant amount of time is no more excusable than a motorist pressuring a cyclist off the road because he's in a hurry. I'm beginning to sense a split within the contributors of this site, not to mention a certain repetitivity of thread. Let's get creative guys.

I'm beginning to sense a split within the contributors of this site, not to mention a certain repetitivity of thread. Let's get creative guys.

It might help if old threads were allowed to die their natural death, as this one should have months ago. Thread closed.