Advocacy & Safety - Self preservation? Are perceived rights more important?

Don't get the subject line get you going. I really want to know the the thoughts of hardcore bicycle riders.

I’m 53 years old. I rode my first bike in the late 50’s. I’m not a current avid bike rider but I do own one and ride it on a semi-regular basis. I’ve owned bicycles for at least 45 years.

I’m more of a motorcycle guy so I rarely have problems riding next to bicyclists. Your side of the lane is yours. My side of the lane is mine. Occasionally I come across the person that gives me crap for passing them in their lane, but it’s legal. And if you want me to come up with the RCW, I can. I’ve read it. I’ve ridden by cops on the highway with my buddy in the same lane, right next to me.

Today, on Harbor Avenue, (Alki area) I came across about a dozen bicyclists, all riding two abreast, holding up a line of about 10 cars. It’s a two lane road. You can’t pass with oncoming traffic. The bicycles in the left side of the lane were in the middle of the lane and didn’t seem to care how many cars were behind them.

Why is it that a lot of bicyclists seem to think that it acceptable to travel at 12 miles an hour no matter how many vehicles are lined up behind them? The speed limit is 30 miles an hour, for Christ sake. Is it really acceptable, to block traffic, no matter how you interpret the law?

A substantial portion of that pavement is paid for by taxes levied at the gas pump. For those of you that rarely drive a motor vehicle, those roads are paid for by me. Bicyclists are suppose to obey the same laws as motor vehicles. But day after day I see bicyclists ignoring traffic laws that would get me a $100 fine if I were caught doing the same thing on my motorcycle. Running stop lights. Holding up traffic. In the street and on the sidewalk, when it’s convenient. Etc.

There was an incident (not really an incident, but more of an occurrence) that happened a couple of years ago, that I’ve never really gotten over. I witnessed a bicyclist, with a “child hauling” trailer attached (with a child inside) traveling on Alki Avenue, in heavy traffic, when the 10’ wide bike path was completely void of traffic.

Why?

Educate me.

Jordon

Don't get the subject line get you going. I really want to know the the thoughts of hardcore bicycle riders.

I’m 53 years old. I rode my first bike in the late 50’s. I’m not a current avid bike rider but I do own one and ride it on a semi-regular basis. I’ve owned bicycles for at least 45 years.

I’m more of a motorcycle guy so I rarely have problems riding next to bicyclists. Your side of the lane is yours. My side of the lane is mine. Occasionally I come across the person that gives me crap for passing them in their lane, but it’s legal. And if you want me to come up with the RCW, I can. I’ve read it. I’ve ridden by cops on the highway with my buddy in the same lane, right next to me.
I agree with your take on the lane-sharing; I have no problem sharing the lane with another two-wheeler, as they NEVER yell, "Get off the f'n road!"
Today, on Harbor Avenue, (Alki area) I came across about a dozen bicyclists, all riding two abreast, holding up a line of about 10 cars. It’s a two lane road. You can’t pass with oncoming traffic. The bicycles in the left side of the lane were in the middle of the lane and didn’t seem to care how many cars were behind them.
Once again, I see your point; most regions of the country require a single-file action when traffic is heavier, like this case.
Why is it that a lot of bicyclists seem to think that it acceptable to travel at 12 miles an hour no matter how many vehicles are lined up behind them? The speed limit is 30 miles an hour, for Christ sake. Is it really acceptable, to block traffic, no matter how you interpret the law?
Here is where I have the first problem with your post; the speed limit is just that -- a limit. It is NOT a minimum requirement! As far as blocking traffic, in the US, cyclists have ALL the same rights to the road as drivers. Traffic doesn't block traffic. The bottom line is to SHARE THE ROAD.
A substantial portion of that pavement is paid for by taxes levied at the gas pump. For those of you that rarely drive a motor vehicle, those roads are paid for by me. Bicyclists are suppose to obey the same laws as motor vehicles. But day after day I see bicyclists ignoring traffic laws that would get me a $100 fine if I were caught doing the same thing on my motorcycle. Running stop lights. Holding up traffic. In the street and on the sidewalk, when it’s convenient. Etc.
Sorry -- irrelevant. Tax burden has NO IMPACT on right to the road. And the classic 'running red lights/stop signs/jumping the curb/scofflaws' argument holds no water, as a significant portion of drivers are equally as guilty. You must BE correct to correct someone else. Lastly, your gas taxes don't go directly to that purpose...not enough revenue that way. It HELPS, but that's all. So put that argument away, please.
There was an incident (not really an incident, but more of an occurrence) that happened a couple of years ago, that I’ve never really gotten over. I witnessed a bicyclist, with a “child hauling” trailer attached (with a child inside) traveling on Alki Avenue, in heavy traffic, when the 10’ wide bike path was completely void of traffic.

Why?
Unless the local law requires that he use that path, he has the right to do so. And it's not suicidally stupid to do so, either.
Educate me.
Glad to. NOBODY has absolute, or even preferential, right to the road over someone else. Since we have to share the planet, and the roads are part of the planet, we must also share the road. I will respect your right to drive on the roads, and I expect you to respect my right to cycle there. We get along that way. That's kinda what 'civilized society' is built on.
Jordon

Just read between the lines....

Bicyclists are suppose to obey the same laws as motor vehicles. But day after day I see bicyclists ignoring traffic laws that would get me a $100 fine if I were caught doing the same thing on my motorcycle. Running stop lights. Holding up traffic. In the street and on the sidewalk, when it’s convenient. Etc.


In some jurisdictions, bicycles can ride on the sidewalk just as often as they can ride on the road. I live in one of them, and I ride wherever I feel I get the best combination of speed and safety. Most of the time, that's the MUP or sidewalk. Occasionally, it's the road.

And for the record, the mores you described are universal tactics among many car and motorcycle drivers--running stops, holding traffic, and using unauthorized lanes when convenient. I wouldn't be so quick to state cyclists are somehow unique in being unpunished for these transgressions.

Why is it that a lot of bicyclists seem to think that it acceptable to travel at 12 miles an hour no matter how many vehicles are lined up behind them? The speed limit is 30 miles an hour, for Christ sake. Is it really acceptable, to block traffic, no matter how you interpret the law?


Yes, it is really acceptable. Maybe not to you, but as far as the law is concerned it is. End of story.

Speed limits are UPPER limits, by the way. Not lower limits. Not averages. Anything below the speed limit is perfectly fine, unless there's a posted minimum.

A substantial portion of that pavement is paid for by taxes levied at the gas pump. For those of you that rarely drive a motor vehicle, those roads are paid for by me.

Educate me.

Oh God. You asked for it.

I'm going to bookmark this one. Might even keep me away from the Olympics a bit!

The A&S regulars pride themselves at education. I'm fairly new here. Just gonna go pop some corn, sit back, and enjoy.

Don't get the subject line get you going. I really want to know the the thoughts of hardcore bicycle riders.

I’m 53 years old. I rode my first bike in the late 50’s. I’m not a current avid bike rider but I do own one and ride it on a semi-regular basis. I’ve owned bicycles for at least 45 years.

I’m more of a motorcycle guy so I rarely have problems riding next to bicyclists.

A substantial portion of that pavement is paid for by taxes levied at the gas pump. For those of you that rarely drive a motor vehicle, those roads are paid for by me.

Jordon


We just about share the same bio, right down to me being a motorcycle kind of guy too, except I've been car free for the last 10 years. :)


Since you mentioned one of my pet peeves, I thought I'd say a quick bit about it.

So many Americans are under this illusion that they pay taxes earmarked for specific things.Taxes collected go into a Federal "General Fund", even "Socialist Security" taxes. They are then allocated back out to the States, with a large portion left in D.C.

Combined State and Federal spending far exceeds even 100% of all of our "incomes", so they "deficit spend" with the "printing press" in our names, building an ever growing "National Debt" of epic proportions, that we, and a hundred coming generations, will never be able to pay off.

Anyway, I think it's easy to see where I'm going with this. We're pretty much tax slaves. I suspect the bicycle issue will work itself out when we're all on bikes.

All I know is, I go out of my way, not to obstruct "traffic" in my daily travels, even if I have to break some "statutes" to do it.

Running stop lights. Holding up traffic.

Aaaaaargh! Dag-nabbit. I just can't do it. I can't stop typing!

So what's it gonna be Jordan? You're gonna complain if I "hold you up" and you are gonna complain if I "run the reds" to stay the hell out of your way. So where does that leave me exactly?

Ding, ding, ding....you guessed it! I am going to ride the way I feel safest at the moment. If it is possible to be polite/safe and let you go by in my lane, I will be happy to do so. The odds of you ever catching up to me are slim on a 30 mph road, because I run the hell out of every red light I can so you won't be inconvenienced. But should you catch up, I will most likely be tooling along at 23-25 mph, and you can get around me the best way you know how, because sir, I AM TRAFFIC! Not some obstruction for you to whine about.

Don't get the subject line get you going. I really want to know the the thoughts of hardcore bicycle riders.

I’m 53 years old. I rode my first bike in the late 50’s. I’m not a current avid bike rider but I do own one and ride it on a semi-regular basis. I’ve owned bicycles for at least 45 years.

I’m more of a motorcycle guy so I rarely have problems riding next to bicyclists. Your side of the lane is yours. My side of the lane is mine. Occasionally I come across the person that gives me crap for passing them in their lane, but it’s legal. And if you want me to come up with the RCW, I can. I’ve read it. I’ve ridden by cops on the highway with my buddy in the same lane, right next to me.

Today, on Harbor Avenue, (Alki area) I came across about a dozen bicyclists, all riding two abreast, holding up a line of about 10 cars. It’s a two lane road. You can’t pass with oncoming traffic. The bicycles in the left side of the lane were in the middle of the lane and didn’t seem to care how many cars were behind them.

Why is it that a lot of bicyclists seem to think that it acceptable to travel at 12 miles an hour no matter how many vehicles are lined up behind them? The speed limit is 30 miles an hour, for Christ sake. Is it really acceptable, to block traffic, no matter how you interpret the law?

A substantial portion of that pavement is paid for by taxes levied at the gas pump. For those of you that rarely drive a motor vehicle, those roads are paid for by me. Bicyclists are suppose to obey the same laws as motor vehicles. But day after day I see bicyclists ignoring traffic laws that would get me a $100 fine if I were caught doing the same thing on my motorcycle. Running stop lights. Holding up traffic. In the street and on the sidewalk, when it’s convenient. Etc.

There was an incident (not really an incident, but more of an occurrence) that happened a couple of years ago, that I’ve never really gotten over. I witnessed a bicyclist, with a “child hauling” trailer attached (with a child inside) traveling on Alki Avenue, in heavy traffic, when the 10’ wide bike path was completely void of traffic.

Why?

Educate me.

Jordon

Blah, blah, blah. "We are traffic." "Pot. Kettle. Black." etc., etc. Typical knee-jerk responses you'll get here. Share the planet => share the roads? Good grief ATAC.

So, Jordon, if that's your real name, here's the scoop:

The vast majority of bike transgressions (running a red light, not stopping at a stop sign), do nothing to inconvenience you, so try not to worry about them. Seriously. In fact, some of them help to get the cyclists out of your way. Be jealous, but not spiteful. And don't give me any lip about "But I saw a cyclists nearly cause a wreck..." That cyclist might be an idiot, but it hardly condemns all of my lycra-clad friends.

The tax thing is, as always, a red herring. If I gave the government $10/year to cover my wear and tear on the roads (on top of what I pay for property taxes, general taxes, etc., which also go to road maintenance), would you suddenly accept me on the roads? Think carefully before you answer.

Finally, the one place you might get sympathy is when riders ride two-abreast, slower than traffic (motorized traffic for you "we are traffic" weenies). I hear this occasionally, with the implicit statement that if they were riding single file, you could squeeze by. The simple fact is that when there is oncoming traffic, it is safer for them to block you than it is for them to let you try to "shoot the gap".

OK, I'm done. For those who want to get irate with me for being snide, just remember that my moral superiority is superior to your moral superiority.

The simple fact is that when there is oncoming traffic, it is safer for them to block you than it is for them to let you try to "shoot the gap".


This is exactly the right explanation. A car driver trying to "shoot the gap", when faced with the scenario of a head on collision is more likely to come back into the lane & push the cyclist off the road rather than face down the chicken match.

I distinctly remember being explained the same thing in the Motorcycle Safety Foundation Beginner's Course a number of years ago as well. New motorcyclists often ride fairly slow & get tailgated by car drivers trying to pressure them into "making room." The proper response is to maintain a comfortable speed & take the entire lane, forcing the car driver to wait for a valid pass attempt rather than encouraging them to try one they can't make & kill the cyclist in the attempt.

Another question comes to mind too: What kind of sissy motorcycle are you riding that you can't find room to pass a group of cyclists going 12mph? :D

You mention Alki and Harbor Ave, so I'm guessing you're up here in Seattle. If cyclists are riding 2 across and blocking more than 5 cars behind them, then they're the ones in the wrong.

RCW 46.61.427:
On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

There's plenty of places on both those roads for a group to pull off and let traffic pass.

Another question comes to mind too: What kind of sissy motorcycle are you riding that you can't find room to pass a group of cyclists going 12mph? :D

I'm going to respond to several posts with this one, just because you called me a sissy. And for your information, it's a HD Road King.

Sissy? What happened last night was on a two lane road and oncoming cars were bumper to bumper. The bikes were not single file, they were two abreast, moving at 12 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. They left me about 6 feet of space between the left most riders and the center line. Sissy? You think it's safe for me to just go around them? I'm on a motorcycle. I could easily do it. When you're riding, what usually happens when you look over your left shoulder? You start to wander to the left.

Look. I've got no problem sharing the road if bicyclists do the same. It's hogging the road I have a problem with. Traffic in this city is bad enough but when bicyclists compound the problem by slowing traffic to a 3rd of the speed limit, when they could easily let traffic by, well... it's no wonder some motorists get a little hot.

What I saw last night isn't an uncommon occurrence. I see it every day. Every day I drive beside a 5 mile long 10' wide asphalt bicycle path void of traffic when there's a few dozen Lance Armstrongs in the street. I just don't get it.

Here's something else to chew on. I bet you're not too pleased with skyrocketing price of everything in the stores. All that stuff gets delivered by trucks (big wide trucks) and many of those trucks are paying a dollar per mile for diesel fuel. And you're all right with slowing them down to 12 miles per hour? Prices keep going up.

Everyone is saying that the laws are the same for both of us, and then say it's acceptable to run a red light so you can get out of a motorists way. What kind of sense does that make? If the laws apply equally, then the consequences for breaking them should also.

Like I said, I've got no problem sharing the road with bicycles. It's just baffling to me to see self preservation and common courtesy disappear when some people strap on a bicycle helmet.

--
Jordon

If a lane is too narrow for safe side-by-side sharing by an automobile and a bicyclist, then the bicyclist is correct not to cower against the curb. Four bicyclists bunched two-by-two are arguably easier to pass safely than a linear single-file string of cyclists.

I could argue, however, that the situation is different for motorcycle-bicycle side-by-side sharing, which probably can be done within a 12-foot lane. Bicyclists riding two-abreast to avoid being caught between a car and a curb presumably could/should tuck into a single paceline to let a motorcyclist pass, but what about all the cars behind that motorcyclist?

As Clifton pointed out, in Washington (and California and most other states, as far as I know), the slow vehicle law applies -- on any two-lane two-way street, slower traffic needs to permit 5 or more faster vehicles to pass where it is safe to do so.

Here's something else to chew on. I bet you're not too pleased with skyrocketing price of everything in the stores.

It pleases me greatly. Wasteful humans get pinched twice - once at the pump, then again everywhere else. Are they going to stop eating even though most in the USA are fat and lazy? No. They are going to be smarter about buying the next car (smaller, more room on the road for everyone) and drive much less (again, more room on the road for, well.....me on my bike).

Last time I filled my wife's Toyota Camry, I pumped in $50 for the first time. I wanted to lay down on the ground next to the pump and make snow angles I was so delighted (but it was July in Louisiana - no snow). I can't wait to pump $100 in there!



...common courtesy disappear when some people strap on a bicycle helmet.

Allow me to edit that:

...common courtesy disappears when some people turn on a motor vehicle.

There are a lot of jerks out there driving all sorts of things. Just part of the game.

If you check out this helmet cam video (http://www.vimeo.com/1191478), you will see what kinds of vehicles are mostly "in the way" driving below the posted speed limit. It's all a matter of perception.

<All you cyclist are a bunch of selfish $@*()$@#*() just like the one I saw that pushed my button so I had to create an account of bike forums and rant at y'all>


Regarding passing cyclists in a lane. If you are riding your HD Road King (interesting name given this conversation) in a lane and a semi truck passes you would you rather have it 12" from your left foot or in the next lane? As your looking in the mirror seeing it approach at 3x your speed would it be more comforting to see it shifting lanes or just keep barrelling down on you?
Now of course you'll never get passed being a motorcycle but perhaps you can try to think of it from a cyclists perspective for a second and see why hugging the curb might not be the secure place for them to ride.

There are a lot of jerks out there on the road using all kinds of transportation.

I don't even think people need to turn on the ignition. I think it starts when they keys are in their hands.

Sissy? What happened last night was on a two lane road and oncoming cars were bumper to bumper. The bikes were not single file, they were two abreast, moving at 12 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. They left me about 6 feet of space between the left most riders and the center line. Sissy? You think it's safe for me to just go around them? I'm on a motorcycle. I could easily do it. When you're riding, what usually happens when you look over your left shoulder? You start to wander to the left.

I agree with you on this point. Sharing the road means just that. If the cyclists are holding up traffic by riding two abreast in an area where they could safely allow traffic to pass them by riding single file and further to the right, then they should not be riding two abreast and should position themselves so that they are not impeding traffic. If they are in an area where it is not safe for them to ride further to the right to let traffic pass, however, then they have every right to use whatever part of the lane they need to make themselves safe, and the motor vehicle traffic behind them may pass when it is safe to do so.


What I saw last night isn't an uncommon occurrence. I see it every day. Every day I drive beside a 5 mile long 10' wide asphalt bicycle path void of traffic when there's a few dozen Lance Armstrongs in the street. I just don't get it.

If the law allowed you to ride your motorcycle on that 10' path, would you do so? Given the choice between riding in the street or riding on a path where you need to dodge pedestrians, pets, slower cyclists, unpredictable children, and turning cars whose drivers are not prepared to encounter a vehicle on the path traveling faster than a couple miles an hour, wouldn't you choose the street?

It's difficult to make generalizations since I am not familiar with the specific path that you're referring to. Is it a bike path specifically, or a multipurpose path? If a bike path exists and it is safe for me to use it, I often will. But at various points in my rides, I can travel between 25 and 35 MPH. In those instances, it is much safer for me, the pedestrians and the motor vehicle operators for me to ride in the street.


Here's something else to chew on. I bet you're not too pleased with skyrocketing price of everything in the stores. All that stuff gets delivered by trucks (big wide trucks) and many of those trucks are paying a dollar per mile for diesel fuel. And you're all right with slowing them down to 12 miles per hour? Prices keep going up.

Oh, please. What percentage of the increase prices of consumer goods do you think can actually be attributed to diesel trucks traveling more slowly because of cyclists on the road? :rolleyes: Traffic congestion plays a FAR greater role in slowing down those trucks. Why not take all of the cars--and motorcycles--off the road? Wouldn't that be even more effective?

Look. I've got no problem sharing the road if bicyclists do the same. It's hogging the road I have a problem with. Traffic in this city is bad enough but when bicyclists compound the problem by slowing traffic to a 3rd of the speed limit, when they could easily let traffic by, well... it's no wonder some motorists get a little hot.

Let them get hot. If they don't like it then they can use a smaller vehicle like a bicycle.

Gee I wonder who's hogging the road? Two bicycles riding side by side (probably with room for a third) or one car taking up the entire lane?

Holding up traffic.

http://12.152.111.66/joeybike/latraffic_dawn.jpg

Hmmm. Who is holding up traffic here?

Photo credit: http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1260

Look. I've got no problem sharing the road if bicyclists do the same. It's hogging the road I have a problem with. Traffic in this city is bad enough but when bicyclists compound the problem by slowing traffic to a 3rd of the speed limit, when they could easily let traffic by, well... it's no wonder some motorists get a little hot.

What I saw last night isn't an uncommon occurrence. I see it every day. Every day I drive beside a 5 mile long 10' wide asphalt bicycle path void of traffic when there's a few dozen Lance Armstrongs in the street. I just don't get it.

Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder concerning folks who like to ride at speeds greater than MUPs are designed for. Name calling certainly won't win you any respect from those of us who prefer to ride in the street and do so in a manner that keeps us safe and traffic still flowing, albeit not at the "super-rush-I-have-to-get-everywhere-as-fast-as-I-possibly-can-for-no-other-reason-than-the-fact-that-my-vehicle-can-reach-speeds-that-aren't-even-necessary-in-today's-world" manner that most people want to maintain.



Here's something else to chew on. I bet you're not too pleased with skyrocketing price of everything in the stores. All that stuff gets delivered by trucks (big wide trucks) and many of those trucks are paying a dollar per mile for diesel fuel. And you're all right with slowing them down to 12 miles per hour? Prices keep going up.

Here's another great big fat red herring. How many long-haul truckers do you have going down city streets that have a 35 MPH limit? Ask any long-hauler how many miles he drives off-freeway versus on. This has zero bearing on cycling in the street.


Everyone is saying that the laws are the same for both of us, and then say it's acceptable to run a red light so you can get out of a motorists way. What kind of sense does that make? If the laws apply equally, then the consequences for breaking them should also.

Safety is the number one priority on the road. Not the law. The laws are supposed to foster a safe environment - for cars. The application of current laws to the way roadways are designed and constructed these days often conflicts with the personal safety of cyclists. We are not going to change this by avoiding riding on the streets.



Like I said, I've got no problem sharing the road with bicycles. It's just baffling to me to see self preservation and common courtesy disappear when some people strap on a bicycle helmet.


It seems like you do have a problem sharing the road with cyclists. I don't see a single bit more common courtesy from people when they strap themselves into their motor vehicles. In fact I typically see much less.

A substantial portion of that pavement is paid for by taxes levied at the gas pump. For those of you that rarely drive a motor vehicle, those roads are paid for by me. Bicyclists are suppose to obey the same laws as motor vehicles. But day after day I see bicyclists ignoring traffic laws that would get me a $100 fine if I were caught doing the same thing on my motorcycle. Running stop lights. Holding up traffic. In the street and on the sidewalk, when it’s convenient. Etc.


Jordon[/QUOTE]

OK Jordan, this subject has come up a lot in the Seattle papers lately, so listen closely, the answer is, 1 dollar, per pound, per year, on all vehicles that use public roads. Thats fair right? As soon as that happens, I'm going to send in my 21 dollars, and then I'm going to use the road, and now it's my road too, so guess where I am going to be riding my bicycle, down the middle of my newly aquired road, all of the time, it's mine, mine, mine.

You mention Alki and Harbor Ave, so I'm guessing you're up here in Seattle. If cyclists are riding 2 across and blocking more than 5 cars behind them, then they're the ones in the wrong.

RCW 46.61.427:
On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

There's plenty of places on both those roads for a group to pull off and let traffic pass.

Yep. Here in Seattle. Not too long ago I watched a bicyclist on Harbor Ave in front of a city bus. Of course the bus isn't going pass and it had about 15 cars behind it, all going about 10 miles per hour. And the bike path, not more than 8 feet to his right, had very little traffic. I see this type of behavior every single day.

Look, I've been riding motorcycles all of my life and I know from a lot of experience that we (you on your bikes and me on my motorcycle) are very vulnerable to idiots on the road that are blind when it comes to two wheeled vehicles. When someone starts riding my rear fender, self preservation kicks in and I pull over. I don't want to die. I've had friends that have. I've come close. When I want to go the speed limit and the 10 cars behind me want to go faster, courtesy kicks in and I pull over. Is this really such a foreign concept to so many?

I'm sure that the experienced riders in this forum know exactly what I'm saying and I'd hazard to guess that they are not the ones I have a problem with. It's the guys that are fed up with the price of gas that have just gone out and bought their $2000 bike, after having not ridden since they were a kid, and think they're invincible.

--
Jordon

...the answer is, 1 dollar, per pound, per year, on all vehicles that use public roads. Thats fair right?

Fair? That's just freakin' awesome!

I figure I have about 150 pounds of bikes to tax. I can handle that.

Here's another great big fat red herring. How many long-haul truckers do you have going down city streets that have a 35 MPH limit? Ask any long-hauler how many miles he drives off-freeway versus on. This has zero bearing on cycling in the street.

Red herring you say? As a matter of fact I've got 50 of them right outside my door. Tractor trailer rigs that deliver everything that comes off the container ships in Elliot Bay to warehouses around the city. And most of them have a GVW of 98,000 pounds. If you live in Seattle there's a good chance that this company moved something that you own and we didn't have to get on the interstate to do it.

--
Jordon

Yep. Here in Seattle. Not too long ago I watched a bicyclist on Harbor Ave in front of a city bus. Of course the bus isn't going pass and it had about 15 cars behind it, all going about 10 miles per hour. And the bike path, not more than 8 feet to his right, had very little traffic. I see this type of behavior every single day.

Look, I've been riding motorcycles all of my life and I know from a lot of experience that we (you on your bikes and me on my motorcycle) are very vulnerable to idiots on the road that are blind when it comes to two wheeled vehicles. When someone starts riding my rear fender, self preservation kicks in and I pull over. I don't want to die. I've had friends that have. I've come close. When I want to go the speed limit and the 10 cars behind me want to go faster, courtesy kicks in and I pull over. Is this really such a foreign concept to so many?

I'm sure that the experienced riders in this forum know exactly what I'm saying and I'd hazard to guess that they are not the ones I have a problem with. It's the guys that are fed up with the price of gas that have just gone out and bought their $2000 bike, after having not ridden since they were a kid, and think they're invincible.


Wow, where can I buy a brush that broad? The implication that only experienced and smart riders think the way you do...the egotism is amazing.

Just because someone tries to intimidate you doesn't necessarily make it safer or legal for you to pull over. I, and most "experienced" cyclists, make the call as the situation arises. You may not like that from your point of view behind the wheel. But in the end, safety and logic should always trump impatient motorists, buses, trucks and yes, even the law itself if the law does not create the safe driving/riding conditions it is supposed to.

"Why is it that a lot of bicyclists seem to think that it acceptable to travel at 12 miles an hour no matter how many vehicles are lined up behind them? The speed limit is 30 miles an hour, for Christ sake. Is it really acceptable, to block traffic, no matter how you interpret the law?"

have to agree with you there.

that group isn't sharing the road at all. They should have been single file and broken into 2 or 3 groups so the cars could leap frog their way past on a stretch of road like that.

Our local bike club does the same thing and that's why I won't ride with them

I just don't believe in the critical mass philosophy. I think sharing the road is a two way street.

" perceived rights" ... Don't get the subject line get you going.
Too late. "perceived rights"??? The laws/rights for operating a bicycle on public roadways are no more "perceived" than the laws/rights for operating a motor vehicle on public roadways.

I came across about a dozen bicyclists, all riding two abreast, holding up a line of about 10 cars.. YOU are responsible for operating YOUR vehicle safely. Don't blame the person ahead of you for your inability to overtake safely. Wouldn't it be more logical to blame the person approaching from the opposite direction for your inability to overtake. Aren't they holding you up just as much?

The bicycles in the left side of the lane were in the middle of the lane and didn’t seem to care how many cars were behind them. The LAW (not your "perceived" law) states that a cyclist may take the lane if the cyclists deems it unsafe for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to pass each other within the same lane (narrow lane). Once that condition is meet, does it matter whether it's a single file rider or two abreast?? What would you rather have ... dozen single file riders or a dozen two abreast riders?? Which would be easier to overtake?? Think of the two abreast riders as doing you a favor.

Why is it that a lot of bicyclists seem to think that it acceptable to travel at 12 miles an hour ... The speed limit is 30 miles an hour
uuuuhhhh ... because it is ....
Some thing can be asked of motorists ... why do they think it's acceptable to drive 70mph in when the speed limit is 60mph??

Is it really acceptable, to block traffic? If you are going 12mph you are not blocked. If you are allowed to overtake when it is safe (don't blame the person ahead if you can't), you are not blocked. If you are stopped, doing 0 mph, and you can't get by, then your blocked.

A substantial portion of that pavement is paid for by taxes levied at the gas pump. Ok... even if this weren't a falsehood ... what's to say that the cyclist HASN'T bought any gas. I buy gas for my car and my lawn mower. Your telling me that the only way to use the road is if you pay gas taxes AND operate a vehicle that uses gas??? Your fruit looped.

those roads are paid for by me. And cyclists ... when they pay for gas, and sales tax, and property tax ... all these taxes end up on roadways


There was an incident (not really an incident, but more of an occurrence) that happened a couple of years ago, that I’ve never really gotten over. I witnessed a bicyclist, with a “child hauling” trailer attached (with a child inside) traveling on Alki Avenue, in heavy traffic, when the 10’ wide bike path was completely void of traffic.

Why?

Educate me.
Because the destination of the bike path and the destination of cyclist were not the same?
Because the bike path ended and the roadway didn't?
Because the bike path was neglected and unsafe?

Whens the last time you drove down the roadway with an adjacent side road?? why didn't you take the side road??

Ohhh ... one last thing.

Excellant troll factor !!

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet but I will. Roads are funded from many sources, only one of which is gasoline taxes. The majority of gasoline taxes go to fund interstate highway projects that cyclists do not use. Local roads, which is where most cyclists ride, are primarily funded by property, income, and sales taxes - all of which cyclists pay in the same amount as motorists.

As fare as taking lanes let me say this. Bike paths can be very dangerous. Dog walking pedestrians (their leashes often span the path and are difficult to see), suicidal squirrels (will send a cyclist over the bars if they get caught in your spokes) and paths that unexpectedly drop you off on the wrong side of the road facing oncoming traffic are all things that make riding on the street more safe than a bike path 90% of the time.

If a bike lane or bike path is properly designed for safety and ease of use, I'll use it. If not, I ride on the road. What is alongside the road - parked cars, side roads feeding into the road I'm on etc - will determine how far out I ride. If riding down the middle of the traffic lane is what I have to do in order to keep from being doored or having some idiot pull out in front of me, then that's what I'll do even if it blocks traffic.

The bottom line is that if my safety means you have to wait a few seconds to get around me, then you are going to have to wait a few seconds to get around me.

Today, on Harbor Avenue, (Alki area) I came across about a dozen bicyclists, all riding two abreast, holding up a line of about 10 cars. It’s a two lane road. You can’t pass with oncoming traffic. The bicycles in the left side of the lane were in the middle of the lane and didn’t seem to care how many cars were behind them.
First, cyclists take the lane because forcing a car go into the other lane to pass is safer. It causes a car to slow down, and check the other lane. When cars try to squeeze past bikes, sharing a lane, the closing speed is tremendous and can result in major bodily harm to the cyclist. Some jurisdictions mandate that cyclists cannot ride two abreast. If it's not illegal, I don't have a problem with it. Your legal obligation is to pass when it's safe and legal. If a farm truck were on the road in front of you, legally using the road, but going slowly, you would have the same obligation. Additionally, the general rule of thumb for many jurisdictions is that cyclists must stay as far to the right as safe and practicable as allows. Until you've put some mileage on a bike in traffic, you're not in a position to tell cyclists the safest way to use the roads.



Why is it that a lot of bicyclists seem to think that it acceptable to travel at 12 miles an hour no matter how many vehicles are lined up behind them? The speed limit is 30 miles an hour, for Christ sake. Is it really acceptable, to block traffic, no matter how you interpret the law?
Because there IS NO MINIMUM SPEED and you have 0 "right" to get anywhere as expeditiously as you personally feel the need. If you have to slow down for 30 seconds to a couple of minutes, live with it because unless you're a neurosurgeon on call or your name is Jack Bauer, that time out of your life isn't a catastrophe. Are you suggesting we should compromise our safety, so you can more expeditiously get on your way/where you're going? That expectation, my friend, is far less courteous than a bicyclist taking a lane and slowing you down.



A substantial portion of that pavement is paid for by taxes levied at the gas pump. For those of you that rarely drive a motor vehicle, those roads are paid for by me. Bicyclists are suppose to obey the same laws as motor vehicles. But day after day I see bicyclists ignoring traffic laws that would get me a $100 fine if I were caught doing the same thing on my motorcycle. Running stop lights. Holding up traffic. In the street and on the sidewalk, when it’s convenient. Etc.
Not true. General tax funds usually account for the overwhelming majority of pavement, not car-related ones. Regardless most cyclists also own cars and pay taxes for those cars even if they don't use them. Additionally a car produces far more wear and tear on a road than a bike. If you think road use taxes should be the determining right of use, I suggest you consider a tax based on motor vehicle mileage and/or weight of the vehicle. That would be fair.Stoplight issue is always brought up and it's ridiculous. If you think failure to obey the law ought to be a determining factor in a group's right to use publicly funded and owned facilities like roads, I suggest you spend half an hour with a radar gun. Cyclists are generally very aware of what's safe. They run stop signs when they can see no one is coming and or determine it's safe to do so. If a cyclist makes an error in that judgement it's more than likely that he alone will pay the price for it. If a car runs a light and hits someone he's more likely to cause substantial negative effects to someone else.



There was an incident (not really an incident, but more of an occurrence) that happened a couple of years ago, that I’ve never really gotten over. I witnessed a bicyclist, with a “child hauling” trailer attached (with a child inside) traveling on Alki Avenue, in heavy traffic, when the 10’ wide bike path was completely void of traffic.

Why?

Because multi use paths are often less safe, and less convenient to a cyclist and because unless there is a statute requiring use of said path, he has the right to choose where he wants to travel.

What you fundamentally seem to be missing here is that bikes are legal vehicles on the road, equal to cars, farm trucks and anything else. That they go slower, delay you, or that they (just like auto drivers) break the law sometimes is completely irrelevant. What you need to be educated about is that you are not superior; you are equal, and that your expectation to not have your speed impeded when another user is behaving in a safe and legal manner is what is actually inconsiderate.

The LAW (not your "perceived" law) states that a cyclist may take the lane if the cyclists deems it unsafe for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to pass each other within the same lane (narrow lane). Once that condition is meet, does it matter whether it's a single file rider or two abreast?? What would you rather have ... dozen single file riders or a dozen two abreast riders?? Which would be easier to overtake?? Think of the two abreast riders as doing you a favor.

If you are going 12mph you are not blocked. If you are allowed to overtake when it is safe (don't blame the person ahead if you can't), you are not blocked. If you are stopped, doing 0 mph, and you can't get by, then your blocked.

Maybe you missed it when I posted the exact text of the law regarding slow moving vehicles, and the definition:
As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

On a 35mph road where the usual flow of traffic moves at 40mph or greater (or even if it's congested and only moves at 20mph typically), a 12mph vehicle which refuses to pull over when backing up more than 5 vehicles certainly is blocking traffic.

I ride a Ducati and I can't stand these candy ass Harley riders that ride in a huge bunch going 25 miles an hour in a 50 mph zone as if they own the road. Then, on top of everything, when I blast past them on my Ducati, they want to pick a fight with me because they "got scared" by my pass.

Idiot Harley riders.

Because the destination of the bike path and the destination of cyclist were not the same?
Because the bike path ended and the roadway didn't?
Because the bike path was neglected and unsafe?


You're sure making a lot of assumptions. The course of this bike path and the course of that cyclist have to be the same. There are very few side roads and it's about 5 miles long, bordered on one side by Elliot Bay and Puget Sound. The bike path is in excellent condition. The cyclist had an infant in the trailer. The bike path was completely empty. This happened in the exact same place that I witnessed (just the week prior) a motor vehicle slam in to the rear of another stopped motor vehicle at 30 miles per hour.

Why would someone risk the life of their child when they don't have to?

--
Jordon

Why would someone risk the life of their child when they don't have to?

--
Jordon
Perhaps because the statistical likelihood of a kid being killed like that is far greater in a car than in a bike trailer?

That said, I wouldn't do it.

People are just lazy, dumb, and stupid. That's all.

DYour side of the lane is yours. My side of the lane is mine. Occasionally I come across the person that gives me crap for passing them in their lane, but it’s legal.

It's not in Arizona:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00903.htm

" B. The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken.

C. A person shall not operate a motorcycle between the lanes of traffic or between adjacent rows of vehicles."

I personally don't mind if motorcyclists pass me using the same lane and ride so as to let them when safe.

Al

Well Jordan, I am truely sorry you had a bad experience with cyclists, but you are not going to get much sympathy on this site. Fortunetly, two abrest is not that common of an occurance in town, and when you think about it, how much time did it really cost you? hakuna matada

You mention Alki and Harbor Ave, so I'm guessing you're up here in Seattle. If cyclists are riding 2 across and blocking more than 5 cars behind them, then they're the ones in the wrong.

RCW 46.61.427:
On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

There's plenty of places on both those roads for a group to pull off and let traffic pass.

Highways, not city streets.

Just for some perspective from someone else who lives in the Seattle area. Alki is a beach neighborhood, with probably thousands of people visiting it every day on the weekends. The path is a MUP that always has walkers, runners, rollerbladers and everything else you can imagine. Biking on the path is at most a 5-7mph experience to be safe near all the pedestrians. If you want to ride faster, you ride in the street. Oh, and cars are always holding up traffic along the road while they hope for a parking spot to open up for them along the road.

To the OP why on earth would you go down to Alki when you had anywhere to get to fast. It's pretty much a given that traffic on Alki and Harbor Ave. will be slow. It always is, bikers or not. You really picked a bad example to rant about cyclists.

You mention Alki and Harbor Ave, so I'm guessing you're up here in Seattle. If cyclists are riding 2 across and blocking more than 5 cars behind them, then they're the ones in the wrong.

RCW 46.61.427:
On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

There's plenty of places on both those roads for a group to pull off and let traffic pass.


Maybe you missed it when I posted the exact text of the law regarding slow moving vehicles, and the definition:
As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

On a 35mph road where the usual flow of traffic moves at 40mph or greater (or even if it's congested and only moves at 20mph typically), a 12mph vehicle which refuses to pull over when backing up more than 5 vehicles certainly is blocking traffic.

Maybe you missed it when you posted the exact text of the law regarding slow moving vehicles, and the phrase: "two-lane highway."

Highways, not city streets.

RCW 46.04.120
City street.

"City street" means every public highway, or part thereof located within the limits of cities and towns, except alleys.



Maybe you missed it when you posted the exact text of the law regarding slow moving vehicles, and the phrase: "two-lane highway."

For everyone disputing the law I posted and the use of the term "highway", you need to familiarize yourself with the definition of highway as it pertains to Washington traffic laws.

Highway means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.
--RCW 46.04.197

Harbor Ave SW and Alki Ave SW are 2 lane highways by this definition.

When I want to go the speed limit and the 10 cars behind me want to go faster, courtesy kicks in and I pull over. Is this really such a foreign concept to so many?

Point of order...I don't think courtesy means modifying your legal behavior so that someone else can break the law. I congratulate you on being one of the few motorists in the country who actually not only notice, but even attempt to obey posted speed limits...perhaps you should be proud of setting an example rather than cowering in face of those who do not have a similar respect for the law and their fellow users of the road.

Yes, in some cases cyclists, especially in groups, can have bad manners and not get out of your way to let you speed on your merry way (FYI speed limit is the upper bound, not the required speed). But the bottom line is one should only share the lane if there is room to safely do so. So in the case you are harping about, if the cyclists had gone to single file, but still maintained a safe distance from the gutter, would there have been room for cars to safely share the lane and pass them without crossing the lane line? (3ft of space is usually considered a safe distance between you and the cyclist you are passing...and figure 1-3 ft from the gutter is usually safe to avoid debris and sewer grates for the cyclist...so let's say you'd need to be 4-6 ft from the curb/shoulder...minimum.)

Yes, I know you were on a motorcycle and not in a car, but thing is...and you should know this...if those cyclists had given you room to pass them, every car behind you would have rushed to take advantage and tried to squeeze through themselves.

I'm not saying the cyclists were right or wrong in this case...you were there, I wasn't, which is why I am asking for further info.

Look. I've got no problem sharing the road if bicyclists do the same.

You have the same concept of sharing as my seven year old daughter.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt that you wanted to be "educated", but it's clear you just don't like bikes. Rationalize it all you want. I don't give a crap.

Drive safely.

Later.

I ride a Ducati and I can't stand these candy ass Harley riders that ride in a huge bunch going 25 miles an hour in a 50 mph zone as if they own the road. Then, on top of everything, when I blast past them on my Ducati, they want to pick a fight with me because they "got scared" by my pass.

Idiot Harley riders.

Fine machines, those Ducs. I've considered buying one myself but my riding tastes include traveling across multiple states and I'd just be to uncomfortable. And I can't afford two.

Do you get into fights often?

--
Jordon

Why would someone risk the life of their child when they don't have to?


What's the number of children deaths in auto accidents compared to children death's in bicycle accidents??? Without a source, I could say the same thing about someone who puts their child in an automobile. I don't hear you pointing out the risk of that!!

Well Jordan, I am truely sorry you had a bad experience with cyclists, but you are not going to get much sympathy on this site. Fortunetly, two abrest is not that common of an occurance in town, and when you think about it, how much time did it really cost you? hakuna matada

I know that I'd get exactly what I got. I'm a usenet veteran of 15 years and I can separate the wheat from the chaff. I appreciate the straight answers, ignore the militants and try to be as nice as I can without offending anyone. Sometimes I fail but I'm the first one to admit that I'm not perfect. I always re-read what I write 3 times before I hit the submit button. Sometimes I should read it a fourth time.

And you're right. What happened last night didn't really cost me much time at all.

--
Jordon

To the OP why on earth would you go down to Alki when you had anywhere to get to fast. It's pretty much a given that traffic on Alki and Harbor Ave. will be slow. It always is, bikers or not. You really picked a bad example to rant about cyclists.

Because I live there?

How else would you have me get out of there? Vehicle traffic is not always slow. The bike path is not always crowded. Often, especially when I go to work at 6:30 in the morning, the path is devoid of traffic. And I don't blame bicyclists for using the street when the path is crowded. I do the same thing myself... on a bicycle. But it does get very crowded on the weekends and weekday late afternoons and early evenings.

You obviously don't live in West Seattle.

--
Jordon

And you're right. What happened last night didn't really cost me much time at all.

--
Jordon

If that is the case (as it often is) why sweat it?

I'm a usenet veteran of 15 years and I can separate the wheat from the chaff.

Ahhh...USENET...before the SPAM started...those were the days...

Ahhh...USENET...before the SPAM started...those were the days...

Actually, SPAM started on USENET...


In April of 1994, the term was not born, but it did jump a great deal in popularity when two lawyers from Phoenix named Canter and Siegel posted a message advertising their fairly useless services in an upcoming U.S. "green card" lottery. This wasn't the first such abusive posting, nor the first mass posting to be called a spam, but it was the first deliberate mass posting to commonly get that name. They had posted their message a few times before, but on April 12, they hired an mercenary programmer to write a simple script to post their ad to every single newsgroup (message board) on USENET, the world's largest online conferencing system. There were several thousand such newsgroups, and each one got the ad.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/spamterm.html

And as long as we're talking SPAM history... don't forget this: http://www.cusd.claremont.edu/~mrosenbl/spamstory.html

What you fundamentally seem to be missing here is that bikes are legal vehicles on the road, equal to cars, farm trucks and anything else. That they go slower, delay you, or that they (just like auto drivers) break the law sometimes is completely irrelevant. What you need to be educated about is that you are not superior; you are equal, and that your expectation to not have your speed impeded when another user is behaving in a safe and legal manner is what is actually inconsiderate.


:beer:

This is from Oregon, but most states have similar language in their statues. Although it is not explicitly defined, a lane less than 12-14 feet wide is generally considered too narrow for a cyclist and a motor vehicle to share.


814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.

(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:

(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is proceeding in the same direction.

(b) When preparing to execute a left turn.

(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.

(d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of the roadway.

(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

(f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.

My side of the lane is mine. Occasionally I come across the person that gives me crap for passing them in their lane, but it’s legal. And if you want me to come up with the RCW, I can. I’ve read it. I’ve ridden by cops on the highway with my buddy in the same lane, right next to me

No it isn't legal.

I'm going to respond to several posts with this one, just because you called me a sissy. And for your information, it's a HD Road King.

Sissy? What happened last night was on a two lane road and oncoming cars were bumper to bumper. The bikes were not single file, they were two abreast, moving at 12 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. They left me about 6 feet of space between the left most riders and the center line. Sissy? You think it's safe for me to just go around them? I'm on a motorcycle. I could easily do it. When you're riding, what usually happens when you look over your left shoulder? You start to wander to the left.

Look. I've got no problem sharing the road if bicyclists do the same. It's hogging the road I have a problem with. Traffic in this city is bad enough but when bicyclists compound the problem by slowing traffic to a 3rd of the speed limit, when they could easily let traffic by, well... it's no wonder some motorists get a little hot.

What I saw last night isn't an uncommon occurrence. I see it every day. Every day I drive beside a 5 mile long 10' wide asphalt bicycle path void of traffic when there's a few dozen Lance Armstrongs in the street. I just don't get it.

Here's something else to chew on. I bet you're not too pleased with skyrocketing price of everything in the stores. All that stuff gets delivered by trucks (big wide trucks) and many of those trucks are paying a dollar per mile for diesel fuel. And you're all right with slowing them down to 12 miles per hour? Prices keep going up.

Everyone is saying that the laws are the same for both of us, and then say it's acceptable to run a red light so you can get out of a motorists way. What kind of sense does that make? If the laws apply equally, then the consequences for breaking them should also.

Like I said, I've got no problem sharing the road with bicycles. It's just baffling to me to see self preservation and common courtesy disappear when some people strap on a bicycle helmet.

--
Jordon

I can tell from this post (and your other posts as well) that you're not here to learn, or to understand why the cyclists may have been doing what they were doing, you're just here to argue.

More than likely, those cyclists believed that they were riding in the safest manner possible for themselves, so despite your claims to the contrary, they were thinking about their own self preservation.