Advocacy & Safety - Have you ever ridden a bicycle on the interstate/highway?

A simple poll to gauge the riding habits of A&S regulars.

Yes

Yes, but rare.

As a commuter I have to cross a busy bridge everyday. The so-called "bicycle lane is roughly a 1/3rd the size of the regular highway shoulder. I actually feel safer on the highway. The only thing that annoys me is the massive amount of garbage I have to maneuver around everyday.

Every day on the 55mph highway that I commute to work on for the last six years. From 1978-1980 everyday on the shoulder of I-80N (now called I-84) near Pendelton OR.

Yes, but the HPV (Human Powered Vehicle) could go 55MPH!
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/hotbike/Type5MilitaryPoliceBike.jpg

Just like a recurring herpes sore,the hot bike is back again.
Dude,you had all summer to come up with a new design and we,re still looking at plastic +duct tape?
The only way to really impress us now it to "take a lane" on the interstate on the HPV.

Just like a recurring herpes sore,the hot bike is back again.
Dude,you had all summer to come up with a new design and we,re still looking at plastic +duct tape?
The only way to really impress us now it to "take a lane" on the interstate on the HPV.

Only if he takes the passing lane with that hot bike. :lol:

There's a very popular cycling loop here that puts you on the interstate for a few miles... It's just another ride. :)

There's a very popular cycling loop here that puts you on the interstate for a few miles... It's just another ride. :)

Similar experience, no big deal. I rode on I-280 (?) a couple of times somewhere on the East Bay near Oakland many many years ago (so long ago that as you can see, I don't really remember where it was) and it was pretty mundane. The only thing I remember is a really long fast descent and lots of debris in the breakdown lane.

I've cycled on 55mph rural highways in both PA and NC.

Interstate 5 is part of my commute.

80 km/h /50 mph very often in various places. Np
100 km/h 62 , mph yes.

I especially remember one road in n Poland, I think the speed limit was 90 or 100? . Multi-lane road. Very wide and low traffic . Traffic going on the road was easily visible means not coming up on some weird ramp. Very wide shoulder. Excellent for riding. Very pleasant experience. If someone managed to hit me from behind it would be close to murder under those conditions. Unfortunately these exist too... I take this 20x over some smaller roads

What was bad I remember some curvy hilly road which was very narrow and heavy traffic. The map showed it should be a common rural road nothing special. Additionally it had a crash barrier on both sides. Those are the invention of the devil for cyclists. Someone was designing things with holes in them so cyclists can go hiding in there if needed. On a curvy narrow section two huge trucks with trailer came up , one from behind one from the front. I went hiding behind the crash barrier with the bike leaning against the barrier.:eek: That was real bad. Avoid like the plague hehe . Many decades old road design which way too much traffic even for cars is bad. Roads of this type aren’t usually the most scary ones usually. I think it has more to do with design than the speed limit. I think the bad stuff is a typical rural two lane road which gets used like it was some kind of motorway.

i regularly, but usually avoid, riding on sr 55 in s nj. speed limit there is 65mph, wide sholder with lots of re-tread debree and trash. bicycles are allowed on this road.

when i was riding x-usa (1982,e-w) i got lost and rode on an interstate hiway in oregon or idaho i believe.

It is difficult to go anywhere in San Diego County without spending some time on a 55mph / 90kph prime arterial or even a 65mph / 105kph stretch of Interstate.

Every chance I get. It is great freaking the motorists. Be bloody sure you have a right to be there though.

I used to ride several miles regularly on a 55+ state highway since I lived right on it, but that was a long time ago. I rode about 10 miles down I-20 east out of Bossier City, LA once. That's it. I would not go on an interstate again unless there was absolutely no other way to get where I needed to go.

For those who do, I'd be interested in hearing whether it's legal where you are or not. Not because I'm a legality-nanny, but because it's related to the question and I'm curious.

It's not legal here (Portland, Maine), but there is a section of town where there is only one bridge off the peninsula to the north, and it's I-295. (map (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Portland,+ME&ie=UTF8&ll=43.675539,-70.254543&spn=0.010941,0.019312&t=h&z=16)) There is a street which continues from the penisula north (Washington Ave.), and that street actually takes you onto the interstate for one exit to get there. There is a MUP on the west side of the bridge, about 5' wide for bidirectional traffic, including joggers, etc., and it is weird to get on and off of. It is separated from the highway traffic about 15' away by a concrete barrier that is below your center of gravity, and going north you are against that highway traffic. To continue north, you can get off the MUP and do a U-turn, or take another fork to Washington which deposits you on the sidewalk on the wrong side of the street. The alternate route around the bay adds about 5 miles to the journey.

So some people I know will ride the one exit of I-295 north to stay on Washington, to not have to deal with the MUP and turning every which way to get back to where you want to be. It's direct, it's a decent shoulder (width and condition), and doesn't even involve any merging. I don't have to deal with it because it's not anywhere near my normal commute, but I tried it once when I was in the area anyway just to see what it was like, and I didn't mind it much. Several of us have brought up this "solution" in meetings where the city engineer has been present, and his reaction has been kind of "I'm pretending I'm not hearing that." :p

If you are riding from Golden CO to Echo Lake (and Mt Evans) via Bergen Park, you reach the end of Hwy 40 at I-70 exit 254. Now you have a problem: You need to get to Hwy 74 at exit 252, but there are *no* roads between exits 252 & 254 other than I-70. So you jump on I-70, ride 2 miles, then take the 252 exit. As I understand, it is legal. I've done it twice. The paved berms are huge, so it is no big deal.

Twice in the last three years. It's a strange feeling, but actually safer than some of the rural, 55MPH roads in this area.

I used to ride on I84 in utah almost every day.
http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/East-Canyon-to-Ogden-via-Weber-Canyon
It's a section of that ride through the canyon.

highways, or interstates? two different roads.

two lane highways with a crumbling shoulder and bad sight lines are more hazardous than interstates. interstates have good sight lines and wide shoulders.

It is difficult to go anywhere in San Diego County without spending some time on a 55mph / 90kph prime arterial or even a 65mph / 105kph stretch of Interstate.

That's kinda tragic, really. I can go anywhere in Brisbane without ever needing to use even one. Not that other kinds of roads are necessarily better for cycling, but that those kinds of roads are unavoidable says to me that something went very wrong somewhere along the way.

That said, I've never understood why people think that speed of traffic alone makes cycling safe or otherwise, when really it comes a far second to road width.

Used to ride an interstate type roadway (225) for those in the Houston area twice a day. Once the right way, once against the traffic. It was the shortest distance to get to my girlfriend's house...later my first wife... Otherwise, it would have been another 3 miles riding in Pasadena, Tx on major city streets. Anyone familiar with that city would probably agree riding an interstate is less of a danger. The distance was about a mile and never had a problem Had to ride the wrong way back because of access problems and that ride was often at night. Would I do it now? NO WAY.

To the OP: Do you consider any road with a speed limit of 55mph or greater to be a highway, or do you mean something more specific like "freeway" "state route" etc. that is designated with a number? Here are a couple of definitions to consider:

360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly
maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of
vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

555. "Sidewalk" is that portion of a highway, other than the
roadway, set apart by curbs, barriers, markings or other delineation
for pedestrian travel.
Interesting how a highway is designed for vehicular travel, but a sidewalk is part of the highway, lol. Anyway my point is highway is pretty much an all-inclusive word, and all roads (including alleys, residential streets, etc.) are highways.

If by highway you mean any roadway with a speed limit of 55mph or higher, I ride on those on a regular basis. There is a normal looking road near me (2 wide lanes and 1 bike lane each way with a landscaped curbed median strip) with a posted limit of 55. A part of my usual commute is a 2 lane 55mph no-shoulder road (but it's not a state road so not numbered).

The 2 numbered state highways near me (135 and 166) are actually the main roads for the city I live in, so the speed limits on those are only 30, 35, 40, and 45 at various locations within the city limits. I ride them on a regular basis within the city limits. They go to 55/65mph outside city limits and I have ridden them when I had reason to do so.

Highway 1 (PCH) close to here is a 55/65mph road designed much like an interstate or freeway and is very popular with touring cyclists. It's actually designated by the state as a state bicycle route.


For those who do, I'd be interested in hearing whether it's legal where you are or not. Not because I'm a legality-nanny, but because it's related to the question and I'm curious.
In California it's legal to ride on any highway (see definition of highway above). The only exception is freeways with "bicycles prohibited" signs, but even on freeways bicycles are allowed by default. Here's what the California Department of Transportation says:
Of the more than 4,000 miles of freeways in California, about 1,000 miles are open to bicyclists. These open sections are usually in rural areas where there is no alternate route. California Vehicle Code Section 21960 says Caltrans and local agencies may prohibit bicyclists from traveling on freeways under their jurisdiction and that they must erect signs stating the prohibition. There are no signs permitting bicyclists on freeways. When a bicyclist is legally traveling on a freeway, he/she may be directed off the freeway at the next off-ramp by a sign that says "Bicycles Must Exit." The freeway will be posted at the next on-ramp with a sign that says "Bicycles Prohibited."

That's kinda tragic, really. I can go anywhere in Brisbane without ever needing to use even one. Not that other kinds of roads are necessarily better for cycling, but that those kinds of roads are unavoidable says to me that something went very wrong somewhere along the way.

That said, I've never understood why people think that speed of traffic alone makes cycling safe or otherwise, when really it comes a far second to road width.

It's not an issue of speed alone, but an issue of speed dictating the road design or worse speed being jacked up on roads that really are not well designed for that sort of speed. The latter issue due to the 85% rule.

The high speed issue tends to give motorists a sense of entitlement... as in "what are you 'slow cyclists' doing on 'my road'?"

Frankly another issue gets back to road width... surprisingly Interstate freeways offer more width to cyclists... there is usually an 8 foot+ shoulder on an Interstate, whereas the surface streets generally only offer a 4-5 foot bike lane. There are arterial roads with no BL.

I used to ride I-25 over Raton Pass every day.

I ride stretches of divided highways most weekends.

Right now i'm taking Hwy2 between Nisku and Edmonton everyday. It's 3 lanes and 100kph in this section (62mph). I have no problems but then i don't have to pass any enrtances/exits which would be the sticky parts. I get on on one entrance and exit on the next (10km later).

Right now i'm taking Hwy2 between Nisku and Edmonton everyday. It's 3 lanes and 100kph in this section (62mph). I have no problems but then i don't have to pass any enrtances/exits which would be the sticky parts. I get on on one entrance and exit on the next (10km later).


A simple poll to gauge the riding habits of A&S regulars.

Your poll will reveal a lot less than you think unless the posters are asked/prompted to make a distinction between riding on the shoulder of interstate/highway roads, or riding in the traffic lanes of those roads. IMO there is a world of difference and no significant conclusion about riding in the shoulder mode can be extrapolated to riding in a traffic lane.

Your poll will reveal a lot less than you think unless the posters are asked/prompted to make a distinction between riding on the shoulder of interstate/highway roads, or riding in the traffic lanes of those roads. IMO there is a world of difference and no significant conclusion about riding in the shoulder mode can be extrapolated to riding in a traffic lane.

Good point, ILTB. The majority of my time on I25 was on the nice wide shoulder, only venturing out into the traffic lane when needed and when CLEAR for a good ways back. When you're doing 15-25 and the chicken haulers are doing 75-80, the lane ain't no place to be hanging out giving steely-eyed, alpha-dawg stares. :eek:

I've used freeway shoulders a few times on loaded tours when there was no good alternative - always in the west (I-5 in Northern California and Southern Oregon, 1-90 in Eastern Wyoming), always where legal. I paid extra attention at on-ramps and off-ramps, which have the potential for disaster if you don't, but the shoulders themselves were quite safe between interchanges. Not always pleasant, as the traffic noise and wind thrown off by large trucks is a nuisance, but plenty of space between me and other traffic. The upside of the trucks is they generate enough wind to sweep a good amount of road crap off of a good portion of the shoulder.

Other than the on- and off-ramps, the biggest risk on freeways is encountering the occasional bridge/overpass/underpass that is substandard in width. I was with a group on I-5 in NorCal, and we made sure to arrange to be driven accros the two bridges over Lake Shasta - the shoulder all but disappears on them, and it was simply too risky to try to ride it.

My experience has been that freeway riding is safer than riding on a surprising number of non-freeway highways. Of course, I still prefer winding, scenic, lightly trafficked back roads, but sometimes those simply do not go where you need them to go.

My experience has been that freeway riding is safer than riding on a surprising number of non-freeway highways. Of course, I still prefer winding, scenic, lightly trafficked back roads, but sometimes those simply do not go where you need them to go.

+1000

To the OP: Do you consider any road with a speed limit of 55mph or greater to be a highway, or do you mean something more specific like "freeway" "state route" etc. that is designated with a number?

I'm guessing they mean highway in the same conversational sense that everyone uses it, referring only to a limited access divided roadway since they mentioned "

That said, there are a few rides up here which use I-90 as part of the route.

I don't know of any interstate highways in the northeast that allow bicycles. Are there any?

I imagine that riding in the breakdown lane of an interstate would be safe, but very noisy. Crossing exit and entry ramps might be a bit dicey.

Speedo

I don't know of any interstate highways in the northeast that allow bicycles. Are there any?

I imagine that riding in the breakdown lane of an interstate would be safe, but very noisy. Crossing exit and entry ramps might be a bit dicey.

Speedo

Check the interstate thread in the VC subforum.

ZooBomb rolls the 'Hellway' every Sunday night, a ~ one or two mile stretch of Oregon Highway 26 eastbound from the Zoo to the Jefferson Street exit. And yes, it's legal.

Where I live it's illegal to ride your bicycle on the highways (and by highway I mean 2 parallel multi lane roads).

I once saw somebody riding on the 115 here in Ontario. Wonder how far they made it before a cop pulled them over.

Several times a month on I-280 these days.

It's legal to bike on California freeways unless specifically prohibited by posted sign.

I have been riding on I-90 and I-82 here in central WA state. I actually feel safer on the 6 ft wide shoulders (even with some of the debris) than I do on some of the country roads around here with no shoulders and cars and diesel trucks driving 55+ mph. The only tough spot about I-90 is the bridge approaches with the wake up/rumble strips ground into the asphalt and the closing guardrail at the bridge - usually you have about 6 inches of space to squeeze yourself onto the bridge deck shoulder.

Yes. The road from my house to "town" is a 2 lane 2 wide shoulder 55mph road.

The by-pass in my town used to be 55 - but was just bumped down to 45.

Can't say I'm a big fan - but my answer is "yes, regularly"

One of my training routes takes me down I 5. I too feel safer on the shoulders there than some of the 2 lane roads I take getting there. The only down side is that there seems to be alot of junk on the shoulder, more so than other roads. But luckly I ride wide tires so it doesn't seem so bad.

I used to ride on the Trans-Canada Highway around St John's. It was the safest place to ride quite frankly as the road was in decent condition as there was about a five foot paved shoulder.

Several times a month on I-280 these days.

It's legal to bike on California freeways unless specifically prohibited by posted sign.

What you say is literally true, but somewhat misleading in practice. The vast majority of California freeway on-ramps have that sign. In practice (and I think in writing, although I can't swear to this), the policy/law is bikes are not allowed on California freeways unless the powers that be have determined that there is no other practical way to get there from here.

Thus there are some stretches - but nowhere near all - of I-280 on the SF Peninsula where bikes are permitted. Likewise, Hwy 24 is bike-legal from the Orinda interchange to Fish Ranch Road (just before the Cladicott Tunnel), although you have to get off and get back on at Gateway. Also, parts of Hwy 101 between SF and LA are bike legal, as are chunks of I-5 and I-80 in the mountains. But I'd bet pretty good money that over 90% of the freeway miles in Calif are not bike legal.

By contrast, in Oregon, freeways are bike-legal except for designated ones in urban areas (read: in and around Portland).

I don't know of any interstate highways in the northeast that allow bicycles. Are there any?

General rule of thumb from my significant but hardly exhaustive experience:
East of the Mississippi = no riding on freeways, period;
Rocky Mountain states to the Pacific = likely that riding on freeways is legal, at a minimum on the ones where there is no other decent way to get there (California) and possibly with little (Oregon) or no (Wyoming) restriction;
Between the Mississippi and the Rocky Moumtain states = YMMV.

What you say is literally true, but somewhat misleading in practice. The vast majority of California freeway on-ramps have that sign. In practice (and I think in writing, although I can't swear to this), the policy/law is bikes are not allowed on California freeways unless the powers that be have determined that there is no other practical way to get there from here.

Thus there are some stretches - but nowhere near all - of I-280 on the SF Peninsula where bikes are permitted. Likewise, Hwy 24 is bike-legal from the Orinda interchange to Fish Ranch Road (just before the Cladicott Tunnel), although you have to get off and get back on at Gateway. Also, parts of Hwy 101 between SF and LA are bike legal, as are chunks of I-5 and I-80 in the mountains. But I'd bet pretty good money that over 90% of the freeway miles in Calif are not bike legal.

By contrast, in Oregon, freeways are bike-legal except for designated ones in urban areas (read: in and around Portland).

I understand what you're saying with regards to freeway access signs. Yes, the Vehicle Code states that municipalities/counties may prohibit access to freeways via posted sign (implication being that bikes are allowed by default) and that, as you say, access is the exception not the rule

I read somewhere that ~900 of the 4000+ miles of CA Freeway are bike legal -- I think on CalTrans' site, but I've really been having memory problems lately. :(

I've also looked extensively and have never been able to find a freeway system map which indicates all those points accessible to bikes. It would be nice to have as a resource.

Have a good one!

In post #25 of this thread I quoted the Caltrans website you were thinking of dietrologia, and your memory was fairly accurate...here's a snip
Of the more than 4,000 miles of freeways in California, about 1,000 miles are open to bicyclists

No. In Maine it is against the law for someone to ride a bicycle on the interstate highways (I-95, I 295). If I did I would face arrest by the state police. On others, like the Kangamanus Highway and others I have and it's OK to do so.

I had for about half a mile before, nice wide shoulder, it was actually better than a 35mph I've ridden on.