Advocacy & Safety - Slow down to let cars pass by?

I'm getting back to riding in San Francisco, and where there are no bike lanes and I'm going only slightly slower than cars next to me, I feel like I should slow just a little for them to pass by quicker if I'm in no hurry. I know when I'm driving and see a cyclist going 18-20mph with a 25mph speed limit it's annoying to have to either follow him slowly, or gas it to pass him. From a driver's perspective, I think it's much less pressure to cut a lane or go into opposing traffic to pass a cyclist quickly than to take a few more seconds to pass a slightly slower cyclist, especially in heavier traffic.

I know I can just stop worrying and let drivers decide for themselves whether to follow me or pass by, but as I am perhaps a bit too empathetic, I'd like to know what you all think, especially if you are drivers as well. Of course, I'm not going to cut perhaps 20%+ of my speed to let them fly by me :rolleyes:

The difference between you doing 20mph and 16mph (-20%) is 2ft/sec. (9.8ft/sec vs 7.8 ft/sec). The difference for any driver is as near zilch as makes no difference. Stick to your own speed and leave it up to them to decide when and where to overtake - it's their responsibility.

If they can't overtake safely (leaving you and any oncoming vehicles plenty of room) it matters not a jot whether they have to slow down to 16 or 20 mph. If they can overtake safely ditto.

The difference between you going 20 and a car going 25 versus you going 15 and a car going 25 is to DOUBLE the overtake speed. This is not a trivial difference.

I guess it would depend on circumstances. If the overtaking traffic is fairly steady, there's really no point in slowing down, you'd just have a different car behind you.

It's up to you. I find that it's good to give people a break sometime, but you also don't want to be a doormat, people can really quickly move from an attitude of "accepting a favor from a fellow road user" to "expecting a lesser road user to get out of your way" and sometimes won't even be conscious of the shift themselves.

I never slow down to let cars go by. I will move out of the way if it is safe, but hell it takes a lot more effort to build up speed on a bike than in a car.

i may slow up approaching traffic signals or the like, to help with the sorting in the traffic queue.

otherwise, no. do not slow down for other vehicles unless it assists your safety strategy.

It is common practice for motorists to exceed the speed limit - both the posted limit, and the basic speed law (faster than conditions allow safely). This is a practice which costs thousands of lives per year. Far more than any other form of premature death. I feel that by encouraging motorists to drive faster, we are contributing to this widespread mayhem. If traveling at a speed which is within 20% of the speed limit, then I believe that it is irresponsible to encourage other traffic to travel faster. When I am slogging up a hill at 10mph, I will do what I can to not impede other traffic, but if I am going 18-20 on a city street with a 25mph limit, I feel no responsibility to help others to travel faster - in fact, I believe that we have a moral responsibility not to.

I feel that by encouraging motorists to drive faster, we are contributing to this widespread mayhem. If traveling at a speed which is within 20% of the speed limit, then I believe that it is irresponsible to encourage other traffic to travel faster. When I am slogging up a hill at 10mph, I will do what I can to not impede other traffic, but if I am going 18-20 on a city street with a 25mph limit, I feel no responsibility to help others to travel faster - in fact, I believe that we have a moral responsibility not to.

I can't decide which post is weirder, the OP or this wacky self righteous rant.

For my, slowing down to encourage passing seems a bit risky. If safe margins are that close, I would rather not trust every unknown driver to handle the changed situation I would cause.

If you are in the lane, I'd think you'd have to slow down an awful lot to be of any real help to passing motorists.

When approaching a traffic bottleneck like a narrow bridge or construction zone, I will occasionally hang back a bit so I don't hold up as many cars. But otherwise I am a believer in "We ARE traffic."

Either take the lane (i.e., middle of the lane to maybe the left tire track) or get out of the lane entirely. Leave no ambiguity. If you ride, say, just to the right of the right tire track in an effort to be "nice" to the drivers, someone will clip you eventually because they will misjudge your position relative the width of their car.

As to how much you want to be nice to drivers and whether you give them room to pass, I've found that's a personal decision and it varies based on your own experiences. You will find you do what appears to increase your safety the most, possibly twinged with a bit of civility/courtesy.

Either take the lane (i.e., middle of the lane to maybe the left tire track) or get out of the lane entirely. Leave no ambiguity. If you ride, say, just to the right of the right tire track in an effort to be "nice" to the drivers, someone will clip you eventually because they will misjudge your position relative the width of their car.
(Good advice.)


As to how much you want to be nice to drivers and whether you give them room to pass, I've found that's a personal decision and it varies based on your own experiences. You will find you do what appears to increase your safety the most, possibly twinged with a bit of civility/courtesy.

Noo! You must be a martyr for the cause!!

.....I know I can just stop worrying and let drivers decide for themselves whether to follow me or pass by, but as I am perhaps a bit too empathetic, I'd like to know what you all think, especially if you are drivers as well. Of course, I'm not going to cut perhaps 20%+ of my speed to let them fly by me :rolleyes:


Well, considering I often slow down to let cars pass by when I am driving a car, I suppose its not exactly a heinous concession (as much as it galls the 'we are traffic' weenies) that I slow down and often waive traffic by me when I am cycling.

Exactly why cyclists would want cars behind them instead of in front of them has always excaped me.

roughstuff

It's the duty of the overtaking vehicle to do so legally and safely. I don't have a cite but I believe this has been the rule since the Romans built the Appian Way, if not before.

...
Exactly why cyclists would want cars behind them instead of in front of them has always excaped me.

roughstuffEspecially, why would you want impatient, angry drivers behind you instead of in front? I don't get it either. It won't take me 30 seconds more to get home and I'll get there in one piece. I guess it's a religious issue.

If you wish to slow down to let others pass, at least have the common sense to signal your intentions in a way that others using the road can both see and understand. Nobody likes coming up on vehicles that slow for no apparent reason with no warning that they are doing so or indication of their plans.

It's the duty of the overtaking vehicle to do so legally and safely. I don't have a cite but I believe this has been the rule since the Romans built the Appian Way, if not before.

So, how is this relevent? The OP wasn't expressing any interest in unsafe passing.

==================


If you wish to slow down to let others pass, at least have the common sense to signal your intentions in a way that others using the road can both see and understand. Nobody likes coming up on vehicles that slow for no apparent reason with no warning that they are doing so or indication of their plans.
Yes. One should ride in a manner that looks and is predictable! Many drivers have the impression that cyclists are "erratic".

The OP, as the one to be passed, was expressing interest in taking on the duty of safe passing. My point was that it's not his duty nor do I think it makes travel any safer or more efficient to keep slowing down to let others pass. At least not on a city street -- a curvy mountain road is a different story.

Use your mirror and if you see that the car is about to make a passing move, just stop pedalling and coast. If you're going downhill, softly hit the brakes and if you're going uphill, ease up on the pedalling.

You'll benefit by not having to bike next to a car as long and the car benefits by passing a slow cyclist faster. Sometimes drivers underestimate how long it takes to safely pass a cyclist so they may cut in front of you earlier. Coasting and slowing down will help with that.

The OP, as the one to be passed, was expressing interest in taking on the duty of safe passing. My point was that it's not his duty nor do I think it makes travel any safer or more efficient to keep slowing down to let others pass. At least not on a city street -- a curvy mountain road is a different story.
Not exactly. It appears that his primary interest is in being "courteous".


From a driver's perspective, I think it's much less pressure to cut a lane or go into opposing traffic to pass a cyclist quickly than to take a few more seconds to pass a slightly slower cyclist, especially in heavier traffic.
I agree he should not be concerned about this "pressure". He'd have to reduce his speed quite alot to have any real effect on this supposed "pressure".

The difference between you going 20 and a car going 25 versus you going 15 and a car going 25 is to DOUBLE the overtake speed. This is not a trivial difference.

But the time difference in going past you is minimal. I would agree that there may be occasions when being courteous is a good thing, but drivers won't, IMHO, notice whether they are passing a cyclist who's doing 20mph or 15mph. They certainly won't think, "Gee, I wish he was going several mph slower so I can get past".

If there's a good spot to let cars pass, I usually yield to the side and slow down a bit. You can easily indicate that you are yielding by stopping pedaling and raising your upper body. Also good idea to turn your head for a bit so the driver behind you knows you saw them and are waiting for them to act.

Not pedaling gives makes it easier for them to pass (they won't need to cut right in front of you then), and gives you better control of the bike in case the shoulder is narrow.

If I'm going full speed downhill I won't yield. It wouldn't not be safe for me, and they would have to seriously break speed limits to overtake me.

I don't really care what the law says; we are all living in a society, and the mature way to act is ensure everyone can use the roads safely and comfortably. If you don't agree, that's your choice. When I'm biking I want to enjoy it, not feel like I'm in a warzone.

What does the state of California recommend doing when another car is passing you while you are driving a car on a two lane road? Why should it be different when you're on a cycle?

I never slow down to let cars go by. I will move out of the way if it is safe, but hell it takes a lot more effort to build up speed on a bike than in a car.

Yes but car drivers do not think that way......

There is a small crappy narrow bit to my commute, the best way I've found to tackle it is use the handily placed dip to the side that precedes the narrow bit. So before I approach, I check my mirror, signal, drift in to the dippy bit, slow a little and let the cars pass. This does not slow my commute and everyone seems happy. Much better than when I tried to take the lane there, you'd always have so a*se trying to go around you.

Obviously my dippy bit is a fairly rare occurrence but I though I'd share.

If there's a good spot to let cars pass, I usually yield to the side and slow down a bit. You can easily indicate that you are yielding by stopping pedaling and raising your upper body. Also good idea to turn your head for a bit so the driver behind you knows you saw them and are waiting for them to act.

I find that if I actually wave them through with my left arm, they get past me more quickly.

Oh great, my rather lengthy post is gone.. Anyway in short:

As I usually ride around the Sunset and GG Park areas there are usually enough space for drivers to pass, so I go at my own pace. But in other more crowded areas with tighter lanes is why I posted my OP.

While we have the right to take up full lanes, I do not want drivers to take a full 7+ seconds to pass then cut in front of me, nor do I want to create a traffic jam behind me. Safety is #1 as always, but a little courtesy can go a long way. It affects drivers' attitudes toward cyclists, and thus our own safety, however minute. I'd also argue that the extra 2+ seconds it takes to pass us actually "matter" to some drivers - just look at how some gas it towards a red light, or go just above speed limit to save a couple seconds.

I guess it's best for SF cyclist or others in urban areas to try to stick to bike lanes or ride in less traffic, or where you can easily catch up to cars in busy roads. Where I do ride in faster traffic, I make sure to stay about 2ft from parked cars and be aware of how cars are passing by. It really does depend on the situation I guess.

I find that if I actually wave them through with my left arm, they get past me more quickly.

Yep...it's best not to assume that drivers have a secret decoder ring to figure out that you intended some body movement, like sitting up and farting, to be some kind of signal to them, and know what it means.

While I am a firm believer in Road Courtesy Karma and look for opportunities to be courteous to my fellow road users. I rarely go out of my way when doing near the speed limit, mostly because an objective measurement of any "delay" I cause will be washed out at the next traffic light.

If you wish to slow down to let others pass, at least have the common sense to signal your intentions in a way that others using the road can both see and understand. Nobody likes coming up on vehicles that slow for no apparent reason with no warning that they are doing so or indication of their plans.


Well of course Chipcom, automobiles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles have mechanisms for automatically and promptly informing drivers that such action is being taken. In fact newer cars have brake lights that get brighter the harder your brake is being pushed---sort of a second derivative technology, you might say! And this does not require the driver of the vehicle to remove his hands form the steering mechanism in any way whatsoever.

With a bike, you have none of the above. (1) NO automatic signal...(2) no indication of the degree, and (3) if a signal is given (looking back, waving traffic by, etc. ) the rider has removed one hand from the steering (and on a bike, the braking) mechanism....just at the time ya might need it the most.

One of the strongest reasons why bicycles should not be in traffic.

roughstuff

One of the strongest reasons why bicycles should not be in traffic.

You're either very brave, or very foolish to say that in A&S.

-Kurt

You're either very brave, or very foolish to say that in A&S.

-Kurt


Or both. My attitude has been the same for decades. The shoulder is the bike lane. Traffic enters the shoulder infrequently, and intermittently. I return the same policy to the traffic lane.

Now what usually follows is a bunch of "urbies" who mention that streets in da 'hood taint got no shouldahs, muddah! To which I reply...

"one more reason why cities s*ck!"

roughstuff

Or both. My attitude has been the same for decades. The shoulder is the bike lane. Traffic enters the shoulder infrequently, and intermittently. I return the same policy to the traffic lane.

Now what usually follows is a bunch of "urbies" who mention that streets in da 'hood taint got no shouldahs, muddah! To which I reply...

"one more reason why cities s*ck!"

roughstuff
A lot of roads in the country don't have shoulders either.

A lot of roads in the country don't have shoulders either.


IOOps...good point. But they have the room to add them. We can add that on others the shoulders could be wider. I am amazed that on many roads the shoulder even wider than the traffic lane...that always seemed to be waste, although it does mean a disabled vehicle can get entirely off the roadway. Dollar for dollar, adding and improving shoulders to roadways would be the most cost effective way of increasing bicycle use, and safety of all highway users.

roughstuff

IOOps...good point. But they have the room to add them. We can add that on others the shoulders could be wider. I am amazed that on many roads the shoulder even wider than the traffic lane...that always seemed to be waste, although it does mean a disabled vehicle can get entirely off the roadway. Dollar for dollar, adding and improving shoulders to roadways would be the most cost effective way of increasing bicycle use, and safety of all highway users.

roughstuff

If your going to put a wide paved shoulder on a road for bicycle use, why waste money on a half a**ed job, put in a proper bicycle lane. Wouldn't cost more then a little extra paint, and would make it more visible and inviting.

If your going to put a wide paved shoulder on a road for bicycle use, why waste money on a half a**ed job, put in a proper bicycle lane. Wouldn't cost more then a little extra paint, and would make it more visible and inviting.

Three good reasons and one political reason I can think of.

Standards: There are standards for bicycle lanes that are more onerous than the standards for a paved shoulder. Markings, sight distances, pavement quality, pavement width, etc. It's significantly more than the cost of extra paint.

Liability: If it's a designated bicycle facility, the jurisdiction may be legally liable for failing to maintain conditions suitable for cycling. A small pavement gap at a survey monument may be an ordinary hazard on a paved shoulder, but not in a designated bicycle facility. Loose gravel may be acceptable on top of a paved shoulder, but not a designated bicycle lane. The jurisdiction has to either accept a much higher ongoing maintenance level, or risk additional liability by declaring the paved shoulder to be a bicycle lane.

Parking: On many rural roads, a wide paved shoulder can be a parking area for motorists -- cyclists can ride on the shoulder when it's clear, and move into the lane to pass parked cars as needed. But many states make it illegal to park in a designated bicycle lane. If the jurisdiction wants a parking/break-down area and a bike lane, they'd have to add pavement for both.

Public Opinion: Even if you don't add any pavement, and the cost really is just the extra paint stripe and signs, constituents will complain about wasting public money on grown-ups who want to play in the street with children's toys. If you actually want to replace some on-street parking with a bike lane, expect them to get really agitated.

i don't think the fear of liability should be able to keep communities from keeping roadways up to bicycling standards or adding bicycling facilities if AASHTO guidance indicates them - design of roads and highway right of ways to accomodate bicycle traffic is a design imperative on communities from the federal level on down, isn't it?

didn't some iowa counties try to claim some roads not suitable for bicycle travel and they wouldn't maintain them to the level of care necessary for safe bicycling?

look at these shoulder/breakdown lane/bikelane whatevah. in rural areas how about combined with on-highway dedicated space for both walking and bicycling.

Ignoring constituents when a third of americans don't drive and pedestrians and bicyclists need consideration in planning as vulnerable road users, kowtowing to myopic sloth is so.....political.

this is a bit far afield from 'should you slow down to let cars pass'.


a caveat on slowing..... I slow for cars regularily as part of my riding safety strategy, optimizing my rolling 'safety cushion' approaching pinch points, etc.

example. riding wide city connector with occasional streetside parking. i usually ride far into the lane. as traffic approaches from the rear, i will move right to allow convenient passing.

BUT, if theres' parked cars or a pinch point approaching, and i am already riding right to allow cars to pass, I will sometimes slow down to let a car past before the pinch, so I can reclaim the lane before the obstruction.

No one wants to wind up in the 'pinch' trying to get some more road space. By just keeping on pedalling, its possible to wind up in a conflict with the motorist as YOU move left while they are alongside you approaching the pinch.

If your going to put a wide paved shoulder on a road for bicycle use, why waste money on a half a**ed job, put in a proper bicycle lane. Wouldn't cost more then a little extra paint, and would make it more visible and inviting.


Putnam-dude has answered this in more detail. To me, a paved shoulder 3 feet wide should be more than adequate for cycling. The only reason I can see for a traffic-lane-wide shioulder is the ability to completely remove disabled vehicles from the roadway. The Alaska highway, for example, has been widened and improved so that small aircraft can land on it if necessary.

roughstuff

130696 SMV shoulders in areas with lots of logging trucks are pretty common around the northwest.

which bicyclists should ride in BTW :D

Hi Rolliepollie,
I've been following your thread. You asked for oppinions and it looks like you got a lot to choose from. So which one or more would you follow and put your own life on the line for? As you can see there are a lot of different opinions out there. It's kind of like jerseys, everyone has a style or preference with regard to lane placement.

Since you asked, here's my opinion. Search out a League Certified Instructor (LCI) in the San Fransico area. Take the basic class. They will cover most of your questions in the class and on the road. The class information is backed by experience and statistics, not opinions and was recommended by the CHP down here.

Then you can make your own choices with your own life and feel more confident out on the road with your choices. If someone here said to go jump off a cliff are you going to do it?

...... If someone here said to go jump off a cliff are you going to do it?

I would, but only if I was wearing a helmet! :)

roughstuff

i don't think the fear of liability should be able to keep communities from keeping roadways up to bicycling standards or adding bicycling facilities if AASHTO guidance indicates them - design of roads and highway right of ways to accomodate bicycle traffic is a design imperative on communities from the federal level on down, isn't it?

Fear of liability can strongly influence how a jurisdiction decides to meet the needs of its cyclists. For the same amount of pavement, you could have a wide outside lane, a standard lane with a paved shoulder, or a substandard lane with a bare-minimum bike lane and a shoulder narrow enough that vehicles on the shoulder would block the bike lane anyway.


Ignoring constituents when a third of americans don't drive and pedestrians and bicyclists need consideration in planning as vulnerable road users, kowtowing to myopic sloth is so.....political.No one is banning cyclists from shoulders. The question is, do you construct a facility that can legally be used only by cyclists, or a facility that can legally be used by cyclists, pedestrians, motorists who need to park, slow-moving agricultural equipment, etc.? Unless you have an unusually high volume of cyclists, or can get additional grant funding by designating a bike lane, it's politically more palatable to serve as many constituents as possible.

That doesn't have to mean a bad facility, just one that's not marked as a bike lane.

http://www.phred.org/%7Ejosh/vashon/brakelight.jpg

This used to be part of my morning commute. This goes on for a mile with no intersections, a broad paved shoulder suitable for cycling, but not marked as a bike lane because, at times, it's also used for parking, for the bus to stop, and for pedestrians. Those would all be illegal in a bike lane, but they're legal on a paved shoulder. (The community plan that led to these paved shoulders being added did specifically call for wide paved shoulders suitable for cycling, bicycles were a central motivation for improving these shoulders. But the previous gravel shoulders were open to parking, walking, etc., and the community did not want to prohibit those uses by turning the shoulders into bike lanes.)

...... No one is banning cyclists from shoulders. The question is, do you construct a facility that can legally be used only by cyclists, or a facility that can legally be used by cyclists, pedestrians, motorists who need to park, slow-moving agricultural equipment, etc.? .......


What you are missing in Bek's obsessive fear that cyclists might be 'banned from using the shoulder' if they are not specifically designated as bike lanes, is more fundamental: it means that the shoulder (bike lane) is/would be a multipurpose road surface. Which only goes to show that in their rotten little hearts, cycling activists are no more committed to 'sharing the road' than the most selfish motorist.


roughstuff

Dollar for dollar, adding and improving shoulders to roadways would be the most cost effective way of increasing bicycle use, and safety of all highway users.
I think the cost of this is much higher than one might imagine. There is a problem being able to affort to just maintain existing configurations. Of course, if there is a reasonable likihood of "enough" bicycle use, one should consider accomodating that use.


Unless you have an unusually high volume of cyclists, or can get additional grant funding by designating a bike lane, it's politically more palatable to serve as many constituents as possible.
Yes. In many situations, designating a "shoulder" as a bicycle lane doesn't add any value (and may add limitations).

I think the cost of this is much higher than one might imagine. There is a problem being able to affort to just maintain existing configurations. Of course, if there is a reasonable likihood of "enough" bicycle use, one should consider accomodating that use.


....

Hmmm . I was thinking that the 'marginal cost' of a shoulder would be pretty moderate. The right of way for most roadways extends well beyond the shoulder in most cases; so the fixed cost component of putting a shoulder in is zero. The only variable costs are of course the additional pavement and labor. Since the shoulder isn't designed for full time motorized use, it can be lower in quality than the main roadway surface. Many shoulders are only one layer of asphalt and more grainy than the roadway.

I do agree we must make sure the lower quality does not mean the surface soon becomes a joke.

roughstuff

i may slow up approaching traffic signals or the like, to help with the sorting in the traffic queue.

otherwise, no. do not slow down for other vehicles unless it assists your safety strategy.

I like your unless. Generally I don't slow down. An exception is when there is a wide spot in the road, as in wide enough to pass safely. Then I will pull right and slow down with the idea of letting any cars behind me pass.

I prefer not having cars backed up behind me, as much for my sake as for the drivers. Too few drivers, even one trying to be nice, know how to follow a bike well.

cars don't like bicyclists for many reasons and this is one of them. you're not really going to help by slowing down below your comfort level/speed, you'll just become an erratic unpredictable cyclist. you might consider riding on different routes to see where there is a good balance of traffic

Hmmm . I was thinking that the 'marginal cost' of a shoulder would be pretty moderate. The right of way for most roadways extends well beyond the shoulder in most cases; so the fixed cost component of putting a shoulder in is zero. The only variable costs are of course the additional pavement and labor. Since the shoulder isn't designed for full time motorized use, it can be lower in quality than the main roadway surface. Many shoulders are only one layer of asphalt and more grainy than the roadway.

Adding to the shoulder would certainly be much cheaper than adding to the roadway (for the reasons you list).

But the cost isn't likely to be "moderate" in an absolute sense, considering it is a non-trivial "public works" thing. It's also an extra cost at a time when there isn't enough money to support existing configurations.

The addition would have to be sufficient not to fall apart in a year or two. In places with real winters, this isn't trivial either.

The "right of way" issue is better in places with less population, where there are fewer bicyclists and where distances between things tend to be large enough to discourage "utility" cycling.

There might be a few places where the extra cost would be justifiable. It would be hard to justify doing it in places where there are next to no bicyclists (most of the US). It won't be justifiable everywhere.


I do agree we must make sure the lower quality does not mean the surface soon becomes a joke.
The future maintanence obligations and costs have to be taken into account too. It isn't a one-time cost.

I think the cost of this is much higher than one might imagine. There is a problem being able to affort to just maintain existing configurations. Of course, if there is a reasonable likihood of "enough" bicycle use, one should consider accomodating that use.


Yes. In many situations, designating a "shoulder" as a bicycle lane doesn't add any value (and may add limitations).

AASHTO: For example, paved shoulders have many safety, operational and maintenance benefits and may also provide a place for bicyclists to ride.

Safety = reduced accident = money saved
maintenance benefits = Wider roads last longer and are cheaper in the long run = money saved

IMHO accommodating cyclists saves motorist money.

AASHTO: For example, paved shoulders have many safety, operational and maintenance benefits and may also provide a place for bicyclists to ride.

The AASTO committee isn't providing the money. Anyway, it's the cost/benefit ratio that has to be known. They are only talking about half of that equation and they don't provide a dollar value to the benefit. Plus, there is some evidence that bigger streets (in some situations) are less safe.

And there isn't enough money to maintain the current configuration (with all of the safety/cost/convenience benefits that would provide).


Safety = reduced accident = money saved
The problem is that the funding comes from a place that isn't strongly motivated by vague amounts motorists might theoretically save.


maintenance benefits = Wider roads last longer and are cheaper in the long run = money saved
With regard to "lasting longer", I think that wider roads have to be engineered "holistically". I don't think it's a matter of slapping a couple of extra inches of thin asphalt at the shoulder.


IMHO accommodating cyclists saves motorist money.
It is hard to imagine motorists seeing any reduction in their expenses.