Advocacy & Safety - Bicycle ban proposed in Missouri county...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/article_cdc4c2a0-8bb1-11df-931d-0017a4a78c22.html

ridiculous...:notamused:

Things like this make me glad I live in a state with a law that prevents banning bikes from roads that are open to cars. (limited access highways not withstanding) It's rare that Ohio does something right.

He (County Councilman Joe Brazil) said he's gotten complaints for years from residents driving the 55 mph speed limit who suddenly come upon bicyclists or groups of bicyclists when they round a curve.

If a driver is going so fast that they can't stop, then they need to slow down and pay attention. A 55 mph speed limit doesn't mean you have to drive 55 mph or that it's necessarily safe, especially when rounding a curve or cresting a hill. Take a driving refresher course or read a driver's handbook. All Brazil's bill would do is endorse irresponsible driving.


MoDOT says St. Charles County can't ban bikes from state roads
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/article_602384e2-8ecd-11df-8fc8-0017a4a78c22.html

Time for cyclist to demand the state/county reduce the speed limit to 25 mph for safety, now that they acknowledge the danger of motorist driving so fast on these roads.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/article_cdc4c2a0-8bb1-11df-931d-0017a4a78c22.html

ridiculous...:notamused:

I'm sorry, but I had to kind of laugh at this line:

<Quote>
"You're going 55 (mph) and there's absolute limited sight distance," he said. "You come around a corner and come upon a bike in seconds and you have to react."
</Quote>

Shouldn't common sense say that if one has limited sight distance that they should already be slowing down and not be going 55MPH? I mean what if there is a car that has stalled out?

Time for cyclist to demand the state/county reduce the speed limit to 25 mph for safety, now that they acknowledge the danger of motorist driving so fast on these roads.

+1,000

They've acknowledged knowing of the danger motorists who routinely exceed the speed limit with it is unsafe to do so. So instead of "punishing" those drivers by lowering the overall speed limit they seek to ban those road users who are most vulnerable, bravo, bravo.

Shouldn't common sense say that if one has limited sight distance that they should already be slowing down and not be going 55MPH? I mean what if there is a car that has stalled out?That's a really common situation that's brought up when arguing that bicycles don't belong on the road.

Though quite often there's also an oncoming car (probably full of nuns or orphans) in the other lane, and the innocent (probably going exactly the speed limit!) motorist has to choose between hitting the cyclist and the oncoming car, and it's Sophie's choice all over again -- they'd change lanes, but they can't without hitting the oncoming car, and it would be better to kill the cyclist (who's fault this all is anyways) than to kill people in both cars, so ...

(This story never seems to have a ditch to go into on the right side, or brakes that can be used for some reason. And of course the motorist is going exactly the appropriate speed, and bringing up the possibility of a stalled car or livestock or something, well, that would be their fault too, if the person even responds to that idea ...)

If a driver is going so fast that they can't stop, then they need to slow down and pay attention. A 55 mph speed limit doesn't mean you have to drive 55 mph or that it's necessarily safe, especially when rounding a curve or cresting a hill. Take a driving refresher course or read a driver's handbook. All Brazil's bill would do is endorse irresponsible driving.

I'd go a step further and say that the solution is to lower the speed limits on the "hazardous" roads in question, not leave it up to driver judgment or advisory signs (which have no legal backing).


MoDOT says St. Charles County can't ban bikes from state roads
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/article_602384e2-8ecd-11df-8fc8-0017a4a78c22.html

I don't think a state could even ban bikes as every state receives federal highway money. The only roads that ban bikes I am aware of is the federal interstate system.

I don't think a state could even ban bikes as every state receives federal highway money. The only roads that ban bikes I am aware of is the federal interstate system.

No, Interstate-grade highways that are not designated as Interstates can (and often do) ban bicycles.

This is not in anyway intended as a defense of the idiots in Missouri.

They need to ban ambulances too since they could be stopped around one of those limited sight-line curves that drivers in Misery seem to need to speed around.

That's a really common situation that's brought up when arguing that bicycles don't belong on the road.

Though quite often there's also an oncoming car (probably full of nuns or orphans) in the other lane, and the innocent (probably going exactly the speed limit!) motorist has to choose between hitting the cyclist and the oncoming car, and it's Sophie's choice all over again -- they'd change lanes, but they can't without hitting the oncoming car, and it would be better to kill the cyclist (who's fault this all is anyways) than to kill people in both cars, so ...

(This story never seems to have a ditch to go into on the right side, or brakes that can be used for some reason. And of course the motorist is going exactly the appropriate speed, and bringing up the possibility of a stalled car or livestock or something, well, that would be their fault too, if the person even responds to that idea ...)

Here's a good question, if these various cities and/or counties get their way and get bicycles banned from areas where they are currently allowed who will they blame next for their delays and crashes/collisions?

And another good question about this quote in the article:

<Quote>
He said bike riders can use the nearby Katy Trail between St. Charles and Augusta.
</Quote>


How nearby is the "nearby" Katy Trail between St. Charles and Augusta? Is it kept clear during the winter months? What shape is it in overall?


You know what I have to say that I have noticed both, and ah correct me if I'm mistaken but aren't all cars suppose to be equipped with working brakes?

I'm sorry, but I had to kind of laugh at this line:

<Quote>
"You're going 55 (mph) and there's absolute limited sight distance," he said. "You come around a corner and come upon a bike in seconds and you have to react."
</Quote>

Shouldn't common sense say that if one has limited sight distance that they should already be slowing down and not be going 55MPH? I mean what if there is a car that has stalled out?

Yes, a similar statement ended up working in our favor when there was an effort to deny our cycling club a permit to hold an organized metric century ride. A resident on one of the rural roads planned for the ride requested that the sheriff deny the permit on safety grounds. The sheriff arranged a meeting with residents of that road and representatives of the club to discuss the issues. One of the conversations went something like this:

Res.: It's dangerous when you're driving at 55 and come around a bend and there are bikers right in front of you.
Club rep.: Sheriff, what's the maximum speed limit along this road?
Sheriff: 40 mph.
Club rep.: And at 40 mph, instead of 55, wouldn't the sight lines be sufficient to slow down and wait for a safe opportunity to pass?
Sheriff: Yes.

Between the implied admission that the real safety problem was speeding rather than the presence of cyclists and the lack of support from other residents the objections died away and we got the permit.

Reading this, two things come to mind. First the lovely delusion of "statistical" driving, something some of my relatives were masters of. They were consistently faster than me over a certain stretch of road and I couldn't figure out why - until I spotted the way they would gladly cut across into the other lane to straighten out certain blind bends. When asked if they didn't realize the danger of this they replied in a perfectly everyday voice that they'd never had any oncoming traffic in those corners before, so they couldn't see why it would happen now....

Next is that I just can't figure out what it is about bikes and cyclists in particular that seems to upset motorists so, there are plenty of other "obstacles" and slower vehicles that has to be dealt with on a daily basis anyhow - so what's so special about bikes?
The only semi-valid reason I can come up with is that it's base on some sort of perception of how badly someone actually "need" to be on that road, at which point it quickly gets patently silly. Who is going to judge which reasons for being on the road are good enough? Where do you draw the line? To work and back, that's probably OK. But what if you decide to swing by a mall or something on the way home? There might always be someone around who "need" the road more than you do.
Then again, if you think that bikes are provocative, try inline skating. A few days of that and getting back on the bike will seem like bliss in terms of tolerance.

Yes, a similar statement ended up working in our favor when there was an effort to deny our cycling club a permit to hold an organized metric century ride. A resident on one of the rural roads planned for the ride requested that the sheriff deny the permit on safety grounds. The sheriff arranged a meeting with residents of that road and representatives of the club to discuss the issues. One of the conversations went something like this:

Res.: It's dangerous when you're driving at 55 and come around a bend and there are bikers right in front of you.
Club rep.: Sheriff, what's the maximum speed limit along this road?
Sheriff: 40 mph.
Club rep.: And at 40 mph, instead of 55, wouldn't the sight lines be sufficient to slow down and wait for a safe opportunity to pass?
Sheriff: Yes.

Between the implied admission that the real safety problem was speeding rather than the presence of cyclists and the lack of support from other residents the objections died away and we got the permit.

How many people actually complained and how many were just there to support the complainers? How did the complainers react when they realized that they had just admitted to a cop that they regularly speed on that street?

Reading this, two things come to mind. First the lovely delusion of "statistical" driving, something some of my relatives were masters of. They were consistently faster than me over a certain stretch of road and I couldn't figure out why - until I spotted the way they would gladly cut across into the other lane to straighten out certain blind bends. When asked if they didn't realize the danger of this they replied in a perfectly everyday voice that they'd never had any oncoming traffic in those corners before, so they couldn't see why it would happen now....

Do they still do this and if so what would be their excuse when they finally hit someone head on?


Next is that I just can't figure out what it is about bikes and cyclists in particular that seems to upset motorists so, there are plenty of other "obstacles" and slower vehicles that has to be dealt with on a daily basis anyhow - so what's so special about bikes?

When you figure that out, please let the rest of us know why.


The only semi-valid reason I can come up with is that it's base on some sort of perception of how badly someone actually "need" to be on that road, at which point it quickly gets patently silly. Who is going to judge which reasons for being on the road are good enough? Where do you draw the line? To work and back, that's probably OK. But what if you decide to swing by a mall or something on the way home? There might always be someone around who "need" the road more than you do.
Then again, if you think that bikes are provocative, try inline skating. A few days of that and getting back on the bike will seem like bliss in terms of tolerance.

Yep, as I've mentioned in other threads I met a woman not too long ago who actually thought that bikes on the road weren't a good idea because people who drive are trying to get things from Point A to Point B. I guess that it never occurred to her that there was a big flaw in her "logic." That being that not all the trips in a car are to take things from Point A to Point B, and that people on bicycles are doing exactly the same thing.

That and I think it surprised her to learn just how much a bike, rider, and cargo can weigh. As well as how much damage that a bike, rider and cargo can do to a person. Hell all we have to do is to look at the recent fatality between a bike (albeit with two passengers) and a pedestrian over the 4th of July weekend in Clearwater, Fl.

One useful strategy for countering these anti-slow-vehicle arguments is to win the police over to supporting cautious driving for the safety of stopped traffic. Police often find themselves standing in the roadway directing traffic or attending to stopped or disabled vehicles. Their own safety requires compelling drivers to limit their speed based on sight distance. The police can also be led to recognize the implications for school buses, mail trucks, garbage trucks, pedestrians crossing the street, etc. should the public be allowed to think overdriving one's sight distance is ever acceptable.

Speed Limit: No faster than you can see to stop!

It's dangerous out there. What if.....

http://www.theonion.com/video/truck-accident-that-killed-rafters-in-canyon-spark,17697/

It's dangerous out there. What if.....

http://www.theonion.com/video/truck-accident-that-killed-rafters-in-canyon-spark,17697/

ok, that was funny.

I like this quote:


"You're going 55 (mph) and there's absolute limited sight distance," he said. "You come around a corner and come upon a bike in seconds and you have to react."

A few years ago, I was driving (a car!) on the Olympic peninsula. I was annoying the car behind me by going slower than the speed limit, because the road had a lot of sharp turns, and because the fog was thicker than pea soup. Some deer walked across the road in front of my car, at pretty close range. Fortunately, I have these things called brakes, and with their help, I avoided a collision.

The only roads that ban bikes I am aware of is the federal interstate system.
It's common to ban bicycles from highways. They don't have to be federal (eg, the Garden State Parkway in NJ isn't federal).

A few years ago, I was driving (a car!) on the Olympic peninsula. I was annoying the car behind me by going slower than the speed limit, because the road had a lot of sharp turns, and because the fog was thicker than pea soup.

But Edward drives there really fast!

The only roads that ban bikes I am aware of is the federal interstate system.Bikes are not automatically banned from the federal interstate system.

The state or local communities could ban bikes, but the federal government does not. (And the state or local communities generally can't do so if there's no other appropriate route to take instead.)

There's a lot of people who assume that things are banned just because they assume that they should be banned, but that doesn't make it so. (Unfortunately, sometimes these people are police and judges, but hopefully that's pretty rare.)

For example, in Texas, there are no state (or federal) laws prohibiting bicycles from riding on any highways. However, some cities have prohibited bicycles from certain roads for certain reasons, and Texas law does permit this as long as certain hoops are jumped through.

I like this quote:



A few years ago, I was driving (a car!) on the Olympic peninsula. I was annoying the car behind me by going slower than the speed limit, because the road had a lot of sharp turns, and because the fog was thicker than pea soup. Some deer walked across the road in front of my car, at pretty close range. Fortunately, I have these things called brakes, and with their help, I avoided a collision.

SF,

Correct me if I am mistaken, but don't they usually have warning signs before a stretch of road with S-curves, or a bunch of sharp turns indicating the one should reduce their speed by as up to 20MPH lower then the actual speed limit?

I'm sorry, but I had to kind of laugh at this line:

<Quote>
"You're going 55 (mph) and there's absolute limited sight distance," he said. "You come around a corner and come upon a bike in seconds and you have to react."
</Quote>

Shouldn't common sense say that if one has limited sight distance that they should already be slowing down and not be going 55MPH? I mean what if there is a car that has stalled out?


Where I live (Ontario) - it's very common to see signs posted with reduced speed limits when approaching sharp curves / areas of reduced visibility. It's only for that section of road - usually on a yellow sign with a curve indicating it's for that small section of road. Even without cyclists, flying around a blind curve at 55mph seems dangerous.

Where I live (Ontario) - it's very common to see signs posted with reduced speed limits when approaching sharp curves / areas of reduced visibility. It's only for that section of road - usually on a yellow sign with a curve indicating it's for that small section of road. Even without cyclists, flying around a blind curve at 55mph seems dangerous.
Where I live, those yellow signs are "advisory speed" signs and not a lower speed limit sign. I don't know if you can get a ticket for violating the advisory speed limit but you can get in trouble when not using common sense.

don't know if you can get a ticket for violating the advisory speed limit but you can get in trouble when not using common sense.Depends on the laws where you live, but in general there's a "going too fast for conditions" violation everywhere, and if an advisory sign says slow down and you don't do so and something bad happens ... that ought to qualify.

The police may not see it that way, but if they do, the laws are likely there for them to write tickets against if they so choose.

The police are unlikely to ticket for traveling too fast for conditions, but under the maximum posted limit, unless a collision happens. In this case the violation is usually "failure to reduce speed to avoid a collision." Drivers must always be prepared to reduce speed to avoid stopped traffic ahead. If they choose to drive aggressively, they will need to brake aggressively. Any danger is caused by their lack of preparation to respond to the inevitable consequences of their own driving decisions.

Bikes should not be allowed on roads with no shoulders and speed limits about 40MPH. The solution would be to lower the speed limit or ban the bikes on roads where cars can legally go 55mph.

The police are unlikely to ticket for traveling too fast for conditions, but under the maximum posted limit, unless a collision happens.

Depends where you're from. It happens here a lot, mostly in the winter when we get our thick fog.

Bikes should not be allowed on roads with no shoulders and speed limits about 40MPH. The solution would be to lower the speed limit or ban the bikes on roads where cars can legally go 55mph.

Huh? For many folks, the only road from Point A to Point B lacks shoulders. Banning bikes violates fundamental right to mobility, under which the right to move freely on public roads under one's own power surely trumps all other modes of transportation.

huh? For many folks, the only road from point a to point b lacks shoulders. Banning bikes violates fundamental right to mobility, under which the right to move freely on public roads under one's own power surely trumps all other modes of transportation.
here, here!!!

Bikes should not be allowed on roads with no shoulders and speed limits about 40MPH. The solution would be to lower the speed limit or ban the bikes on roads where cars can legally go 55mph.

Ridiculous. I wouldn't be able to bike to work unless I used shoulderless roads posted 45 mph. There are no alternate routes to the office park. Most of the local club rides use roads posted 55 with no shoulders. We haven't had any problems with drivers not able to slow down in time.

Where I live (Ontario) - it's very common to see signs posted with reduced speed limits when approaching sharp curves / areas of reduced visibility. It's only for that section of road - usually on a yellow sign with a curve indicating it's for that small section of road. Even without cyclists, flying around a blind curve at 55mph seems dangerous.

Yep, those are the signs that I'm talking about. We also have them on roads that get dangerous when they get wet. And let's not forget those hills with limited sight lines/distance.

Yet, there are hundreds of people who think that they can "handle it," and that the warning doesn't apply to them.

Here's a question that I am fairly sure that most of us here have asked and don't have an answer to, but I'm going to ask it again.

What is it going to take to wake up most motorists and make 'em realize that the posted speed limit is X MPH that doesn't mean that it isn't always safe for them to travel at X MPH all of the time?

I've lost count of the number of times I've been out riding and either have gotten caught in the rain, or out just after it's rained when the road is still wet and slippery and people are STILL driving the posted speed limit. Again I have lost count of the number of times that I've been out riding after it's been raining and have heard tires squealing when the driver pulls out when the light turns green for them. Shouldn't the fact that their tires are squealing be a good indicator that they are traveling too fast for the current road conditions?

^ Holy crap. They do that in Florida too? I thought it was a SoCal thing.

SF,

Correct me if I am mistaken, but don't they usually have warning signs before a stretch of road with S-curves, or a bunch of sharp turns indicating the one should reduce their speed by as up to 20MPH lower then the actual speed limit?

Usually. I can't recall whether they had these in this case or not - it was a few years ago.

^ Holy crap. They do that in Florida too? I thought it was a SoCal thing.

They probably do that everywhere.

Huh? For many folks, the only road from Point A to Point B lacks shoulders. Banning bikes violates fundamental right to mobility, under which the right to move freely on public roads under one's own power surely trumps all other modes of transportation.
I love my bike. I love to ride my bike. I would LOVE it if the roads were sfaer for us. Sadly, they are not.

I am one of those crazies that thinks no road should have a speed limit above 40MPH except for highways. There is this road I drive down every day to work. It is called great seneca highway. It is about 8 miles long has like 10 stop lighst along its way. Speed limit is 50-55 MPH. If you traveled the whole length you really would not save that much time going 60 vs 40MPH.People bike on it and it has no shoulder. Just flat out dangerous.

Kind of like the national seatbelt laws. I rmember when they first came out. I wonder if some advocates could push forward a "no above 40MPH" law.

Bikes should not be allowed on roads with no shoulders and speed limits about 40MPH. The solution would be to lower the speed limit or ban the bikes on roads where cars can legally go 55mph.

No, the solution is to limit speeds on roadways so that all users can safely use them... 55MPH and higher speeds belong on limited access roads... freeways; not shared access roads with intersections and stoplights. Speed inflation in this country has gone nuts since the national 55MPH speed limit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law) was repealed in the 80s.

No, the solution is to limit speeds on roadways so that all users can safely use them... 55MPH and higher speeds belong on limited access roads... freeways; not shared access roads with intersections and stoplights.

Try any of several hundred routes in Texas where you might go 200 miles on farm-to-market roads. The only freeway routes would involve going another 50-60 miles out of the way. The difference between 40 and the posted 70 gets to be multiple hours pretty quickly.

Found an update on this:

State transportation officials said Tuesday that a proposed St. Charles County ban on bicyclists on some state highways without shoulders would have no legal authority and couldn't be enforced. Melissa Anderson, who oversees bicycle issues for the Missouri Department of Transportation, cited a state law giving MoDOT's governing board supervision of roads built or maintained with state money.
The county bill's sponsor — County Councilman Joe Brazil, R-Defiance — said he continues to believe that the county can enforce such a law, using authority on health and safety. Brazil said the ban would protect public safety on hilly, curving roads in the semi-rural southwest part of the county. Bicycling activists oppose the measure.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/article_40b21a16-8efe-11df-8e4f-00127992bc8b.html

Try any of several hundred routes in Texas where you might go 200 miles on farm-to-market roads. The only freeway routes would involve going another 50-60 miles out of the way. The difference between 40 and the posted 70 gets to be multiple hours pretty quickly.

You mean like these lonely stretches of roadway...

160017

I grew up riding these, and the amount of traffic meant that most of the time I was the only thing in sight. Works fine for farm to market roads, works lousy for busy urban roads. 'Course Texas drivers also knew to drive the sight lines, as you'd never know when a cow might be in the road over the next rise.

Bikes should not be allowed on roads with no shoulders and speed limits about 40MPH. The solution would be to lower the speed limit or ban the bikes on roads where cars can legally go 55mph.

Fine. As long as it's illegal to have such a roadway.

Speed inflation in this country has gone nuts since the national 55MPH speed limit was repealed in the 80s.
That was in the very late '80s: 1995.

That was in the very late '80s: 1995.

The law was fully repealed in 1995, but modified in the late '80's to permit 65MPH in many areas. Meanwhile speed limits on surface streets were already climbing. There is plenty of evidence of that around here where you can see one speed limit in fading paint, and another higher speed limit on new signs.

Since the wise Councillor Brazil is against smoking bans on the grounds that it infringes individual freedom and choice, clearly local cyclists should smoke while riding these roads.

Poor chap would probably explode, trying to square the circle (or mixing his metaphors).

By the way, I was deeply moved by the sad story of the 16-year old Lexus-driving girl who crashed into a tree while avoiding a cyclist and was badly injured when she was thrown out of the car. Obviously an anti-seatbelt law freedom lover. However, I don't quite understand how a 16-year old can be trusted to show sufficient judgement to be trusted to drive a 2-ton vehicle at 55mph round a blind bend safely, but adults riding bikes must be protected from their own lack of said judgement.

Perhaps it's a US thing.

Alternatively, the Councillor has the IQ of a brain-damaged gerbil?

Found an update on this:

State transportation officials said Tuesday that a proposed St. Charles County ban on bicyclists on some state highways without shoulders would have no legal authority and couldn't be enforced. Melissa Anderson, who oversees bicycle issues for the Missouri Department of Transportation, cited a state law giving MoDOT's governing board supervision of roads built or maintained with state money.
The county bill's sponsor — County Councilman Joe Brazil, R-Defiance — said he continues to believe that the county can enforce such a law, using authority on health and safety. Brazil said the ban would protect public safety on hilly, curving roads in the semi-rural southwest part of the county. Bicycling activists oppose the measure.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/article_40b21a16-8efe-11df-8e4f-00127992bc8b.html

Talk about a load of horse pucky. I would think that it is a VERY big stretch to apply the "health and safety" umbrella applies. Especially when the easier solution would be to reduce the overall speed on the road(s) that they are wanting to ban cyclists from. What are they going to do next, ban people from breaking down on the road because of the speed if one came over the hill or around the curve they wouldn't be able to stop in time?

I guess it never occurred to them to just slow the f(#* down.

You mean like these lonely stretches of roadway...

160017

They're not all that lonely, especially with all the city folk who want to retire to the country, by building a subdivision 5-10 miles out of town so they get all the drawbacks of neighbors 10ft away and HOAs, without the convenience of having a store in walking distance.


I grew up riding these, and the amount of traffic meant that most of the time I was the only thing in sight. Works fine for farm to market roads, works lousy for busy urban roads. 'Course Texas drivers also knew to drive the sight lines, as you'd never know when a cow might be in the road over the next rise.

The main problem we seem to have at the Firecracker 100 is the milk trucks. For those who have ridden it, the worst spot is the last rest stop on most routes, on FM914 just past the sewage plant road. It's at the bottom of a very blind hill. I spent one year working communications for that rest stop, sitting by the radio with my camera getting photos of all the milk trucks topping the hill in the oncoming lane at 60MPH because they just couldn't wait for the passing lane. It's amazing that there hasn't been a head-on collision there yet. We do seem to get a fair number of wrecks the rest of the year from milk tankers driving too fast for their sight lines, though. You would think that with an expensive and absolutely unsalvageable cargo, their employers might be a bit pickier.

What are they going to do next, ban people from breaking down....?

Germany has such a law for the autobahn. break down and you'll get ticketed quicker than you can get a tow truck. I've heard of people being ticketed for "abandoning" their vehicle on the interstate for 15 minutes (out of gas).

They're not all that lonely, especially with all the city folk who want to retire to the country, by building a subdivision 5-10 miles out of town so they get all the drawbacks of neighbors 10ft away and HOAs, without the convenience of having a store in walking distance.


Are they not required to improve the roads out to the subdivision? I suppose not... as I do recall isolated pockets of homes out in the middle of nowhere on my recent visit to Fort Worth and my drive down the back roads to Austin.

In some ways I might even want to be a part of that "problem." I rather enjoyed Fredericksburg and Johnson City, although they hardly qualify as "subdivisions." This former sudo-Texan could just see retiring in one of those quiet burgs and cycling the back roads a couple of times a week just to stretch the legs. There's nothing like a long lonely stretch of rolling hills for pure cycling enjoyment. 'Course no doubt, soon's I had a good cadence going, some good ole boy'd come along and whoop me up with his truck horn like an idiot.

I have indeed enjoyed such roads in the past... but I understand what you mean about some areas not being so lonely. But still you aren't talking about densely packed wide urban roads moving at 55MPH... Those are a royal pain as you have to negotiate each lane as you cross, when you cross, just to make a left turn.

Two lane blacktop doesn't have that problem.





The main problem we seem to have at the Firecracker 100 is the milk trucks. For those who have ridden it, the worst spot is the last rest stop on most routes, on FM914 just past the sewage plant road. It's at the bottom of a very blind hill. I spent one year working communications for that rest stop, sitting by the radio with my camera getting photos of all the milk trucks topping the hill in the oncoming lane at 60MPH because they just couldn't wait for the passing lane. It's amazing that there hasn't been a head-on collision there yet. We do seem to get a fair number of wrecks the rest of the year from milk tankers driving too fast for their sight lines, though. You would think that with an expensive and absolutely unsalvageable cargo, their employers might be a bit pickier.

Sounds like the same sort of issues that the logging trucks present (except for the "unsalvagable" part) up in the PNW.

I really have no solutions... beautiful roads, that become uncomfortable for cyclists due to jacka$$ drivers. At least in some places in Oregon, the shoulders are 8-9 feet wide and really nice to ride. Not so the case in Texas... as that photo I posted, showed. Wide shoulders however are not an easy solution, as no state wants to go out and spend more money for little used roads.