Catweazle

Nope. Sorry. It's the attitude expressed there which is the bigger problem, not the comment made by Tom Bombadil. As maddmaxx indicated, 'better' slower vehicle drivers pull over every now and then to let the traffic go past. Your post, mandovoodoo, seems to assume that it's the end of the world if the rider pulls over, and no problem at all if the driver gets slowed down.


We wouldn't have these problems if people riding 'thought like' car drivers and people driving 'thought like' riders. Instead we'd see more courtesy extended toward others. Facts of the scenario? Let's see:

• The rider pulls over, hopping off if necessary and walking the bike.
• That rider loses no time at all, really, because walking is bugger-all slower than the riding pace up that hill.
• That rider actually 'gains' in a way, by getting opportunity to have a breather for a few moments.

What happens if the rider stays in the lane in that circumstance?

• The car driver gets severely impeded, because the drop in speed to 5mph is a quite dramatic one.
• The car driver's pocket gets hurt, because accelerating up again from that slow speed costs money in extra fuel usage.
• The delay and expense was very easily avoidable, so the car driver is understandably a bit irritated or annoyed about it.

Fair dinkum, the "us versus them" mentality is a ridiculous thing to adopt, irrespective of whether you are a rider or a driver. People should be thinking about and mindful of the other bloke at all times. If it's no genuine inconvenience to the driver if the rider remains in the lanbe then that's fine. But the circumstance of a rider slowly trundling up a steep hill, where the driver cannot pass with any safety, then pulling over should be a no-brainer!


Edit: In my opinion, of course

alcanoe

That's the secret of survival, especially when you are the vulnerable one. I've ridden road motorcycles since the age of 14 and have amassed somewhere between 70 & 80 thousand miles with no accidents. According to some data which is about a decade old, the "per hour of exposure" death rate for motorcyclists is much higher than road cyclist and about even with hang gliding.

I attribute the record to luck and a mind set where I felt if I, or even worse, if my wife got hurt, it was my fault no matter the circumstances. I took full responsibility for the outcome. After all, you can't change the environment you ride in, so you have to adapt yourself to that environment if survival is is your number one goal.

When I started to ride with the wife on the back, I got all the books on how to ride safely and bought the accident statistics to find out what are the most likely causes of accidents. I did the same for road cycling. No need to reinvent the wheel: it's best to build on prior art.

By the way, my speed was generally around 80 mph no matter the speed limit if conditions were adequate. I still had a lot of fun while being extremely focused on survival.

Al

maddmaxx 

There are other environments with different requirements for riders/drivers. The above discussions revolved areound what what probably a rural setting where there is relatively little downside for either rider or driver to accomodate the others needs.

The next environment to look at is the urban commute. This is perhaps a different situation. A rider who pulls over to let one car by does little good as there are dozens or more other cars behind the first. A driver who gives the rider a break is stepping into deep water with regard to the other drivers around him/her. Agression levels rise and pretty soon its back to kill and be eaten. This is not my riding environment and if it were, I would quickly adopt a different set of rules.

IMHO though, the two environments comingle more than we think and some form of compromise/sharing is in order. The more base instincts that run through me though think that sometimes its still fun to bare my teeth at the offender and indicate that I would just as soon chew his/her arm off. Perhaps we are still driven by our distant past.

Catweazle

Not mine either, maddmaxx, but when I was down the city for a period of time recently I took a good look around for bike travel. I was close in to the inner city area, in a section of Melbourne where several rather major roads feed in from freeways and such. Still found that, by riding back streets rather than main thoroughfares, I could travel relatively car-free at pretty much any time of day, and get from place to place quicker than I could in the car.

Different set of rules, for sure. I was 'beating' the vehicle commuters without head-butting them.

mandovoodoo

"Nope. Sorry. It's the attitude expressed there which is the bigger problem, not the comment made by Tom Bombadil. As maddmaxx indicated, 'better' slower vehicle drivers pull over every now and then to let the traffic go past. Your post, mandovoodoo, seems to assume that it's the end of the world if the rider pulls over, and no problem at all if the driver gets slowed down."

It isn't. Good riders let folks by. When it's save. I don't assume it's the end of the world for a cyclist or other slow moving vehicle to pull over sometimes. That's not the issue. Usually there's no place to pull over to. That's true for cyclists, farm vehicles, and motorists actually driving the speed limit.

A safe pass is a safe pass. If the lane is wide, which I favor over every other solution, and a car can go by leaving 3 feet between a cycle and the yellow line, great. That's not what I see 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time and never in a rural setting. And in a rural setting I don't see shoulders.

Double yellow, limited sight line, relatively narrow lane. A vehicle of any kind, including a bicycle, has no business passing under those circumstances.

Look at it from the burdened v. privileged perspective. A privileged person MAY decide to give the burdened party a break or may not. Regardless of the circumstances, even if it doesn't cost anything. The burdened party has the burden. Fuming about it, complaining about it, blaming the privileged party doesn't do a thing. That's what we have here.

Move it into another setting. Interstate travel, cruise control, and big rigs. The big rigs are fast down and slow up, like bicycles. The cars are on cruise at a steady speed. So up hills a big rig slides up along side a car slowing, then signals and expects the car to drop back. Well, maybe the car will and maybe the car won't. It doesn't matter. The big rig is the burdened vehicle. The car can do what it wants, that doesn't change the big rig's burden. Now the big rig drivers whine about this lack of courtesy, but they're completely wrong. That they have a big vehicle with special characteristics doesn't make it their dang road. The passing party is burdened.

Same on rural highways with bikes. Hey, some idiot can be weaving back and forth across a lane up a blind hill. That's stupid, but the approaching car is still burdened and can't pass legally or sensibly under those circumstances. That is not a problem! The car, the burdened party, the one the driver is privileged rather than has a right to drive, gives way until the situation allows passing. It isn't a big deal.

I end up on both sides of this issue regularly. I wait for cyclists, walkers, farm vehicles all the time. I ride up hills with no place to let anyone by on my cycle all the time, and they pass when safe. There's a somewhat wider road I ride up in the mountains with lots of traffic. I can ride on that one with room for folks to pass in the lane. That's rare.

"We wouldn't have these problems if people riding 'thought like' car drivers and people driving 'thought like' riders. Instead we'd see more courtesy extended toward others. Facts of the scenario? Let's see:"

YES. Or if they simply considered their responsibilities. But that someone else does something you don't like doesn't give you the right to be mad or endanger anyone. The problem isn't the person doing something odd (which we see all the time) but the idiots taking risks in response.

"The rider pulls over, hopping off if necessary and walking the bike.
That rider loses no time at all, really, because walking is bugger-all slower than the riding pace up that hill.
That rider actually 'gains' in a way, by getting opportunity to have a breather for a few moments."

That's silly. Have to walk in cleats? I haven't seen a cyclist going up a hill slower than or equivalent to walking pace. Walking isn't a breather.

"What happens if the rider stays in the lane in that circumstance?

"The car driver gets severely impeded, because the drop in speed to 5mph is a quite dramatic one."

Yeah, so what? If it isn't safe to pass, then it isn't safe to pass. That's just what happens on roads. Of course a cyclist should behave reasonably, but one has to expect to be slowed in a vehicle. There's no right to move along at the speed limit.

"The car driver's pocket gets hurt, because accelerating up again from that slow speed costs money in extra fuel usage."

Yeah yeah, didn't have to get in the car, it's a privilege, could have stayed home. Have to EXPECT impediments to travel out there. Try Cairo.

"The delay and expense was very easily avoidable, so the car driver is understandably a bit irritated or annoyed about it."


Oh yeah, understandably annoyed because of a mistaken sense of entitlement to the road at the speed limit. The burdens and responsibilities of the privilege of driving AND riding should really be better shouldered by the parties involved. When one party does stupid and the other has to give way, well, that's the breaks. I strongly suspect that an objective view from above would show cyclists, motorcyclists, and walkers turning away from their legally supported "rights" because motorists fail to shoulder their burdens far far more than motorists are impeded by those slower road users excessively using their privileges.

Driving a 3000 lb deadly weapon brings more responsibility and burden than most are willing to acknowledge. Insisting that others give way when reasonable is a handy excuse for bad behavior. That others behave in an unreasonable manner isn't an excuse.

Just back up a little and take a look. "Yes, officer, that cyclist was in my lane so I passed." "Why that's right, I couldn't really see, but I wasn't about to wait until she got over the top of the hill, I'd have been held up." "Well, she should have gotten off and walked." "At least I didn't hit the oncoming car." "I didn't mean to hit her - she shouldn't have been there in the first place." "How come the paramedic isn't hurrying, is she dead?"

Now make all those nice excuses to the jury.[/LIST]


Fair dinkum, the "us versus them" mentality is a ridiculous thing to adopt, irrespective of whether you are a rider or a driver. People should be thinking about and mindful of the other bloke at all times. If it's no genuine inconvenience to the driver if the rider remains in the lanbe then that's fine. But the circumstance of a rider slowly trundling up a steep hill, where the driver cannot pass with any safety, then pulling over should be a no-brainer!


Edit: In my opinion, of course [/QUOTE]

Catweazle

mandovoodoo I'm gonna graciously, humbly and apologetically concede you that bit about walking in cleats. Describing that as "a breather" was remiss of me, I admit.

Beverly

I agree 100% that the environment greatly affects the situation.

Several of the local rides are on flat roads with nothing around but farms, corn, soy beans and those old mean country dogs Many, not all, of the farmers hauling heavy equipment on the roads will pull to the side and let the bikes pass. These are narrow county roads and often the equipment takes up the entire road.

While riding the country roads we don't encounter too much traffic but when we do we break off into single file. I have to admit we often blow-off the stop signs unless there's another vehicle in sight. When other cars are present, we stop! One of the things we do need to watch for is motorist blowing off those stop signs, too

John E

An honest and ethical libertarian free acknowledges that individual rights and privileges come only with individual responsibility and accountability. I do consider myself rabidly self-reliant, but not so self-absorbed that I could ignore or compromise the safety of those around me.

walter231

Something that puzzles me: I have driven for 44 years/500000+ miles, and would guess that altogether I have been delayed or inconvenienced by cyclists for a grand total of 30 minutes of road time. That's really insignificant. Comparable to the total delay time attributable to raccoons, wild turkeys, deer, bears, and moose, and nowhere near, for instance, to the many hours lost just to construction delays on interstates. I doubt that my experience can be all that atypical. So why does the presence of cyclists on the road upset some drivers in the first place?

Of course now and then someone will hit a bear and crash, and then there will be a few voices calling for urgent action on the bear problem, but that stuff never seems to become an ongoing issue.

mandovoodoo

Bike laws generally reflect a minimum standard of behavior. They govern the interaction nicely. I suspect road rage comes from not understanding the rules and from that nice entitlement BS we've been exposed to above. Getting mad on the road is simply STUPID. Always. Get a grip. Roads have so much humor, why get mad.

A prudent cyclist rides as far to the right as practicable, which can quite reasonably include staying in the right hand traffic tire track to allow manuveuring, even if that would force cars to pass by going into the left half of the roadway. In fact, most lanes here would require a passing car to go into the left half of the roadway even when the cyclist is riding in the last 2" of road on the right. Let's test this. My road outside the window here, a rather good rural road with a fair amount of cycle traffic, has lanes a tad under 10 feet wide, center of white stripe to center of double yellow. My bike is 2 feet wide. If I ride right next to the white line, I'm using 1.5 feet of road. Add 3 ft minimum passing approach (our Jeff Roth law) and that's 4.5 ft of road used up. That leaves 5.5 ft of road left. Cars are about 6 feet wide, we'll be generous and not count mirrors, which would count really. A car simply cannot pass without going into the left half of the road. Even if a cyclist is irrationally close to the right edge of the road. And this is a big road around here.

So when can a car pass? When the driver can see well enough. Blind hills and corners the motorist can't legally pass. They do all the time. Hey, they do this when I'm driving my little truck at the 35 mph speed limit!

This isn't the cyclist's fault or the slow motor vehicle driver's fault. It's the passing driver's error in judgment. I suspect caused by a combination of the way we promote vehicles, lack of enforcement, acceptance of the road BS by most people, and that weird "it is my road" private space effect. That and not understanding that driving is a privilege with responsibilities.

So. Given a range of circumstances coming up on a blind curve or hill:

Idiot intentionally blocking road with bicycle.
Crazy person weaving all over.
Jerk taking up whole lane on purpose.
Methodical cyclist riding in right tire path.
Wimp riding on white line.
Megawimp walking bike on edge of road
Runner in road at edge coming towards car
Farm equipment
Horse rider
Horse & buggy


It's ALWAYS illegal and stupid to pass under these circumstance if it puts the vehicle into oncoming traffic. Doesn't matter what the impediment to the overtaking vehicle is. Most of the above are traffic, too!

If there's a hazard and the road is blocked, then a smart fellow sends a lookup up and waits for a clear signal.

Yet we have people passing badly all the time. Probably from the sense of entitlement US folks have about driving, and as we've seen illustrated above. And the failure to realize that other road users are traffic. I'm traffic when I'm cycling. I'm usually going someone not just poking along!

I just drive and ride like Jerry Springer. A neutral, observant, non-judgmental point of view. Sometimes people say hi, sometimes they blow up at me because they had a fight with the wife. They have the problem already, I'm not causing it by being on the road going somewhere!



Motorist:
Has to drive on the right half unless overtaking or oneway, etc.

Bicyclist:

Is “granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle . . . except as to those provisions . . . which by their nature can have no application.”

Has to ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway unless overtaking and passing, preparing for a left turn, or “when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, “substandard width lane” means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.” (Under our Jeff Roth law, 3 ft separation is required when a vehicle overtakes a bicycle.)

Can't ride more than 2 abreast, can't ride 2 abreast if that impede's “the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.”

Both:

Can't drive to the left of center in overtaking unless the left side is clearly visible & sufficiently free from oncoming traffic to allow passing without interfering with safe operation of oncoming or passed vehicle.

Can't be driven to the left of center ever when approaching “the crest of a grade or upon a curve in the highway where the driver's view is obstructed within three hundred feet or such distance as to create a hazard in the event another vehicle might approach from the opposite direction.”

Can't be driven left of center within 100 ft of any intersection railroad grade crossing.

Can't be driven left of center when view is obstructed within 100 ft of any bridge, viaduct or tunnel.

spikedog123

Any decent skilled cyclist can ride within 6 inches of the white line. Those that don't and ride out 5 feet into the roadway for their "safety" are rude, **holes IMHO. It's not the drivers who are being jerks. for being impatient. A skilled driver should slowly pass and allow adequate clearance for the cyclist. You know, it's kinda like the golden rule we learned in kindergarten- Treat others the same way we want to be treated.

(Humph. That felt great. Another opportunity to vent)

gcottay

Actually, in some settings, riding five feet or so into the roadway is not rude at all but rather safe. When the lane is too narrow to allow for safe passing or when making a left turn, a wise and experienced cyclist makes the situation plain by riding in a position that amounts to "taking the lane." When the lane is wide enough to allow safe passing, the same cyclist, of course, rides steadily far to the right.

Catweazle

^

Agree with that, wholeheartedly. But I don't agree that labouring up a hill at 5mph is such a circumstance. Matter of fact, I find very few occasions where I actually have need to 'take the lane' other than approaches to certain intersections.

Bud Bent

I always wondered just what on earth drivers, who refused to pull fully into the other lane to pass me, were thinking. I guess now I know. We'll agree to disagree. I don't think passing a cyclist in the same lane is ever a good idea.

alcanoe

It's the recommended way to ride safely by John Forester

( https://www.amazon.com/Effective-Cycl...316628&sr=11-1) .

He's the most responsible for having road cycling obeying the same rules as motor vehicles nationally. That said, I don't often ride that far into the lane as I know it infuriates many drivers and leads to even more anti bike hostility in my area. Sometimes I do have to resort to it.

Some countries like Holland severely restrict bike access to roads. Cyclists are relegated to bike paths to keep them out of the way of motor vehicles. These bike-ways are so crowded that they make it a lousy way to ride.

Al

Kragg

On our ride last night a work truck purposely rode the white line and made a point to beep his horn as he passed. Number 1, we were riding in a 4 foot wide shoulder, plenty of room. Number 2, when the last rider yells "car back !!!", we ALWAYS slide further to the right single file. Number 3, by beeping his horn, which was very loud, one of us could have been startled enough to crash. Obviously an a**hole.
Because I am a rider I am ALWAYS courteous to other riders, been there, done that.
On another safety note, the guys I ride with have no problem walking the bike across a busy road. I refuse to take a chance missing a pedal or misjudging the speed of an approaching vehicle. You mostly control your own destiny on the road. So take the time to be aware at all times. Use hand signals when changing directions. Don't be afraid to take a lane at a stop light when riding in a group, it's safer than waiting on the side of the road and traversing the road to make your turn. And whistle or shout out when approaching a side street with a waiting vehicle, even though they seem to be paying attention to you, sometimes it just doesn't register.

spikedog123

Beep! Beep! Beep! Outta my way, you idiot cyclist! Don't you know how to ride!)?


Lemme see: Narrow lane roadway 12 feet wide. Wide cyclist 2.5 feet. Car 7 feet. Distance left over between car and cyclist 2.5 feet. Why must a cyclist take 5 feet of the roadway to make things "safe"? Who is he/she keeping "safe"?

IMHO, the cyclist should move over! (Exceptions allowed for left turn with hand signals)

alcanoe

I don't know about dimensions, but there are many two lane roads that do not allow sufficient width for both a motor vehicle and a cyclist to fit for the safety of THE CYCLIST. Florida law, if I remember correctly says in effect that a cyclist must keep to the right as far as possible where he feels safe. In other words, it's up to the judgment of the cyclist how far to the right he rides since he has everything to lose and people like you have nothing to lose except possibly a little paint. It's that friendly attitude that makes one want to insure that lane-width sharing is avoided.

Al

mandovoodoo

Left over distance must be 3 feet in this state.

Cyclist has to have room to the right for handling road hazards etc.

Narrow lanes around here are 8 feet. Big lanes are 10 feet.

There's not enough room to pass without going into the other lane.

Other lane rules apply.

Cyclists probably shouldn't push the whole-lane thing, but ultimately it doesn't make any difference. The approaching and overtaking vehicle is burdened, and moving into the oncoming lane presents lots of responsibilities.

This has been tested in the judicial system many times.

And it's not a personal thing. The guy in the road may be nuts, but you still can't pass in stupid places with impunity.

Getting upset is pretty silly, too. Doesn't do anything. Just ride it out, as cyclists just ride out the weird stuff that happens with cars and spouses ride out the weird stuff with each other!


Push come to shove in court, the person pushing the edges of common sense and the law tends to suffer. Best not to end up there.

And get used to it. We're going to have a lot more slow scooter and cycle traffic. Just get over the entitlement BS and it's easy.

spikedog123

A correction to my math:

From a government website:

mandovoodoo

Cyclists attempting to do anything other than get from A to B appropriately have a problem. Motorists, too. I've seen many more motorists attempting to educate cyclists that they're big mean nasty dangerous things than the other way around!

A strikingly easy way to make it all work is to gradually replace roads with 14' lanes. I like that even better than shoulders.

And have everybody get into cooperation rather than entitlement mode.

Louis

I take the lane when I feel it is necessary for my safety. The law in my state (Ohio) says it is permissible. I'm not about to let a motorist of unknown (to me) skills try to squeeze through when my life is at stake.

But, hey, that's just me. You can ride however you want.

10 Wheels

Be friendly:
87 miles today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB-4dHP-sQs

spikedog123

Cool video. Okay, the guy in the yellow jersey knows how to ride. The recumbent dude is weaving all over the place. If this were a narrow roadway or no shoulder, the yellow jersey guy would be occuping 2 feet while the recumbent dude, with his weaving is dominating five feet of road space, creating a situation that makes a responsible, cyclist friendly driver, pissed off. You can't tell what the guy is going to do next!

I actually don't get that ticked off while on the road. I value human life as much as anyone. I just have little time for cyclists with sloppy riding habits blaming "the drivers".

As Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?"

oilman_15106

Pull into the side street that goes to the bank parking lot today. Guy riding opposing traffic, no helmet and gets upset at the cars! Gives cyclists a bad name.

On the other hand last weekend a group of teens screamed some foul stuff at us. I yelled back "Ya, well you will be paying for my Social Security when I am 105". Anymore if I don't get run over it is a bonus.