Biker395 

Connect the dots for me. How does accepting that nonsense relate to your notion that I might die (in fact, a virtual certainty ... the only question is when)?

BluesDawg

A narrow two lane road alone does not make a logical argument for riding in the center or left side of the lane. On a narrow road with no curves, hills or other obstacles to seeing whether there is oncoming traffic ahead, it is in a cyclist's best interest to move right so that the driver behind can see the road ahead and make a good decision about whether a pass can be safely executed. To say that a road is too narrow for a car to pass under any circumstanes is to say that a road is too narrow for cars to travel in the opposite direction while you travel in yours. If that is the case, you should get off the road. <edit> meaning whether you are in a car or on a bike.

Dudelsack 

My mother said to me, "Garcon. The world is a beautiful place, and you must spread joy and contentment everywhere you go". And so I became a waiter... Well, I know it's not much of a philosophy but...

Chief

Why is the cyclist compelled to "get off the road" and not the motor vehicle? Are cyclists subordinate to a motor vehicle?
Even on the tiniest roadways, I've never felt obliged to surrender the road to a car.

BlazingPedals

The fact that FRAP clauses exist at all, is proof that we are marginalized. We are only allowed to use certain portions of the road in certain circumstances, preferably when the other users don't want the part we're on? That doesn't sound like sharing to me.

Dudelsack 

When I'm out in da boonies and cars begin to stack up behind me, I pull over and wave them through, as a goodwill gesture. Heck, if I were in a big hurry, I'd be driving my car in the first place.

I've never felt victimized doing this. It just seems like a common courtesy. And the motorists really appreciate it.

Maybe they say that DF MAMILS are jerks but benders are awesome people. Who knows.

BluesDawg

WTF? You apparently missed my point completely and made up an absurdly different one. I am in no way suggesting that cyclists are "subordinate" or suggesting that anyone "surrender" anything.

I was responding to the notion of some roads being inherently too narrow for a car to pass you even on flat and straight sections. If a road is too narrow for a car to pass you from behind going 5-10 mph faster than you, it is also too narrow for a car to pass you in the opposite direction going 35-50 mph relative to you including your own speed. If I felt that a road was that narrow and likely to have traffic, I would not want to be on it on a bike or in a car.

My point is that roads like that are very rare if they exist at all. So with the assumption that cars will pass me on my bike at some point, I find it to be in my own self interest to move to the right side of my lane when cars are behind me so they can more easily see the road ahead. However, when hills or curves etc. block the visibility ahead making it impossible to know if there is oncoming traffic, I will move further out into my lane so as not to appear that I am inviting a car to pass me. Of course, if the driver decided to pass anyway, I would start thinking about how to avoid being involved in the crash if it turns out there was a car coming. That might involve getting off the road.

Cyclosaurus

Your position is based on the idea that drivers have a higher right to the road than cyclists. If drivers' and cyclists' right to use the road is equal, then it would be just as fair to say that if a road is too narrow for cars and bikes to share, then the drivers should get off the road.

The anti-cyclist bias says, drivers own the road, and if cyclists can squeeze in safely without expecting drivers to make any adjustments, then they are allowed to "borrow" some of the road from the drivers. But drivers' right to the road always trumps cyclists'.

Stop perpetuating anti-cyclist tropes.

phoebeisis

Marginalized??
In the same sense say gays until somewhat recently
or blacks during Jim Crow

Really?
Yeah we ride on the margin of the road- but we aren't marginalized in the same sense other groups have been marginalized
It is the wrong word.

Remember we-riders- are generally hated-yes hated- BY PEDESTRIANS- in riding/walking Euro type cities some here are so fond of.
So we really need to INVESTIGATE why pedestrians view us so badly.
Perhaps it is the selfish "pedestrian bias"-that makes them OPPRESS US?

Just look at what happens when a riders KILLS a pedestrian-San Francisco- EVERYONE wants his head. Everyone meaning pedestrians-since walking is more or less universal in those pricy Euro type cities many of you are so fond of-San Francisco NYNY etc.

Perhaps we should investigate PEDESTRIAN BIAS? They oppress us also
And didn't some ultra orthodox jews-NYNY- get us excluded from their neighborhood in NYNY not too long ago?
Got a bike lane removed?
Jews prejudiced against riders also??

We- have lots of enemies.
How will that end? Just look at what happens when the majority-pedestrians- has a chance to get some payback?
I wonder why?
Evil entitled majority pedestrians I guess
they sure as heck hate us for some reason

Dudelsack 

I think his position is based on the fact cars weigh a lot more and carry way more kinetic energy than a bicycle.

Debate all you'd like. It's good for the soul, I suppose.

Calling Bluesdawg anti cyclist is kinda like calling the Pope anti papist. If you're going to make arguments here, just don't get silly. Your last sentence begs people not to take you seriously.

Null66

First people lump all "other" people in groups and then inappropriately generalize.
So for a person in a car, all cyclists are represented by that persons experience of the other group cyclist. And people recall negative experiences of others stronger then positive... Just the way we evolved.

But what do you think of this case?

Riding bike back from work, climbing hill (very slowly, as that's the best I'm able)...

When on the other side comes a pod of cyclists 4 abreast whole lane, about 10 or so deep....
They were likely doing about 30-35 best guess so they were moving along pretty good. But the road is 45 with common speeds over 60...

3 cars stacked up behind.

My first responses were:
Wow!
that's a lot of bikes
They are hauling! I'm lucky to do 25-27 on that hill.
But there's no real way to safely pass them even on flat or worse up hill.

What do you guys think?

prathmann

I'd be glad that they weren't encouraging those three cars to pass so that I wasn't faced with a 60 mph car coming at me on my side of the road.

We have quite a few large group cyclist rides in this area, but I don't remember ever being delayed by more than a few seconds when driving before getting to a safe place to pass.

Leisesturm

You should have hit him then. You're feeling all this pent up rage because you didn't have the stones to do what needed to be done in the moment. Why should we share your POV on this now? Before anyone gets all righteous, I didn't say kill anyone. I said 'hit' the jerk. Done. Over. You'd feel so much better. And we wouldn't have to hear about it.

H

Biker395 

I think 30-35 is pretty flippin awesome. :-)

As for the legality/courtesy issue ... still not enough info. Is there a suitable shoulder? If the roadway is narrow enough that there is insufficient room for a motorist to pass with sufficient clearance without crossing the line, it's acceptable (and legal, at least in my state) to take the entire lane, and at that point, it doesn't matter how many are abreast. If there is an adequate roadway (legal) or shoulder (courtesy) for them to single or double up, they should do so.

john.b

This. And on a "typical Iowa sub county road", no less.

crazyb, post a picture of the road in question.

contango 

I've cycled on quite a few roads like that here in England. Sometimes you can pull to the side and a car can edge past, sometimes the car behind just has to wait until you reach a passing place. Roads like that don't tend to have a lot of traffic, and if a car meets a car coming the other way they get to decide between themselves who reverses to the nearest passing place. Normally a bike and car can pass each other but you wouldn't want to do it at any speed and I certainly wouldn't do anything to let a car behind me pass while I was still moving. If I'm going meaningfully slower than the car could sensibly expect to go then I don't have a problem pulling into the next passing place so it can pass.

If the driver behind me is likely to act like a complete imbecile I'll move further into the road. That not only discourages him from passing but also gives me more space to use in case he does decide to pass anyway. Then when whatever obstacle is behind, I can move closer to the side so he can pass more easily. Having had the odd moronic motorist try and edge past me in a single-width tunnel and right before a traffic island in the middle of the road, I'm far more likely to take a more assertive stance on the road.

crazyb

Wow, sounds like you are the one with the anger issue. No pent up rage here. The whole reason I posted was to get peoples opinions about the effect some riders actions have on perceptions of "non cycling motorists, and boy did I!. It doesn't matter what we think is right or wrong, our actions affect what motorists think and do.

Little Darwin

I do more driving than riding, and I rarely see cyclists on the road around here. However, when I am impeded by anything (cyclist, school bus, truck, pedestrians crossing at stupid spots, or whatever) I try to err on the side of caution/safety. While I have only occasionally been impeded by a cyclist in the road, it is my duty to pass safely regardless of where in the lane the cyclist is

I think the fundamental attitude problem is selfishness reflected in the oft heard. "If they can't at least do the speed limit, they should get off the road." I have heard variations of this said (or screamed) in reference to slow cars and cyclists. I have been blasted by family for pointing out that a cyclist at 20 mph below the limit is following the law, a motorist going 1 mph over the limit is breaking the law. The obligation of the slow vehicle is to pull to the side and allow others to pass when it is safe to do so... Depending on state law, I believe that sometimes this is only required if a certain number of vehicles are impeded... A speed limit on a road is not a statement by the state, or anyone else, that you will be able to drive that fast, when that is the expectation (usually freeways), a minimum speed is posted.

Leisesturm

Clearly you don't recognize sarcasm unless it says so in bold type. Most cyclists are also drivers. In fact, for all practical purposes, ALL cyclists are drivers. There are perhaps a few ten thousands of cyclists in the entire country that are full time vehicular cyclists. Drivers don't fuss or fume behind a slow-poke motorist when they can pass. Only when they can't, do they start to get agitated. The same motorist pulls up behind a cyclist 'blocking the road' and blasts by without breaking stride because a bicycle is ridiculously easy to pass. For some reason though, the memory will linger. The occasion of seeing that bicycle out there in the middle of the road will sear itself into the drivers memory like the trauma inducing moment that it was. I expect this POV in an automotive forum. Please don't bring your cyclist self-hatred into a cycling forum. I personally am a FRAP rider. I can see, however, where and why it might be very dangerous to be one. Cyclists have fallen while FRAPping and... ... wouldn't you feel just awful if while intimidating some inferior road user to their proper place in the gutter they lost it and fell under your passenger side back wheel? I hope you would. But I hope even more that you would just let those few occasions when you find yourself behind a vehicular cyclist roll off your consciousness like the non-event that it is.

H

Null66

It's rural turning into ex-urban NC. The should IS the white stripe. Be careful, sometimes they paint on the grass. Road is a widened NC road, about as wide as an Expedition, but not an Excursion. Out here 10-15 over speed limit is "normal".

4 wide they were the whole lane.

ps. they may have been faster on that part of the downhill, I was trying to get up hill at the time...

Biker395 

It's hard to judge without the complete context of the road (lots gets lost in the description), but in that case, I'll venture that they were OK riding abreast and taking up the entire lane.

Everyone can flame away, I guess. lol

The scary thing is really where you were ... coming the other way. Assuming the shoulder is as non-existent on your side, you'd be in a bad situation any time someone attempts to pass. Add that to the fact that you are waaaay less visible than the oncoming car the passing motorist expects to see and is looking for, and whooee.

Been there, done that, and it scared the crap outta me.

Cyclosaurus

I consider pedestrians to have right of way at all times. I hate it when they wander into my path while looking elsewhere, texting, etc. But it is my responsibility to avoid them. As you point out, cyclists are a threat to pedestrians. It is a matter of courtesy and law that cyclists yield. It would be hypocritical of me to say that drivers must take care around me and give me the space to cycle safely but claim that pedestrians "get out of my way". I'm not expecting something that I don't give to those who are slower moving and more vulnerable than me. But consider that the proportion of danger that a cyclist poses to a pedestrian is much lower than what a driver poses to a cyclist (or pedestrian for that matter). In relative terms, drivers should be held to a much higher standard since they are so much more dangerous.

Null66

I was on the white line, and had a ditch to bail into if I could see them in time... But at my hill climbing pace even getting fully into ditch takes a bit of time.

The cars behind them were a bit close to them, but I got no indication they even considered passing.


4 weeks ago a yahoo passed a car coming towards me on narrow (even for NC) back country road, had to be moving well over 100 other car was moving to so pass took what seemed like forever... THAT scared me. Especially since Mary was behind me a couple hundred yards.

phoebeisis

I agree-cars are 100X more lethal-heck maybe 1000x.
And yes some pedestrians- wearing headphones while looking down texting wandering across a street-DUH!

But for some reason bicycle riders are disliked by pedestrians-waaaaaay out of proportion to the damage we do-which is minuscule-

Bicycle riders-annoy pedestrians in " USA walking cities"
The San Francisco incident-clearly indicated that-folks wanted that guys head-over "just a typical screw up accident"
No malice-just mildly dumb thoughtless-really unremarkable except the pedestrian was hit by a bike-and he died.

Yeah bicycle riders are disliked
We need to attempt to understand WHY and do something about it
"saints and drivers and pedestrians don't want to give us our rights" is only useful for whining.

Simple answer is we need to be POINTEDLY NICE AND ACCOMMODATING or we can just continue whining I guess.
Pointedly pull over and let cars pass-wave,take credit,make eye contact-(obviously this isn't something you do constantly-just when it makes sense)
heck if were in a hurry you wouldn't be on a bike!

BluesDawg

Bull****. That is not my position. Cyclists have equal rights to the road.