livedarklions

I agree with that, that's how I handle it. Also, there are lights in my state that a bicyclist cannot trigger to change. I know where several of them are, and can only really deal with them as if they were stop signs.

GhostRider62

I am a fan of the Idaho stop.

Stopping at a Red light, a fellow that I know was run over and killed. Lady said she did not see him, despite bright colors and flashing light.

OP......you are just wrong, wrong, wrong.

livedarklions

It hasn't occurred to you that the reason they're riding in the busiest part of town is probably the same that you're driving in the busiest part of town? It's the busiest part of town because it's either where people are coming from, going to, or the shortest distance between those two points. You aren't complaining because they didn't pick a "safer" route, you're complaining because they made traffic a little slower. Also, that's complete nonsense, If the cyclists going 15 mph are able to pass you AFTER you've passed them, they're obviously not slowing up traffic much below the speed that the lights are allowing you to travel. You're defying math here.

So your attitude as a driver is that cyclists need to justify being in a particular part of town at a particular time of day? No wonder why people hate drivers.

Also, why didn't you just move over a lane and quit whining?

work4bike

We cyclists shouldn't be held to that standard of not riding on bad roads during the busiest traffic times. I ride on a road just as bad, during heavy traffic times (Mayport Road). I do wish I had an alternate route, and for some of it I could take backstreets, but that would mean doing a lot of zigzagging and stopping for a ton of stop signs -- not exactly an alternate route. I choose to ride on the main thoroughfare.

I kind of agree with the Idaho stop thing, I don't practice it (except at stop signs), because I don't feel like being passed up by the same vehicles, especially the large trucks.

What's the name of the street and intersection in the photo? I'm kind of interested in looking at it from google street view.



.

livedarklions

I think this is it, but I could be wrong: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8146...7i16384!8i8192

If I'm right about the location, the "road" to the right is actually a driveway for a parking lot, not sure where I'd see a lot of room for indignation for not waiting out that traffic light.

It should probably be noted that the time that OP considers unreasonable for this is a Sunday afternoon, not exactly a rush hour. Not that it matters in that I agree with you that's not a standard we need to impose on ourselves, but if that's not the time for a ride on that road, when is?

Some of the Idaho stop discussion here is getting conflated with the issue of filtering up. The cyclists in the picture aren't behind anyone as they get to the intersection, there's no issue of getting passed twice (which I also think is a non-issue, but that's an opinion).

indyfabz

*smh* It often allows cyclists to stay ahead of motorists. It would be particularly useful here in Philly, with its many narrow streets. When there are two lanes, one might be blocked by a delivery truck. If I don't have to wait for the light I can easily get ahead of traffic and change lanes to pass the stopped vehicle without traffic bearing down on me.

You're not considering all scenarios. I think you are just angry that you were inconvenienced during your drive.

indyfabz

It's not an argument. It's a possibility, albeit an inconvenient one for your narrative. I work in a usually busy part of my city. I can see numerous residential buildings from my office window, including one right across the street. Or maybe they were heading to lunch at a place that was on or near that street. While they don't need one, there could be thousand explanations for why they chose the route they did. Come to think of it, why were you there?

My recommendation is that you stop digging. The hole is getting deeper.

And please don't instigate a road rage incident because you feel cyclists shouldn't be in certain places and you don't want to change lanes.

curbtender

I'm not familiar with Atlanta but sometimes you need to ride more congested areas because that's all that's available. If they are out there doing a snail's pace, then you have a point.

theblackbullet

https://atlanta.curbed.com/2015/12/1...-bike-lanes-no

We could have had bike lanes on this exact stretch of road. Buckhead would rather sit in traffic with all of the other cars and complain that bicycles are the problem.

Drillium Dude

OP should return their driver's license for a full refund.

DD

Daniel4

Once I was at two abreast at an intersection. Then later, I had discovered my trunk bag was gone. We think it was stolen.

But that's not the case with these two.

caloso

Does the OP understand that a 35 zone means that 35 mph is the maximum speed, not the minimum?

UniChris

To be fair, as your own link explains, what that proposal would have done was to reserve the lane the cyclists are sitting in for their exclusive use.

Instead of four lanes, it would have been two car lanes, a center turn lane, and bike lanes.

UniChris

In a way what they've done is demonstrate the fundamental problem.

When even some cyclists looking at this picture could conclude that the side-by-side bikes are taking up an unreasonable amount of the road width, it's no surprise that much of the non-cycling, driving public would.

It takes some degree of actual road-cycling smarts and experience to recognize that this is the minimum, possibly safe, way to ride that road.

The challenge we face is changing that recognition from one requiring insight and a second look, to a general public awareness.

The sign I want to see is "bicyclists shall use full lane" - not "may" but "shall" Technically sharrows mean that, but they're poorly understood. And the infamous "share the road" signs lead to more misunderstanding than understanding.

rydabent

[QUOTE=Zaskar;22401064]Buckhead/in-town Atlanta at 1:30 on Sunday afternoon on a very busy road - two lanes each way with single and double turning lanes; 35 zone. Traffic was backed up for a couple blocks because of these guys. They were not making any attempt to ride with traffic - more of a chit-chat pace (12-15 mph), side-by-side... just out for a stroll with a "cars can *#@% themselves" attitude.

Yes - they're allowed to. Yes - they're "vehicles" with the right to the lane. But if that were a car going 14 mph in a 35 zone, would you think "Oh hey, it's cool - you do you. We'll hangout back here til you get where you're going". This is a city of 6 million people. We have plenty of roads that don't go through the heart of town. THIS is why motorists hate us.

Don't be these guys. And yeah, they ran this light... of course they did.

[ On a Sunday afternoon with light traffic, is this a great sin? This is especially true since it appears to be a 4 lane road. Just move to the left lane and pass them!!!! And backed up?? There is not even a car behind the blue car at the stop light, look at the picture.

alcjphil

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8161129,-84.3900232,15
This appears to be a map of the general area where this took place. Wonder if the OP could point out a parallel route that is faster than the road the cyclists are on. The area appears to be a maze of meandering streets and cul de sacs. If they are actually going to where this road will take them it is no wonder that they are using it

livedarklions

OP has demonstrated a whole bunch of attitudinal problems in addition to that, but here's just two. One is the assumption that motor vehicle drivers should have the privilege of speed uninhibited by anything other than other motor vehicles. The second is an assumption that the driver's reasons for driving on a crowded road are somehow more legitimate than those of a cyclist.

UniChris

Sure, by my point was that those views are as common as they are mistaken.

That even a sometimes cyclist would hold them indicates what a challenge we have in educating the non-cycling public about basic facts of law and safety.

There's also some unintended irony in that the way lots of road-redo projects now include mandatory cycling inclusion, can have an effect of promoting the idea (and literal arguments from many cyclists) that roads without any specific cycling provision are not for cyclists' use.

I'd probably be happier there if the painted bike lane proposal had gone through. But what's shown is a mode of cycling usage that's supposed to work - the cases where it doesn't are a public education problem. A very widespread driver and even cyclist education problem.

alcjphil

Looking at this photo, even if cyclist in green was single file with the other one, there still would not be sufficient space for a car to pass them without leaving the lane. The lane is much too narrow to share with a cyclist while passing safely

Comfort is King

This road looks like it could use "road diet", where they make it one lane in each direction with a turning lane and bike lanes. They have been proven to make the streets much safer for all users. Unless there's more than 10k cars per day, if memory serves, a road diet works without appreciably slowing down traffic.

work4bike

Not that this really adds to the discussion, but it reminds me of an negative interaction I had with a motorist a few years ago on a very similar looking road, while I was sitting at a red light, much like in the photo in the OP. The major differences were that I was a single cyclist and I was behind about 2 or 3 cars in line.

I was sitting about the same position as the cyclist in the hi-viz jersey and the motorist behind me attempted to creep ahead of me by going all the way to the right, adjacent to the curb. I looked at him with a look on my face and moved more into the center of the lane to block him. He never really looked at me...that was just crazy.



.

livedarklions

I think there's a argument to be made that a Dunning Kruger effect among "sometimes cyclists" might actually pose a bigger challenge.

genejockey 

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!! We have a winner!

This is the assumption that's inherent in most "Roads are for cars!" arguments - that people driving cars are always doing something more important than cyclists.

Iride01 

What is the suggestion for vehicles that consistently drive 10 to 15 mph under the speed limit? Those are pretty annoying to me. And I encounter them more often than I do cyclist.

Maybe patience is something we all need more of.

livedarklions

I have to say, though, that I'm a bit surprised at the nakedness of that assumption in the OP--how dare they ride THAT road on a Sunday afternoon!