volosong

I deleted my original response. Guess you can say that I believe taxes are too high and we aren't getting our money's worth. I will say that I've been around Italy enough to have seen examples where original infrastructure is still being used on a daily basis, in its original context. Sure, they are maintained and they do not support modern, (i.e., heavy), freight traffic; but the roads and bridges are still being used by locals. Enough! I'll shut up now.

genec

I won't deny that some maintenance may be done...

I will however counter that overengineering did (and does) occur... and that much of our infra is not dying due to poor maintenance, but due to limited lifespan. A bridge that never requires paint will tend to stand up to the abuses of nature far better than a bridge that has to be painted annually.

PlanoFuji

Yes, over engineering reduces maintenance costs. But maintenance is still needed if any man-made infrastructure is to remain viable. Also, over engineering is much more expensive. Since we can't afford the infrastructure we want using the current engineering practice; how do you propose to pay for over engineered infrastructure? The Romans, had many advantages for their over engineering; cheap labor and income from conquered lands come to mind.

genec

Ah ha... this doesn't mean that the infra of the Romans required maint when said works were so overengineered.

And as far as our infra... We need to look further down the line... we are stuck in a planned obsolescence model that is hurting us big time. We had money to build in the first place, but now when tasks are more expensive, we can only barely afford to maintain, much less repair or replace.

Looigi

Virtually all the roads I ride here in the Northeast are that wide or less, having no shoulder, often no white line, and sometimes no center line. I ride in the lane when there's no cars approaching from behind and then move to right when cars do approach. The only time I hold my position in the lane is if I'm avoiding the door zone or some other hazard on the right, or if I'm preparing to make and signalling a left turn.

PlanoFuji

I guess you can believe both sides of a debate. First you admit that maintenance was in fact required to keep them functional. Now you return to claims that it isn't required.

The problem wasn't the original engineering of this infrastructure. The problem was that funding levels were set when the designs were supposed to accommodate a single mode; motor vehicles. Then that funding was used to support other modes, most notably transit (which is EXTREMELY expensive) and nothing was done to proportionately increase funding. So money that should have gone to maintenance was diverted to fund other modes. And that was the pattern for over 40 years. The result is that we have a 40+ year old infrastructure that had not received the maintenance it was designed to receive... And you place blame on the folks who created the designs instead of those who are responsible for the decisions. Interesting 'logic'.

DX-MAN

Didn't "imply" jackshat, pal; repeating what someone else said, and IF YOU'D PAY ATTENTION, I also said "HELL NO" to that. Damn, but some people are obtuse............

PlanoFuji

You are right in one thing, you didn't imply you actually called it a 'narrow sidewalk'. You didn't repeat what the OP said; he called it a sidewalk. So you looked at the picture and decided it was 'narrow'. I was correcting YOUR perception that it was a sidewalk. And unlike you I was paying attention, after all I pointed out to the OP (before you posted) that it wasn't a sidewalk, but a curb and not meant to be walked on... So yes SOME people are obtuse... they also seem to need to resort to intentionally misspelled curse words to express themselves while getting their post past the auto censor...

genec

the word I used was "may," that is different from "required;" I allude to a chance that maybe it happened and maybe it didn't. I don't really know... neither do you.
Actually I do place the blame on those responsible for the decisions... I specifically mention "beancounters" vice engineers... go back and read again. Engineers by nature tend to want to build robust things... those things tend to carry on their legacy. Those controlling purse strings tend to have different motivations.

I think we are in violent agreement here and are just looking at it from different angles.

PlanoFuji

Maybe so, at least on the modern aspect of the discussion.

TromboneAl

Very well put.

I will be taking the lane in the future, but the problem is that this is likely to produce some monumentally angry motorists, even if I move over once they slow down.

Related to this, we had a shorter bridge like this near Arcata until this year when it was finally replaced. It had no shoulder or curb whatsoever. I must driven across it 50 times when the "Cyclist on Bridge" flashers were going, but there was no cyclist. I'm guessing that the flashers kept on longer than necessary.

But there was a cyclist here that towed around a huge solar oven. One foggy night, around midnight, I'm driving up to this bridge at 60 MPH, the cyclist flashers go on, and there's this guy doing about 5 MPH. Everything was fine, but it sure got my heart rate up. So I can see it from the motorists point of view. Even good cagers may not realize that there will be a cyclist in the middle of the lane.

IOW, the sign needs to say "Cyclist in the lane when flashing, no room on shoulder, prepare to stop."

njkayaker

The world is not perfect. Being angry (if that's where it ends) is their problem. If you move over (are courteous), there won't be many angry ones.

I find that making the situation clear/understandable/predictable (by taking the lane) can often reduce the frustration that makes them angry.

PlanoFuji

+1

turbo1889

I would most certainly take the lane in the pictured situation, the cyclist riding as shown in my opinion is by his body language just about begging a cager approaching from behind to sandwich squash him into the side of that bridge.

Yah, in the situation shown the motorist getting ready to pass him from behind is moving over as far as possible to the left in the lane and riding the yellow line with a fairly narrow vehicle. BUT, that will by no means always be the case. All it takes is too big wide rigs coming from both directions at the same time, one passing the cyclist and one in the oncomming lane tighten things up so that they are too tight. And that all ASSumes that the motorists coming from behind will all continue to respect the cyclist and try to pass with as much clearance as possible even though his lane position body language is telling them not to.

CB HI

She, her (wife of OP).

turbo1889

I missed that little line of text inbetween the two pictures. From the picture only taken from the rear like that not really that easy to identify gender.

DX-MAN

Pretty big ASSumption on your part; BTW, you're wrong. And, for the record, "shat" is NOT a misspelling, it is a past tense. Nice try at illusion of superiority.

Gave you a chance; you're back on ignore, so don't bother replying, I won't see it.

PlanoFuji

Yes, you are correct, I am not as versed in vulgarities as you appear to be. You should be proud! Perhaps you should help update the forum software since you clearly have the skills to get around its vulgarity filter.

shipwreck

There are lots of bridges of this nature in my area, one I cross regularly is about 1/4 of a mile long, and another is long enough that it takes a long time to cross, has a couple curves, expansion joints that can eat a 23mm tire, and drainage grates that will swallow a 35mm tire if hit wrong. None of these bridges has a shoulder wider than that in the picture. Oh, and no signs warning motorists of a cyclist on the bridge. My head might explode with wonder and joy if I ever saw that here.

I usually ride in the right hand tire track at the beginning, but am often eventually all the way over to the right by the end of the bridge. This is because for some reason many motorists will insist on passing regardless of where in the lane you are, and usually with similar disregard for oncoming traffic. There is a mindset here that seems to say that if you are on a bike you are to be passed. When a car does wait behind for a clear shot at going around, then often the drivers behind will simmer and stew, then go around in a line following the lead car, even when oncoming cars get to close. When I see an scissor coming up from none of the drivers wanting to give ground, that's when I tend to give up the middle of the lane and get over more to the right. I gave up on any hope when a state trooper once was part of the passing line, middle of about five cars. Arkansas. All I can figure is that cyclist are so rare no one knows how to deal with us. Of course, when traffic is light, I will move over some to the right for an upcoming vehicle as a invite to go around.

genec

Arkansas. 'nuff said. Do they have electricity there yet? How about indoor plumbing?

Chris516

Take the lane, outright. But don't dawdle or take your time. Regardless of the fact, that bridge is in a 45mph zone, or vehicles' go 60mph as the OP pointed out. That is a two-lane bridge and I think I would be pretty spooked if a car coming the opposite direction, was travelling at 45-60mph, even if the traffic behind me was only going 25-30mph. Eventually, That automated signal will break down. Both motorists' and cyclists' will become too dependent on it functioning outright.

Keith99

Tend to the same.

I would be SLIGHTLY to the right on center of the lane, but still plenty far enough out that even thinking of passing with oncoming traffic would be out of the question. And defiantly far enough out that my move right to allow facilitate passing would be clear.

I also tend to hammer things like this. On a really good day perhaps some guy will decide it is more interesting to clock me than pass me.

EDIT: I'll take bridges over tunnels any day. Esp. when coming into the tunnel out of bright daylight.

merlinextraligh

Haven't read the whole thread, but has many mentioned sharrows?

I'd take the lane, and go as fast as I could, and lobby the Highway Department to add sharrows if I had to ride it on a regular basis.

TromboneAl

Sharrows would be great, but I doubt that many people understand what they mean. I didn't know until recently.

Even many police don't know what they mean:

TTOM52986

Disabled vet loking for a very reasonably priced recumbent bike on the cheap. I only make $ 200.00 per month from military however i need to maintain my weight . adaiagnosed with type 2 disvbeties and I dont want to decline anymore. Used to be able to walk or run to maintain my health but the ole body wont let me do it anymore. Anyone with a old bike even if it needs repair would be great. I am trying to start a foundation to enable disabled vets with other options of getting off the couch and back into physical exercise. Not mooching just asking for some help/ a break if ou will. I am a large person male 6'3" and weigh 280 lbs.

V.R.
Tom Fish
850-319-3865
stumpjumpertundra@gmail.com