https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...erous-on-roads

I considered putting this in A&S instead, but I hardly ever look there. It scares me.

What no one ever seems to bring up is that it's poor road design that's the real problem.

Re-frame the debate by lamenting the lack of adequate passing facilities on some roads to facilitate convenient motoring.

Wow, I'm amazed that driver chose option three or any driver choosing option one or three. I thought all those driver are extinct and most just run us over!

Seriously, if he doesn't like it, I can go back in my car and slow him down some more!

So far, all of the motorists I've encountered have chosen either option 1 or 3, a very small number try to attempt option 2, but they have second thoughts, and revert to one of the other two options.

LOVE IT!

vtjim, I wish I hadn't even opened up your link. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you pointed it out, don't get me wrong, but between the piece and some of the comments, my normally regular blood pressure went up a few nothces; there are some real ignoramouses (sp?) out there.

The horse and buggy are upset. They want their roads back too.

Wow, it sounds like big trucks with 60,000 pound loads shouldn't be allowed on these roads. They sound like a dangerous liability, a ticking time bomb just waiting to hit some politician's kid. Maybe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...?

The article makes a good point by advocating for a safety course before riding the bike on the road, though this should be voluntary on the part of the cyclists, since cycling is not a licensed activity. It would be a good idea to also include this material in the driver's training manuals and courses.

This sentiment seems persuasive, but it misses a lot. Motorists hurt the environment through harmful emissions and contribute to the U.S's dependence on foreign oil. Bicyclists aid the environment, reduce the U.S's dependence on foreign oil, and promote health. Of course motorists should bear more of the financial burden.

It also misses that:
1. Bicycles do a lot less damage to roads than heavy motorized vehicles.
2. Many cyclists own property and pay taxes, some of which contributes to road maintenance.
3. Few cyclists are completely car-free, and while their gasoline consumption may be less than car commuters, they still pay a portion of gas taxes collected.

Yet, the article never accused the cyclist of doing anything illegal. He seemed to be suggesting that cyclists aren't aware of the so-called dangerous situation they put themselves in by riding on roads, but speaking for myself, I'm very aware that riding on roads puts me in the same space as vehicles 15X or more my combined weight (me and the bike). I'm not naive, no matter what a driver may think.

I'm assuming that most cyclists over the age of 18 also have a driver's license. Since cyclists riding on roads are subject to the same rights and responsibilities (with some minor caveats) as drivers, and since most cyclists have done the driver's exam(s), it follows that most cyclists have already had the training required. Yes, some cyclists choose to ignore certain laws, but so do some drivers.

of course apparently since we're the clueless ones who only have bicycles as transport, we must also live in cardboard boxes, and pay no taxes towards property, or anything like that, and we most certainly do not own any motor vehicles, and therefore don't pay any kind of motor vehicle registration or taxes... according to this guy we're like some kind of transient plague, that is designed to only get in his way of his giant 30 ton SUV. What is he doing on a narrow 2 lane road anyway, most of those roadways aren't designed to handle those kinds of loads.

From the article:

I don't know the layout of the roads in question. It sounds like they are very narrow. If so, then why are such big trucks going down such narrow roads? Is that the only route available for the trucks to get to their destination? In my city, there are specifically designated truck routes that go to the major industrial areas. Trucks are not required to take the truck routes but those roads are made for big trucks.

Personally, I do not ride on any road that does not have a shoulder. I want a margin of safety so that cars can get past me. Even in the bicycle lane, there are a lot of motorists that come down the road with their tires on the white line and zip past me doing 60 mph in a 40 mph zone with just 1 foot of clearance at my handle bars. I can't image what those same numb skulls would do if there was no shoulder and they had to go around a cyclist.

The article did not go into detail as to what exactly was unlawful. If the cyclist was stopped on the road hindering traffic, that is unlawful. If the cyclist was travelling against the traffic, that is unlawful. If they are purposefully riding two abreast, that is unlawful.

But if they are just riding down the road on the far right side, then they are perfectly legal and have a right to be on the road. I am guessing that this truck driver thinks that just because he pulls up behind a bicyclist, that cyclist should literally get off the road so he can pass easily. That seems to be the gist of what he is getting at.

I wish that the writer elaborated more as to what exactly the cyclists are doing. Instead he spends his time calling the cyclists names and railing against their supposed character defects.

Is that true? People often say so, but I would actually like a real answer to that question in California (if you have a good citation to the CVC).

Thanks.

Here is a good summary that cites the actual law. If you want to read the actual wording of the law, just copy the cvc into findlaw.com.

https://www.bikelink.com/law_safety.htm

In other words, you can only be abreast if you are in the act of passing the other bicycle. Otherwise you must ride as close to the right edge as practical. Riding side by side without passing is not riding as close to the right edge as practical and is in violation of the law.

Whoops, missed that...thanks for pointing it out. I thought my reading skills were better!

Like SactoDoug says, the article elaborated (slightly) on what he meant by "arrogant" and "naive", but not "unlawful". Being arrogant and/or naive doesn't equate to doing something illegal. Simply cycling on the same road as he's driving his gravel truck, which is all he accuses the cyclist of doing in his article, is not illegal. And I doubt the cyclist is naive, either. Can't speak to his arrogance.

As for other posts questioning what the gravel truck driver is doing on a narrow 2-lane road...he's probably just doing his job. I wouldn't be too quick to fault him for his route choice (if he even has a choice), and having to slow 60,000 lbs of vehicle for a cyclist, and then get that beast back up to speed, I can see that being a major inconvenience. Still doesn't make the cyclist's presence illegal, but I can understand the emotional response.

Re: Cyclists don't pay. So what.

Public spaces are available to everyone regardless of what taxes they pay or do not pay. Try applying the same argument to a sidewalk and it becomes clear how flawed that argument is (should walking down a city sidewalk be illegal for non-residents/homeless?!?)

Paul

The Burlington Free Press won't let me comment on this article, but that does sound like the problem doesn't?

driving around really dumb cyclists is quite difficult. cycling around them is almost lethal.

there are a *lot* of very dumb cyclists. fixing this seems to require a mixture of evangelism and kindergarten teacher ethics...albeit in small doses so as to not scare them off or offend them as evangelism tends to do. I actually don't see anything wrong with that article. it's a reasonable reaction to bad cyclists, who then color the drivers' impressions of all of us.

re: no-pay. unless you're car-free, you still pay into that. if you pay any taxes, you directly or indirectly support the roads (pay for one program, and money displaces to being usable on roads/oversimplified).

re: two abreast. if they're pacing traffic, so be it. roadies (woot) seem to be the least offensive in this, in that they either DON'T do it, or they slip into a single file in a reasonable amount of time. exceptions are the huge weekend rides where people seem to forget all road etiquette *sigh*

c/n: this is a two-sided problem with every bit as much wrong on the side of cyclists, as a population, as there is on the side of the complementing population of motorists.

His argument SUCKS... Its pretty funny how drivers blame a cyclist for slowing them down but do not mention the hours they have spent stuck behind a car in traffic.

True. The same motorist will have no problem passing a combine harvester that takes up more than half of a rural highway, yet a bicycle that takes up less than 1/3 of the road is somehow a problem.