|
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
(Post 14879099)
Charles,
I hope that I am not reading you correctly, because, if I am it sounds as if you are saying that we cyclists do [b]NOT]/B] have the same rights to the road. And that is not true. As the operator of a vehicle, we do in fact have the same rights to be on the road. As, has been said we ARE a part of traffic. Also, as has been stated before riding two abreast, particularly on roads with substandard width lanes does not negatively effect motorists. If anything, doing do makes it easier for them to pass us. As we are actually taking up less not more space on the road. Or think about it like this. You're driving down the road in your car. You come upon 50 cyclists, if they're riding single file it's going to take longer to pass them vs. if they were riding two abreast. We might have a fundamental disagreement here, or we might be just missing each other. We have the same rights and responsibilities as traffic. And slow traffic, whether automotive or bicycle, needs to behave differently than regular, full speed traffic. For example, on a two lane road (one lane each direction), you are not allowed to pass another moving car by crossing the double yellow line. You can (and should) cross the double yellow line to pass a bicycle or other slow moving vehicle. We agree up to here? If so, then we agree that bicycles and cars shouldn't always act the same way. If we don't, then we've now isolated where we disagree. As far as your example, it depends a lot on the road in question. Sometimes riding two abreast is the right thing and sometimes it isn't. I was on an organized metric century ride where we were on a curvy road where a group was riding several (many more than 2) abreast and making it very difficult for cars to pass. This made life painful for not only the car drivers, but the bicycles that were stuck behind them as well. And, for what it's worth, it is illegal in some (many?) states to ride two or more abreast if it interferes with traffic (and it is not a substandard width lane). In practice, even if we do disagree, I don't think it leads to many practical differences between the two of us. When necessary (which is often), I take the lane and advocate such. But as a vehicle that is moving much slower than the rest of traffic, I do believe I should do my part to make sure I don't slow down the rest of traffic more than is necessary to ensure my safety. A car going 15 in a 45 is likely to get a ticket for blocking traffic if it is not doing what it can to mitigate the the problems it is causing. How should a bike be different? Cheers, Charles p.s. I do agree that if the lane is too narrow to allow passage, riding two abreast is the right thing to do. I've edited my original post with this change). |
Originally Posted by Chief
(Post 14879184)
Why not? Riding two abreast is legal in a lot of states, usually allowed when lanes are substandard width, and one bike would be commanding the lane anyway. It should have nothing to do with "high traffic", whatever that is.
Cheers, Charles p.s. I do agree that if the lane is too narrow to allow passage, riding two abreast is the right thing to do. I've edited my original post with this change). |
Originally Posted by cplager
(Post 14879252)
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
(Post 14879099)
Charles,
I hope that I am not reading you correctly, because, if I am it sounds as if you are saying that we cyclists do NOT have the same rights to the road. And that is not true. As the operator of a vehicle, we do in fact have the same rights to be on the road. As, has been said we ARE a part of traffic. Also, as has been stated before riding two abreast, particularly on roads with substandard width lanes does not negatively effect motorists. If anything, doing so makes it easier for them to pass us. As we are actually taking up less not more space on the road. Or think about it like this. You're driving down the road in your car. You come upon 50 cyclists, if they're riding single file it's going to take longer to pass them vs. if they were riding two abreast. For example, on a two lane road (one lane each direction), you are not allowed to pass another moving car by crossing the double yellow line. You can (and should) cross the double yellow line to pass a bicycle or other slow moving vehicle. We agree up to here? If so, then we agree that bicycles and cars shouldn't always act the same way. If we don't, then we've now isolated where we disagree. As far as your example, it depends a lot on the road in question. Sometimes riding two abreast is the right thing and sometimes it isn't. I was on an organized metric century ride where we were on a curvy road where a group was riding several (many more than 2) abreast and making it very difficult for cars to pass. This made life painful for not only the car drivers, but the bicycles that were stuck behind them as well. And, for what it's worth, it is illegal in some (many?) states to ride two or more abreast if it interferes with traffic (and it is not a substandard width lane). In practice, even if we do disagree, I don't think it leads to many practical differences between the two of us. When necessary (which is often), I take the lane and advocate such. But as a vehicle that is moving much slower than the rest of traffic, I do believe I should do my part to make sure I don't slow down the rest of traffic more than is necessary to ensure my safety. A car going 15 in a 45 is likely to get a ticket for blocking traffic if it is not doing what it can to mitigate the the problems it is causing. How should a bike be different? Cheers, Charles Agreed, IF it is safe to do so. How wide was the road? If it was a substandard width road, it shouldn't matter how many abreast they were riding. Although they really shouldn't have been riding more then two abreast. If instead of bicycles they were riding motorcycles would a person in a car been able to safely pass them in the lane? Agreed, but the irony is that motorists cause each other more delays then cyclists do. And I haven't been able to figure out how two or more cyclists riding two abreast cause anymore of a delay then a single cyclist would. Maybe not being a driver I lack the "proper" perspective on this. I refer you to the case of Trotwood v. Selez. As well as again pointing out that motorists cause each other more delays vs. cyclists. |
The situation of 2 abreast is more of a perception than an actual, as with many things. It has factual backing to say it is valid and maybe better, but perception is another matter when you do not get the chance to explain to the drivers. Sometimes I do get to talk to people in a different context about such and they come around when it is explained, but that is another matter. From what I have observed, one bike holding/taking position is a message to the car behind and two wide is taken as flagrant road hogging(I know it isn't but it looks like it).
|
Awesome! I'm glad that someone got the joke without flaming!
|
Originally Posted by Slaninar
(Post 14875004)
Take a branch of wood. A flexible one. Willow tree is perfect.
Tie it to the bike so that it goes parralel to the ground and sticks some 30 cm to the left (if you ride on the right side of the road). Tie a piece of red cloth to the end of the branch. Cars will give you room.. |
Originally Posted by FenderTL5
(Post 14915630)
Take a branch of wood. A flexible one. Willow tree is perfect. Tie it to the bike so that it goes parralel to the ground and sticks some 30 cm to the left (if you ride on the right side of the road). Tie a piece of red cloth to the end of the branch. Cars will give you room.. |
1 Attachment(s)
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:47 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.