OGR8

There seems to be two camps herre, one that wants to "share the road" and is willing to accept some inconvenience to themselves, and one that wants to maintain a safe zone and is willing to inconveniece others to do so. I rarely ride with any time constraints and while I always try to stay safe, I would rather be a little slower and hopefully foster some goodwill with drivers I see both on and off the bike. If that means pulling off to allow them to pass, that is okay. I am not really going anywhere, many of them are. That being said, I live in a rural area, and ride solo ( mostly to avoid these kinds of problems) so I may not be typical.

zoste

In Arizona, any vehicle traveling at a speed slower than the normal flow of traffic is required to pull over at the first safe spot and let traffic pass if there are five or more vehicles lined up behind. That law applies to bikes, farm equipment, slow moving trucks...

I imagine that most states have a similar law against impeding traffic.

Wogster

I also ride in a rural area, have ridden in heavy urban traffic as well, I know what happens either way. In heavy urban traffic you quickly realise something, you can't pull over and let cars pass, because you would be waiting by the side of the road 90% of the time, so you ride 1m/3' from the curb and don't really worry about other vehicles motorized or otherwise, they will pass when they feel they can do so safely. The 1m from the curb is for three important reasons

1) Dirt, broken glass, muddy water, broken pavement all seem to be at the gutter, I don't like flats so I try to avoid the hazards that cause them.
2) It gives me a bailout area, if another vehicle approaching looks like it's going to pass too close, I can move over to retain my safety area.
3) It makes the remaining part of the lane look too narrow for passing, so drivers tend to give you half a lane or more.

If you can legally ride 2 up, you should be aware of traffic and switch to single file mode when other traffic is nearby, to be courteous to other traffic. In rural areas there is a lot less traffic, so passing of a group of bicycles is a lot easier, but bicycle riders need to be aware that their total length is still passable. A group of 20 bicycles that is 2 up, is as long as a transport truck, and that is difficult to pass in some areas, because the time in the opposing traffic lane is too long. Riding single file is longer, but the amount of exposed vehicle is less, so it's not as difficult, and vehicles in opposing traffic lanes can squeeze right to allow passing to take place.

John_V 

The OP has amended the title and post to clarify his position so maybe the comments should be in response to the new post. To respond to the amended post, if you can't see around them to safely pass them, then you stay behind them until you can. You can try honking your horn to make them aware that you are behind them and if they still don't move over, then you wait to pass until it's safe to do so. People who are not courteous on bicycles are, most likely, not courteous in a motor vehicle. What do you do about them?

In Florida, its state law that all bicycles must have a rear view mirror when riding on a public road or highway. Unfortunately, this law is not enforced until you are stopped for some other violation because law enforcement would be spending all day citing bicyclist for not having a mirror and not responding to other calls. For those who are going to ask .... Yes, I have a mirror on both my bikes. Maybe your state can pass that law, if it doesn't already have it, so more cyclist would ride with mirrors and can see that there is traffic behind them. But if you have two cyclist riding abreast that are engaged in a conversation and aren't looking in their mirror or don't care that you wanting to go around them, then it's back to you pass when it's safe to do so. As I said in my first post, wherever you are going will be there when you get there or you didn't need to go there in the first place.

AzTallRider

One doesn't need a mirror to know when there are cars behind you... just ears.

GetUpnGo

One more experience I would like to add, as politely and factually as I can. I have more than once been run off the road by cycle clubs WHILE I WAS ON A BIKE. They shout PISTE! at me and have an expectation that I will pull off the road to let them pass. I don't know about in the U.S., but in Quebec "Piste" means "I'm claiming the road and you need to get out of the way" in cycling and cross-country skiing.

drmweaver2

The amended thread-starting post now carries an implied assumption that cyclists should get the f*** out of the way of cars on "narrow winding roads" where the cars can't see around the corners. Sorry dude. If it's not safe for you to pass bikes, either single or double file, then it wouldn't be safe for you to pass cars either - so you're problem is the bikes aren't going the speed you feel you should be able to drive. Sucks to be you.

If that sounds nasty, it's because the original post and the amended one both reek of "cyclists are inconveniencing me and that's WRONG". Inconvenienced drivers are no cause for sympathy on my part. I do, however, get concerned when their inconvenience is deemed more important than my safety. Holding up traffic just to hold up traffic isn't ever my intention - otoh, maintaining my safety is. If a driver can't see that, then any problems aren't mine/the cyclist's.

nkfrench 

99% of the situations, don't honk the horn. Cyclists are almost always aware you are behind them unless it's very smooth road and a hybrid/electric car.

Taking the lane for safety can also include visibility issues. Gutter huggers are not highly visible either to same direction or at intersections including driveways.

If there is a group of 8 cyclists and 1 motorist, the motorist is in the minority and "traffic" is the cyclists.

Figure out which bike club they are riding for (from their jerseys) and contact the club to register your complaint if you still believe it's justified. If nothing else, find out when their planned ride schedule is and plan accordingly.

GetUpnGo

My state law says that cyclists riding double can't interfere with the flow of traffic. That's what my post is about. I wouldn't care about riding double if it didn't interfere with traffic. In essence my state law is saying that the flow of traffic is more important than the desire of clubs to ride double.

OGR8

"1) Dirt, broken glass, muddy water, broken pavement all seem to be at the gutter, I don't like flats so I try to avoid the hazards that cause them.
2) It gives me a bailout area, if another vehicle approaching looks like it's going to pass too close, I can move over to retain my safety area.
3) It makes the remaining part of the lane look too narrow for passing, so drivers tend to give you half a lane or more."

I may be in a different kind of rural area....There is little if any debris on the side of the road. If I do come on some, my "Mad bike handling skills" allow me to avoid it. This also helps with no. 2. I have practiced riding on grass and gravel and am very confident about doing so, a lot more so than in my ability to duel with a car. The roads I ride are rarely more than two narrow lanes, I am lucky to get 2 feet when people pass, but so far that has been plenty.

I rode twice with "Gary", who insisted on riding inside the white line by two feet, for basically the same reasons as Wogster. I am not saying these reasons are invalid, I just am not sure I agree with their applicability in the real world. Gary ended up unconscious at the side of the road, airlifted, broken hip, yadda yadda. Six weeks in hospital, six months off bike. He legally was right. But, I don't think he was safer than if he had tried to stay farther right.

For me the object is above all, to stay safe, I do get a couple flats every year, and I do end up watching some cars pass, but I am not in a hurry. I would rather be upright than right any day of the week.

sknhgy 

Illinois law also states that bicyclists cannot impede the flow of traffic. It is just common sense, and common courtesy. Sometimes it seems that cyclists want to "flame" their desire to take up the lanes.

AzTallRider

I'm trying to imagine being run off the road by a pace-line. If you maintained your pace and position, then what, they are going to physically reach out and shove you? Hard to believe. And they are passing you from behind. If their wheel touches yours from behind, they are the ones going down.

AzTallRider

I suspect that Illinois has a safety caveat for that law. Don't know it for a fact, but most states do. It's courteous to let cars by. whenever you can do so safely. It is NOT common sense to do so when it endangers yourself.

wphamilton

I agree with you OGR, and I guess I'd be considered a "gutter-bunny" by what I've seen here. In my opinion it's basic probability that the more room they have, the less likely they are to accidentally hit me. There are exceptions of course - it doesn't pay to be a fanatic either way - but if there is room to pass, I'm 18 inches or so from the right. And I know there is room there because countless cars have already safely passed me on those roads.

I see a lot of FRAP reasoning that goes like this: potential debris in the gutter makes it unsafe to ride there. Drivers need at least three feet cushion to safely go around. The average width of a car is six feet. I don't see how those folks ever get to the right even with 11 foot lanes given that car+bike+gutter+cushion is 11 feet, let alone on 10 or 9 feet lanes. So that reasoning "takes the lane" in all situations. Obviously the reasoning is wrong.

Just common sense: stay all the way over and let cars pass. When you have to take the lane, that should be an exception rather than a normal mode of cycling and we should really avoid those exceptions as possible because the very fact that we have to take the lane means it's already a more dangerous situation.

wphamilton

I believe the Illinois "not impeding traffic" refers to riding two abreast.

gcottay

Remember that in the original version the OP told us this was a narrow road. I consider it my responsibility to let drivers know by my riding position when a lane is wide enough for safe sharing. In my (always) humble opinion turning off to allow faster traffic through after several minutes of delay is a considerate rider choice, unsafe lane sharing is foolish, and the OP's sense of entitlement to his chosen speed at least foolish and at worst dangerous.

AzTallRider

Well said.

wphamilton

That is excessive, and it makes a difference that it's an organized event. Impeding traffic in both directions, I would expect they need an event permit to do something like that legally.

Wogster

I can go around road hazards too, it's just that on some roads, the gutter is, itself, a hazard, I was on one yesterday, a gravel road, it's pretty much hard pack dirt in the middle and soft gravel at the sides, your likely to wash out and end up in the ditch if you ride in that stuff, even with dirt tires, it's cattle farm on both sides, I don't want to know what's in that ditch . Yeah, so I do like the cars do, run down the middle on the hard pack, if I someone want to pass, then I'll ease to the shoulder and let them go. It's only 2 miles along that road, wanna know how often I had to pull over, I didn't see one other vehicle on there. Many of the laws regarding passing come from a time when the majority of roads were like that.

Two feet isn't far enough, you need to be at least 3' inside the line, physiologically people tend to use the distance in from the line as a gauge of passing distance, so being 3' in from the line, means they use 3' on the other side as a gauge, on a vary narrow country road, that often means using the opposing lane to pass a bicycle, just as you would use to pass another car. On a rural road where you see very little traffic, then using the other lane to pass, is not a hardship, if it's a windy road with few opportunities to pass, then that is the drivers problem. Following a bicycle at 15MPH or following a tractor at 15MPH or an old truck that can't go more then 15MPH and not being able to pass are the same hardships. For me, if it's a narrow windy road, and I see someone behind, then I will at the next convenient place, turn off.

BluesDawg

Remember also that the OP is not talking about an individual rider going down a narrow road. The situation was a large group, a club ride. Why a club would choose to ride in formation on a narrow curvy road at a time when there is a significant level of traffic is a mystery to me. That they would do so in both directions at the same time is much stronger evidence of a sense of entitlement than anything I can find in the OP's posts to indicate such in his frame of mind.

I ride in a small club ride every week that goes through a busy section of narrow two lane road on its way to more peaceful and secluded areas. We never ride double file through this area and avoid forming a solid group until after passing through the busy section. We do this out of courtesy in part, but primarily because it is safer than frustrating drivers and encouraging them to take bigger risks to get around us.

GetUpnGo

The roads I refer to are typical country back roads, so don't get too hung up on that word "narrow"---I just mean narrower than the interstate. I clarified that the real problem is visibility around curves and over hills. I estimate that in my area this visibility problem characterizes 80%of the roads I travel, meaning there are very few opportunities to pass double riders with a clear view ahead.

But probably 80% of these roads have a rideable shoulder, so opportunities for cyclists to pull over without inconvenience (notice I didn't say "stop") are very numerous. I know this because I travel these same roads myself as a cyclist.

What you call my sense of entitlement is nothing more than what my state law calls for---unimpeded flow of traffic. My "chosen speed" as you call it is typically below the speed limit---I'm the little old lady (don't forget this is the over 50 forum) doing 60 on the interstate to conserve gas and 40 on the back roads, enjoying the sights (which is why I always pull over to let cars pass me).

I don't think all of this is even about safety, or feet of road width or shoulder or condition of the shoulder or any other practical consideration. I think it's about attitude. My attitude is that I try to be courteous to everyone whether I'm driving or cycling, and certainly to drive and ride safely. I find a different attitude among our local Saturday morning bike clubs. For them it appears to be about turf ownership, as well as a sense of power in numbers.

velocycling

This is exactly why the cyclist should take the lane. By allowing "-I'm the little old lady (don't forget this is the over 50 forum) doing 60" to pass a group of cyclist and this little old Lady has little "visibility around curves and over hills." Very dangerous...

drmweaver2

The problem remains "visibility around curves" on "narrow winding roads" though narrow gets redefined? Oh wait. Let's fall back on your interpretation of WHY the law is what it is and what the intent of the law is? yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. No, wait. Let's focus on the 2 lane/abreast riding. Um, no. Still sounds to me like your sense of entitlement is what the problem is.

You've suggested that the opposing cycling groups were from the same local bike club and blocked traffic in both directions. Let's think about that for a minute. 2 groups of 40-60 riders each going in opposite directions on the same road. How long would it take for both groups to pass Point A if both groups are riding at a conservative 15mph? Certainly not 5 miutes so you can't seriously think that's a serious inconvenience.

Even IF they were from the same club, so what? If they weren't from the same club, would you have felt any less inconvenienced? Would your nose be less out of joint while you were driving slower than you preferred? Do you KNOW whether or not that's an established route for the club(s)? Do you know if it was organized or not - are there alternative routes availble for them/you to take? If so, why should they be the ones to move/change routes?

I'm sorry. I really tried to see another perspective in any/all of your posts - original and subsequent - while rereading this entire thread a couple times. What comes across is not that you want cars and cyclists to "share the road" considerately. You seem to want to not be inconvenienced when driving a car despite being a cyclist yourself. You said as much with your statement of belief that what I am others have posted "is (not) even about safety, or feet of road width or shoulder or condition of the shoulder or any other practical consideration." So you dismiss our statements of belief and insist that your own is correct. You didn't and don't really seem to want a discussion. You want agreement with your position. The problem's not with local cyclists in your area. Nothing personal, but that's how I see the situation.

I honestly am not meaning to insult you. However....

Glad I don't ride the local roads in your area so I don't inconvenience you.

BluesDawg

unbelievable

BlazingPedals

The question I'd ask the OP is, if the cyclists singled up and rode a safe 2 feet from the edge of the road, would you be able to safely pass them with 3 feet of clearance, without crossing the center line? If the answer is "no," then it doesn't matter if they are riding single file or 5 abreast; you are going to have the same problem passing them. In fact, doubling up makes it easier to pass them because the line of bikes can be half as long as it would be otherwise. The only other option would be for them to get off the road every time someone came up behind them; and that's not my definition of "sharing the road."