dekindy

I have called my local police dept, Fishers, IN, and they interpret Indiana law that each individual bicyclist, even in a group, must act as one bicycle in regard to traffic laws.

I was on a group ride yesterday that was going to go straight through an intersection that is a roundabout (correction - definitely a roundabout - my research indicates that cars entering a roundabout yield to the cars already there - whereas a traffic circle the cars already there yield to entering cars - big difference!). The front part of the group was well into the roundabout when a car coming from the opposite direction was coming 3/4 the way around the circle to make a left turn. My sense was that the bicyclists in the back of the group, of which I was one, should have yielded to the car because we had not entered the roundabout yet. Their is a yield sign indicating you should yield to traffic in the roundabout. The driver agreed and jammed on the brakes and yelled at us that we were supposed to stop. I think the motorist was probably right. Thoughts?

My plan is to announce at the beginning of the next ride that I am going to yield to traffic coming around the circle and anybody riding behind me should be prepared for that. Either that or I will just go to the very back when we get on that road.

P.S. Forgot the standard boast that I would just dial it up to 400 watts and catch up!

DocRay

Your group should learn to read.
No different than running a red light.

carlfreddy

From the OP it sounds like the car wasn't near entering the roundabout when the group of cyclists to it.

I'd say it depends on the dynamic of the group; were you all packed neat and tidy riding two up, should to shoulder, wheel to wheel? Or were you all strung out? How large was the group?

dcbikeguy

Good luck with that.

Namenda

Yield means the same thing for a bike as for a car. Anyone in your group that doesn't understand that is not terribly safe to ride with.

dekindy

We were two abreast, legal in Indiana, and a tight group. It seemed like the car came around the circle faster than the speed limit for the circle. In fact, we were probably traveling the speed limit. This driver was either in a hurry or just does not like cyclists. Most drivers would have just slowed down when they saw that the front of the group was already in the circle and let the group go through. The driver would not have had to stop, just slow down.

Even though I see cyclists complaining about cars, most people that I have encountered in Indianapolis yield to cyclists when they do not have if there is a group. Just prior to that we were at a stop sign and went halfway across and stopped for cross traffic. A car stopped when he did not have to and motioned for us to come through so that we could turn left and go the same direction he was going and catch up with our group. I have even had motorists stop on busy streets when I was already stopped and waiting at a 2-way stop. That was actually dangerous because it was a 50 mph speed limit and they car almost got hit from behind by a motorist not expecting the stop.

vandeda

Quite frankly, you should have yielded to traffic in the circle ... hence the reason for the yield sign. So yeah, your hunch is correct. Now getting others in your group to comply ... well good luck on that. But kudos to you for wanting to do what's right!

tpelle

Good idea.....I always yield to cars. Cars are bigger than me.

dekindy

I am going to another ride today and can go by the circle in question to verify my facts.

It is difficult to describe the timing, but there was nobody to yield to when the front of the group entered the circle because the car had not come around the circle far enough that you could determine it was turning left instead of going straight. (Another correction - my research indicates that the car should have been signaling a left turn just like at a regular interestection and we should have known the driver's intentions when we initially saw it not having to wait until it actually turned toward us in the circle. Any thoughts?)

The difficulty with the scenario is that if our group had been a car, the car could have entered the same time that we did and been through far enough that there would not have been an issue with the car coming around. Or if the car had not been going as fast as it was and slowed down slightly there would not have been an issue either. Does that make sense?

My inclination was and still is that since we were not a car the back part of the group should have yielded. I know that if I were a car I would have yielded, but I am a very conservative driver and there are plenty of aggressive drivers, which I guess technically was what we were, would have went ahead albeit with less consequences than we would have suffered if there had been an accident.

orcanova

Sounds like road rage. I would do what the group does rather than throw in surprises, lest you cause several riders to go down. Especially since it sounds like the law si on your side. Don't yeild to road rage from a motorist, just stay out of their cross hairs...

The motorist should let the whole group go through and stay together rather than splintering them...which just creates a whole host of hazards. In general I believe cars should yeild to bikes for safety.

ryanspeer

+1. I'd think each individual cyclist should act as if they were a solitary car and ride accordingly. The rules of the road apply to us in every other situation that I can think of. I'd think that to another extent, it's kind of a judgment call based on the size of the group too - as others have already hinted at. If there are four of you riding two abreast and close to the wheel in front of you (i.e., a tightly packed formation), then any reasonable vehicle driver would probably view you four as one cohesive element, vs. four individual bikes. The "judgment call" factor of it comes into play though when that group grows larger and larger. At that point, the cyclists should most DEFINITELY break into smaller groups (such as groups of four riders, two abreast).

Otherwise, it's not like you're in a race, like you HAVE to stick close together imitating a peleton, etc. Other drivers will just get pissed, write letters to the editor, start getting more publicity, and suddenly the city you're riding through starts looking DISfavorably towards bicyclists on the road in general and then the rest of the cyclist in your municipality eventually pay for one group's repeated acts of discourtesy.

dekindy

There was something else nagging at me and I could not put my finger on it. You are right, if I were a driver and encountered a bicycling group in the same situation I would apply the reasoning you suggest. If it were a small group like your example I would think of them as a one cohesive group and would yield to them as a group. But larger groups do not give the individual cyclist within the group any more claim to the right of way than normal.

Well put. Thanks for the insight.

orcanova

The law says the group should act as one, but you've got better ideas to give rights to motorists that are not extended by the law...?

Exert your rights as cyclists, don't give them back to the motorists.

ryanspeer

*edited*

Regarding the OP's comment about checking up on the law, there simply MUST be some discretion that must be exercised depending on whether you're a group of 8, or a group of 80. Remember, there are politicians and PLENTY of citizens that can't stand cyclists on "their" roads. If you show a little courtesy towards them, you're more likely to get some in return. What goes around comes around (no pun intended, considering this thread is about a roundabout...). If you deliberately abuse your "rights" as a cyclist knowing you're raising the likelihood of pissing someone off - ESPECIALLY when it's clearly and blatantly unnecessary, then just be sure you're not the guy posting threads about how your city is making it harder for cyclists when the going gets tough for you.

It's not about "giving up your rights". It's about using discretion, courtesy, and not lowering yourself to a rude motirist's level.

That is all.

aaronbarker

hi all,

i'm just down the road from dekindy in carmel, IN where we've got a d**kh**d mayor that thinks roundabouts are the greatest thing since creation and has installed dozens all over - probably even the one dekindy had trouble with. i've had more issues with traffic in roundabouts than i've had at intersections - lights or stop signs. i'll take up the appropriate lane in the roundabout for where i'm going to be exiting. many times when i'm going straight through and in the 'outside' lane to do so, a vehicle going straight through as well will cut across the 'inside' lane of the roundabout and then back over to enter the right lane upon exiting, thereby cutting me off quite badly. not to mention when i'm driving up to one only to have the car in front see the yeild sign as a stop sign when the roundabout is empty......

roundabouts, i hate'em.

back on subject: i would surmise the law wanting each individual cyclist to yeild if neccessary when entering a roundabout. i don't think the 'group-as-one' idea holds up here. imagine 100 cyclists riding single file just inches from the riders in front or behind. it could be argued that they're a single group since there is no discernable break. if the lead rider enters the roundabout when another car is already in it and coming around, the line of riders should break and stop at some point to allow the car to pass by on it's way since it was already in. as other cars enter and come around to where the cyclists are entering, they should yeild - just as they should if they were cars. that's how i see it, anyways. i think it's kind of a grey area that could be better spelled-out, but that's how i see the situation working out. now, the 'polite' thing to do might be the car in the roundabout could slow down or stop briefly if they saw the group of riders was small enough that there wouldn't be any real delay. You just need to be sure no one else is going to rear-end you if you're the car in that scenario.

another way to think of it is when riders on a trail are crossing a street. there's not always a stop sign for the trail, but the legal thing to do would be to stop and yeild to the cross traffic. but i'm sure we've all encountered drivers who stop anyways when you're even stopped and waiting to cross. their stopping when there's no sign for them to is certainly courteous, but dangerous as well. nearly all of us would go ahead and cross in that situation when we really should keep waiting for traffic to continue and cross only when an appropriate opportunity arises.

as an aside, when riding in myrtle beach two weeks ago on vacation and the ride leader/owner of a local bike shop got lightly 'mirrored' by a passing van, he gave chase. he didn't catch them and when i cought back up and he'd calmed down a bit, we joked about the 'share the road' signs up around town actually meaning 'defend yourselves'! gotta be carefull around cars regardless.......

have fun,
aaron

dekindy

If possilbe, I would be interested in reviewing your source for this information. Thanks.

vpiuva

Orca, I think you need to re-read the OP's statement. "Each individual bicyclist...must act as one bicycle".

the engine

The law of traffic signs posted applies to cyclists as it does to motorists. Each rider should have yield as an individual rider, as it pertains to his/her relative position to the traffic in the roundabout.

I used to live in a town with 3 traffic circles. I got really good at cranking it up and merging in with the traffic as it went through the circle ... but, if I had to wait for a car that was stopped in front of me, to merge in, I would of coarse wait for a safe place to merge.

You are correct in yielding yourself ... you can try and educate your group, but you will probably not get through to most. I have found some cyclists to be as un-educated as motorists on how a bicyclist and motorist should share the rode, as laws, and common sense apply.

dekindy

I found a very nice video on the Carmel, IN Police Department website that was a good education for a car driver or single cyclist to negotiate a roundabout. It does not address a group of bicyclists either because a) it does not need to since the same rule applies to all cyclists whether they are part of a group or not; or b) it does not cover this scenario and should.

I e-mailed the Police Department with my question and will post the answer for Indiana law.

This has really sharpened my skills as a driver for negotiating roundabouts.

Helmet Head

This is really much more about group riding than roundabouts.

The law is that each cyclist should act as an individual independent driver. The reality is that can get really messy in a tight group. It's often much more practical and safer for the group to act as a single vehicle, but for that to work effectively and safely, it requires for the guys at the front to think and act like drivers of that group, rather than as solo cyclists. In this case, for example, the guys at the front should have considered whether a driver of a semi with an extra trailer would have entered the circle, or yielded to the car already inside and coming around. That would be thinking and acting like drivers of the group.

So if you don't have guys at the front thinking and acting like that, then you each have to act like an individual driver. But, again, with all the tailgating going on that can get really messy, especially if one guy decides to slow while the guy behind decides to sprint, which can often happen when a green light turns yellow and then red as a large peloton moves through an intersection.

In the end, unless you can get everyone in the group to at least appreciate the problem, there is no ideal solution.

DMF 

That's not relevant. "Yield" does not mean you can't enter the roundabout, it means you can't get in the other car's way. The driver was in the right both times.

DXchulo

I agree with what you're saying here. If you have a group of 50 guys, it would take forever for each guy to individually stop, and drivers would start getting upset. At the same time, if the group is large enough it can take a while for the whole group to go through, which won't make drivers any happier. Once the group is large enough it should be split up when going through traffic signs in a busy area. There are two problems. The first, which you mentioned, is that a lot of guys will call out "clear" when there's a car coming that has the potential to hit the back of the group. This leads to (a) people going through anyway, making the car slow down and/or stop or (b) half of the group stopping, sometimes rather quickly, which can be dangerous. This is when the second problem comes into play. When the group gets split up, a lot of times the group ahead won't slow down to let the next group catch up. I'm all for going hard and dropping people, but making it to a stop sign/light faster than the next guy doesn't exactly show your skills. Besides, it's stupid to drop a group that may have strong riders who can help out later on.

The problems of the road all boil down to the same issue for cars and bikes. People are impatient and can't stand 10 seconds of going slower than they want to go. Cyclists bash on drivers for that all the time, but they are guilty of the exact same thing.

oilman_15106

This is what I read into this also. Sounds like a strange law but it is what it is. So if one guy in a group runs a red light does the whole group get a ticket?

vpiuva

For those of you reading into this that the group acts as one, please never, repeat never give legal advice to anyone

indianatrails

Dude, you are entitled to your opinion but as a Carmel Plan Commissioner and roadie I respectfully disagree. Stoplights and stop signs are at least as dangerous, frustrating and rhythm-breaking as a roundabout yield. Disconnected, discourteous drivers are everywhere. And given all the ruler-straight roads round here, it's quite a welcome rush to negotiate the occasional clear roundabout. And anything which forces drivers, at slow speeds, to wake up a little is a good thing IMHO.

See you guys out there