Cyclists -- Why do you hog the road even with a large shoulder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a cousin who is temporarily living in Germany. He is amazed at how nicely the Germans treat all cyclists. He is not looking forward to coming home because he enjoys his commute to his job by bike!

That's a country with high education standards and low crime.

We don't live in such a country.

Low crime??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why, because he can't see a cyclist through a line of cars?

No, because he didn't see a cyclist right in front of him, until he was so close he had to brake so hard that he almost got rear-ended.

It's a little hard to figure out what exactly happened, but it involved a cyclist riding along a road that people wanted to pass. Some of them didn't manage to execute the passing manuever in a way that avoided almost getting rear ended. That is not the cyclist's fault.

It sounds to me like the line of cars was blocking their view. Have you never experienced this before? I've had this happen not just with cyclists, but stopped cars, debris in the road, etc. Sometimes it is no one's "fault" per se, just a consequence of cars and cyclists sharing the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a cousin who is temporarily living in Germany. He is amazed at how nicely the Germans treat all cyclists. He is not looking forward to coming home because he enjoys his commute to his job by bike!

That's a country with high education standards and low crime.

We don't live in such a country.

Low crime??

Well, compared to the US, yes. Are you disputing this?

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime

[Anonymous]

I personally don't have a problem with cyclists who ride in the lane so long as it is in the right third of the lane so that passing is easy and safe. If the rider rides in the center of the lane, that is unnecessary and obnoxious, especially when he or she is aware of a line of cars waiting to pass. Unless a cyclist can maintain the speed limit, he or she should pull over to let cars pass.

I also believe cyclists can ride side by side as long as traffic is VERY light. If traffic is moderate to heavy, cyclists should ride single file, or at least have the cyclist on the left side pull back so that cars can pass.

The cyclists who feel justified in obstructing traffic for the benefit of their workout regimen are the ones who are making this an issue. If it weren't for their pompous behavior, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Signed an avid cyclist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why, because he can't see a cyclist through a line of cars?

No, because he didn't see a cyclist right in front of him, until he was so close he had to brake so hard that he almost got rear-ended.

It's a little hard to figure out what exactly happened, but it involved a cyclist riding along a road that people wanted to pass. Some of them didn't manage to execute the passing manuever in a way that avoided almost getting rear ended. That is not the cyclist's fault.

It sounds to me like the line of cars was blocking their view. Have you never experienced this before? I've had this happen not just with cyclists, but stopped cars, debris in the road, etc. Sometimes it is no one's "fault" per se, just a consequence of cars and cyclists sharing the road.

So, (1) it's not the cyclist's fault and (2) yes, cars in front regularly block my view, SUVs make it even worse, and it means I have to either leave more distance or drive more slowly to make things safe. As a result of (2) I have never rear-ended someone. As a result of others' failure to do (2) I have been rear-ended. They have been at fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why, because he can't see a cyclist through a line of cars?

No, because he didn't see a cyclist right in front of him, until he was so close he had to brake so hard that he almost got rear-ended.

It's a little hard to figure out what exactly happened, but it involved a cyclist riding along a road that people wanted to pass. Some of them didn't manage to execute the passing manuever in a way that avoided almost getting rear ended. That is not the cyclist's fault.

It sounds to me like the line of cars was blocking their view. Have you never experienced this before? I've had this happen not just with cyclists, but stopped cars, debris in the road, etc. Sometimes it is no one's "fault" per se, just a consequence of cars and cyclists sharing the road.

If you are driving in such a way that you KNOW you can't see what is happening on the side of the road and you're going too fast to be able to stop safely if it happens to be a pedestrian or cyclist, you are purposefully endangering innocent human life. This is not just "something that happens," it's murderous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why, because he can't see a cyclist through a line of cars?

No, because he didn't see a cyclist right in front of him, until he was so close he had to brake so hard that he almost got rear-ended.

It's a little hard to figure out what exactly happened, but it involved a cyclist riding along a road that people wanted to pass. Some of them didn't manage to execute the passing manuever in a way that avoided almost getting rear ended. That is not the cyclist's fault.

It sounds to me like the line of cars was blocking their view. Have you never experienced this before? I've had this happen not just with cyclists, but stopped cars, debris in the road, etc. Sometimes it is no one's "fault" per se, just a consequence of cars and cyclists sharing the road.

If you are driving in such a way that you KNOW you can't see what is happening on the side of the road and you're going too fast to be able to stop safely if it happens to be a pedestrian or cyclist, you are purposefully endangering innocent human life. This is not just "something that happens," it's murderous.

Oh my...the drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why, because he can't see a cyclist through a line of cars?

No, because he didn't see a cyclist right in front of him, until he was so close he had to brake so hard that he almost got rear-ended.

It's a little hard to figure out what exactly happened, but it involved a cyclist riding along a road that people wanted to pass. Some of them didn't manage to execute the passing manuever in a way that avoided almost getting rear ended. That is not the cyclist's fault.

It sounds to me like the line of cars was blocking their view. Have you never experienced this before? I've had this happen not just with cyclists, but stopped cars, debris in the road, etc. Sometimes it is no one's "fault" per se, just a consequence of cars and cyclists sharing the road.

If you are driving in such a way that you KNOW you can't see what is happening on the side of the road and you're going too fast to be able to stop safely if it happens to be a pedestrian or cyclist, you are purposefully endangering innocent human life. This is not just "something that happens," it's murderous.

Oh my...the drama.

Yes, if you kill a person with your car that is a dramatic event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is so annoying!

I am a former cyclist...used to ride 150 miles a week in my day. But we always respected vehicular traffic by staying in shoulder (if safe and not too sandy) and pulling aside if vehicles need to pass (as opposed to riding side by side). I find around this area cyclists are just obnoxious!! They hog the roads, ride side by side outside of the large shoulder even when there is heavy traffic. What the heck? Please enlighten me cyclists. What is the reason you are so disrespectful of others and why won't you share the road?

Safety. Also:




http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/15264/new-maryland-signs-emphasize-cyclists-right-to-the-road/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't have a problem with cyclists who ride in the lane so long as it is in the right third of the lane so that passing is easy and safe. If the rider rides in the center of the lane, that is unnecessary and obnoxious, especially when he or she is aware of a line of cars waiting to pass. Unless a cyclist can maintain the speed limit, he or she should pull over to let cars pass.

I also believe cyclists can ride side by side as long as traffic is VERY light. If traffic is moderate to heavy, cyclists should ride single file, or at least have the cyclist on the left side pull back so that cars can pass.

The cyclists who feel justified in obstructing traffic for the benefit of their workout regimen are the ones who are making this an issue. If it weren't for their pompous behavior, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Signed an avid cyclist.

The average bike is 2 feet wide. The average sedan is 6 feet wide. The standard lane is 12 feet wide. Assuming no parked cars, that means if you pass in lane you can give me at most 4 feet (3 feet required by law in most places) which is okay, if no one swerves unexpectedly for same reason, etc. If you have an SUV, take another half foot away, you are now only 6 inches over the 3 foot minimum, and if my bike is a little wider than average, no more slack.

If there is adjacent parking I actually need 4 feet to be completely outside the door zone. Four plus 2 feet is 6 feet, so for a 6 foot sedan (forget an SUV) there is no zero space between my left handle and your right mirror.

And many lanes are narrower than 12 feet.

Ergo, IF I am riding in the lane, and there are adjacent parked cars OR it is less than a 12 foot lane, to pass safely you will need to pass into the other lane anyway. Both to avoid the door zone, and to discourage attempts to pass close in lane, I will take the center of the lane.

Where the lane is wider than 12 feet, and there is no adjacent parking, I will stay to the right - just to the left of the gutter (there is a road near my house where I do that).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't have a problem with cyclists who ride in the lane so long as it is in the right third of the lane so that passing is easy and safe. If the rider rides in the center of the lane, that is unnecessary and obnoxious, especially when he or she is aware of a line of cars waiting to pass. Unless a cyclist can maintain the speed limit, he or she should pull over to let cars pass.

I also believe cyclists can ride side by side as long as traffic is VERY light. If traffic is moderate to heavy, cyclists should ride single file, or at least have the cyclist on the left side pull back so that cars can pass.

The cyclists who feel justified in obstructing traffic for the benefit of their workout regimen are the ones who are making this an issue. If it weren't for their pompous behavior, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Signed an avid cyclist.

Just so you know, the speed limit is a maximum speed, not a minimum. When the sign says "25 MPH" that does not mean that driving 29MPH is okay, but driving 23MPH is forbidden.

Driving up to 10 MPH over the limit is widely considered acceptable. Why is driving one mile under the limit unacceptable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't have a problem with cyclists who ride in the lane so long as it is in the right third of the lane so that passing is easy and safe. If the rider rides in the center of the lane, that is unnecessary and obnoxious, especially when he or she is aware of a line of cars waiting to pass. Unless a cyclist can maintain the speed limit, he or she should pull over to let cars pass.

I also believe cyclists can ride side by side as long as traffic is VERY light. If traffic is moderate to heavy, cyclists should ride single file, or at least have the cyclist on the left side pull back so that cars can pass.

The cyclists who feel justified in obstructing traffic for the benefit of their workout regimen are the ones who are making this an issue. If it weren't for their pompous behavior, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Signed an avid cyclist.

Just so you know, the speed limit is a maximum speed, not a minimum. When the sign says "25 MPH" that does not mean that driving 29MPH is okay, but driving 23MPH is forbidden.

Driving up to 10 MPH over the limit is widely considered acceptable. Why is driving one mile under the limit unacceptable?

Driving to slow can impede traffic. Even on a highway you are required to turn on your hazards and remain in the far right lane.

Do your thing but neither a car nor a bike has a right to impact the other. If cars are lined up behind you just pull over and let them pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't have a problem with cyclists who ride in the lane so long as it is in the right third of the lane so that passing is easy and safe. If the rider rides in the center of the lane, that is unnecessary and obnoxious, especially when he or she is aware of a line of cars waiting to pass. Unless a cyclist can maintain the speed limit, he or she should pull over to let cars pass.

I also believe cyclists can ride side by side as long as traffic is VERY light. If traffic is moderate to heavy, cyclists should ride single file, or at least have the cyclist on the left side pull back so that cars can pass.

The cyclists who feel justified in obstructing traffic for the benefit of their workout regimen are the ones who are making this an issue. If it weren't for their pompous behavior, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Signed an avid cyclist.

Just so you know, the speed limit is a maximum speed, not a minimum. When the sign says "25 MPH" that does not mean that driving 29MPH is okay, but driving 23MPH is forbidden.

Driving up to 10 MPH over the limit is widely considered acceptable. Why is driving one mile under the limit unacceptable?

Driving to slow can impede traffic. Even on a highway you are required to turn on your hazards and remain in the far right lane.

Do your thing but neither a car nor a bike has a right to impact the other. If cars are lined up behind you just pull over and let them pass.

Bikes are banned from almost all limited access highways. I am mostly concerned with city streets.

And driving slower impedes traffic. So does an accident caused by you driving too fast. Driving 24 MPH in a 25 MPH zone may delay you. As long as it is not done to intentionally slow traffic it is not illegal. Driving 26MPH though seldom enforced, IS illegal. It is very difficult to maintain exactly the same rate of speed in city conditions. Ergo, I think the belief that it is wrong to drive even 1 MPH below the speed limit, leads to speeding.

When I am riding my bike, I do try to pull over on streets where there are cars behind me, and I am going well below the speed limit. However it is not always possible to do so safely, because of parked cars. Generally I am not riding on such streets for more than a couple of blocks anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Do your thing but neither a car nor a bike has a right to impact the other.

Everyone on the road impacts everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't have a problem with cyclists who ride in the lane so long as it is in the right third of the lane so that passing is easy and safe. If the rider rides in the center of the lane, that is unnecessary and obnoxious, especially when he or she is aware of a line of cars waiting to pass. Unless a cyclist can maintain the speed limit, he or she should pull over to let cars pass.

I also believe cyclists can ride side by side as long as traffic is VERY light. If traffic is moderate to heavy, cyclists should ride single file, or at least have the cyclist on the left side pull back so that cars can pass.

The cyclists who feel justified in obstructing traffic for the benefit of their workout regimen are the ones who are making this an issue. If it weren't for their pompous behavior, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Signed an avid cyclist.

Just so you know, the speed limit is a maximum speed, not a minimum. When the sign says "25 MPH" that does not mean that driving 29MPH is okay, but driving 23MPH is forbidden.

Driving up to 10 MPH over the limit is widely considered acceptable. Why is driving one mile under the limit unacceptable?

Driving to slow can impede traffic. Even on a highway you are required to turn on your hazards and remain in the far right lane.

Do your thing but neither a car nor a bike has a right to impact the other. If cars are lined up behind you just pull over and let them pass.

Bikes are banned from almost all limited access highways. I am mostly concerned with city streets.

And driving slower impedes traffic. So does an accident caused by you driving too fast. Driving 24 MPH in a 25 MPH zone may delay you. As long as it is not done to intentionally slow traffic it is not illegal. Driving 26MPH though seldom enforced, IS illegal. It is very difficult to maintain exactly the same rate of speed in city conditions. Ergo, I think the belief that it is wrong to drive even 1 MPH below the speed limit, leads to speeding.

When I am riding my bike, I do try to pull over on streets where there are cars behind me, and I am going well below the speed limit. However it is not always possible to do so safely, because of parked cars. Generally I am not riding on such streets for more than a couple of blocks anyway.

And I am concerned with narrow country roads that can still be very busy.