A Plague of Bicyclists

[KEK Inc.]

I'm curious; how are recreational trails detrimental to cycling transportation?    I commute on one 5 days a week to get to work.

Induction loop detectors are actually intentionally designed to overlook small pieces of metal so that a pedestrian walking on the crosswalk with a watch won't trip it.  That said, they do have more sensitive loop detectors for bikes. 

Example:  http://goo.gl/maps/5UAzI

I do think Idaho stops are better for everyone, in the sense that accelerating on a bike is slow and actually is detrimental to traffic-flow.  When a bike safely goes through a red light, motorists don't have to waste 3 seconds in a green cycle for the bike to work its way up to speed, especially if the cyclist has to go up a hill. 

[corco]

I'm perfectly fine with implementing an Idaho Stop policy in every state - it seems to make a lot of sense.  but I also would like massive social sanctions against those who bike like assholes.  those who run cars through stop signs and red lights are rightfully vilified, but those who do the same on bikes are viewed as Big Damn Heroes and their behavior becomes part of the transportation culture of entire cities.

Is that actually true though, or is this just one of those cases where a vocal, radical minority drowns out the voices and desires of the average cyclist?

I concede it to be entirely possible that San Francisco is an entire city of vocal, radical minorities.

[KEK Inc.]

that said: can someone of the pro-asshole faction (I'm looking at our beloved New England Route here) want to explain why one has to charge through an intersection at full speed without looking?  I have yet to see a coherent defense for this.

Well, you'll always have idiots who think they're invincible and will charge through intersections without yielding or stopping.  I'm not sure if our resident troll does that or not, but I sure as hell don't support it.

[seicer]

I'm curious; how are recreational trails detrimental to cycling transportation?    I commute on one 5 days a week to get to work.

In two ways:

1. Funding. Recreational trails are almost always funded from different pots than that of roadways. Many trails are also partially funded with donations, fundraisers and lots and lots of grants.
2. Mindset. When I hop on the Little Miami Trail or what's been built of the Ohio River Trail, it's always the weekend warriors, not the commuters. Granted the latter trail example doesn't really connect to anywhere yet, but most trails are the busiest during the weekend, not the weekday. People -drive- out to these trails, unload their bikes, and go out for 5 miles and turn back, load their bikes on, and drive home. Why can't they just pick up the nearest cyclepath from their neighborhood and go to work? Or to the grocery? Or to the Little Miami Trail?

When we tell people that they can bike to do these things, they get all up in arms. No funding for that! But they are okay with having spaghetti dinners and a poor volunteer who writes hundreds of grants for scraps for a .5 mile extension of a recreation trail.

[Duke87]

But if you're biking at 25 mph on a road with a 45 mph speed limit, you're both being a dick and creating a hazard if you're riding in the travel lane and not moving out of the way for cars.

However, because we have for too long pushed in this country for movement of cars over alternative modes, there are often cases where a cyclist has to take that lane on the 45 MPH road because there is no alternative.  I have a classic example of this (albeit on a 35 MPH road but one with 6 lanes and heavy traffic) on my bike commute.

If you think that's being a dick, you're a dick.

If there is another lane available to go around the cyclist then it doesn't matter so much. What I'm talking about here is rural road, full shoulder, biker has plenty of room to get out of my way for two seconds and then resume his business... but won't.

Which of these options sounds safer to you:
1) bicyclist moves into shoulder when a car comes up behind him so car can pass him
2) bicyclist stays in traffic lane and car has to go into oncoming traffic lane to pass him

Hint: it's the one that doesn't create the potential for a head-on collision.

If I am driving slowly for whatever reason (looking for an address, looking for a parking space, etc.), I will move over when I get a chance to let faster traffic pass so as to not needlessly hold people up. What is so unreasonable about expecting a cyclist to extend the same courtesy to me?


As for the whole Idaho stop thing, I don't so much mind bikers proceeding through intersections if it's clear for them to do so, much in the same way I don't mind jaywalking (and do it constantly - hey, I'm from New York). What I mind is bikers who make pedestrians jump out of their way and make cars slam on their brakes because they're too superior to yield to anyone (we have a lot of this in New York City - delivery boys on bikes especially will freaking run you over if you don't watch out).

Another frequent problem we have is bikers going the wrong way down one way streets - this is legitimately dangerous and needs to not be condoned. If you expect traffic to be coming from one way and one way only it can easily cause an accident if someone suddenly comes the opposite way without warning. I've been nearly creamed as a pedestrian by cyclists going the wrong way, and I know someone who got hit by a car while biking the wrong way and is lucky to be alive.

[KEK Inc.]

That's mainly because it's ridiculously hard to get the proper ROW for those trails in a dense city.  The Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle is a bit unique since it goes from Golden Gardens (a popular park), through Ballard (where I work, a busy neighborhood with a lot of businesses), through the University District (where I live), all the way to the suburbs of Bothel and Woodinville.

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/burkegilmantrailmaps.htm

That said, it was a railline that got abandoned, so the ROW was already there.  In Redmond, WA, they're already converting some abandoned rail-lines to greenways.  Making brand new trails in the city isn't really that practical unless you have a ROW that can be converted.

[NE2]

I bet you actually did not bother to read the law, either.

You treat the traffic signal as a yield, meaning that you do not nor should you (as a cyclist) "blow" through the signal. You still must yield right-of-way and here is why:

Actually a stop sign is treated as a yield, and a traffic light is treated as a stop (you can yield when turning right on red): http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH7SECT49-720.htm

that said: can someone of the pro-asshole faction (I'm looking at our beloved New England Route here) want to explain why one has to charge through an intersection at full speed without looking?  I have yet to see a coherent defense for this.

Yes, I still beat my wife, because it makes my loins tingle.

[KEK Inc.]

Yes, I still beat my wife, because it makes my loins tingle.

That's animal abuse.  Don't beat on goats.

[corco]

If there is another lane available to go around the cyclist then it doesn't matter so much. What I'm talking about here is rural road, full shoulder, biker has plenty of room to get out of my way for two seconds and then resume his business... but won't.

Which of these options sounds safer to you:
1) bicyclist moves into shoulder when a car comes up behind him so car can pass him
2) bicyclist stays in traffic lane and car has to go into oncoming traffic lane to pass him

Hint: it's the one that doesn't create the potential for a head-on collision.

If I am driving slowly for whatever reason (looking for an address, looking for a parking space, etc.), I will move over when I get a chance to let faster traffic pass so as to not needlessly hold people up. What is so unreasonable about expecting a cyclist to extend the same courtesy to me?

That logic is actually precisely why bike riders ride in the middle of the lane- it forces you to move around them at an adequate width. Take a 30 foot wide roadway, which is roughly as wide as your average rural road. This allows for 15 foot wide lanes. Assuming a cyclist couldn't ride more than a foot off the side, that puts it at 13.5 feet because handlebars. Your typical pickup truck (likely to be found on a rural road) is roughly 95 inches wide plus mirrors, which is 8.5 feet wide.

Assuming you give a bike 6 feet of space, which is what they safely need if you're passing them at speed, that puts the truck 1 foot over the line and in place to get in a head on collision anyway. Even if you think those numbers are generous, you can see that doesn't leave much wiggle room, and I don't trust most drivers to maneuver within a foot or two at 45+ MPH, especially since most sane drivers would err towards the bike on the right side of them instead of the car coming right at the driver's seat.

If the cyclist is in the middle of the lane, that forces the vehicle to slow down and get into that other lane before passing. If I'm on a bike, I'd rather you do that than nearly run me off the road when oncoming traffic comes by as you overtake me at nearly full speed.

This is another issue where we need sensible bike law work- bikers are rightfully scared to ride all the way on the right because it means they're likely to get run off the road if there's oncoming traffic. If we could develop consistency in the way cars handle bikes, I agree that your way is better as long as cars realize they need to slow way down when they approach a bike in that situation- the problem is that many if not most car drivers don't behave properly in that situation, so bikers feel a need to be extra defensive.

[Takumi]

are you having a bad narcotic experience?  have you undergone a cerebral swap with a sea cucumber?

I think it's that time of the month for him.

* Takumi goes back to eating popcorn

[agentsteel53]

That logic is actually precisely why bike riders ride in the middle of the lane- it forces you to move around them at an adequate width. Take a 30 foot wide roadway, which is roughly as wide as your average rural road. This allows for 15 foot wide lanes. Assuming a cyclist couldn't ride more than a foot off the side, that puts it at 13.5 feet because handlebars. Your typical pickup truck (likely to be found on a rural road) is roughly 95 inches wide plus mirrors, which is 8.5 feet wide.

Assuming you give a bike 6 feet of space, which is what they safely need if you're passing them at speed, that puts the truck 1 foot over the line and in place to get in a head on collision anyway. Even if you think those numbers are generous, you can see that doesn't leave much wiggle room, and I don't trust most drivers to maneuver within a foot or two at 45+ MPH, especially since most sane drivers would err towards the bike on the right side of them instead of the car coming right at the driver's seat.

If the cyclist is in the middle of the lane, that forces the vehicle to slow down and get into that other lane before passing. If I'm on a bike, I'd rather you do that than nearly run me off the road when oncoming traffic comes by as you overtake me at nearly full speed.

This is another issue where we need sensible bike law work- bikers are rightfully scared to ride all the way on the right because it means they're likely to get run off the road if there's oncoming traffic. If we could develop consistency in the way cars handle bikes, I agree that your way is better as long as cars realize they need to slow way down when they approach a bike in that situation- the problem is that many if not most car drivers don't behave properly in that situation, so bikers feel a need to be extra defensive.

the vehicle who is clearly not helping in this situation is the one coming opposite to the bicyclist and the overtaking vehicle.  if I see this situation unfolding opposite to me, I will move on to my shoulder, so that we can safely handle a three-abreast situation.

[J N Winkler]

That logic is actually precisely why bike riders ride in the middle of the lane- it forces you to move around them at an adequate width. Take a 30 foot wide roadway, which is roughly as wide as your average rural road. This allows for 15 foot wide lanes. Assuming a cyclist couldn't ride more than a foot off the side, that puts it at 13.5 feet because handlebars. Your typical pickup truck (likely to be found on a rural road) is roughly 95 inches wide plus mirrors, which is 8.5 feet wide.

Assuming you give a bike 6 feet of space, which is what they safely need if you're passing them at speed, that puts the truck 1 foot over the line and in place to get in a head on collision anyway. Even if you think those numbers are generous, you can see that doesn't leave much wiggle room, and I don't trust most drivers to maneuver within a foot or two at 45+ MPH, especially since most sane drivers would err towards the bike on the right side of them instead of the car coming right at the driver's seat.

If the cyclist is in the middle of the lane, that forces the vehicle to slow down and get into that other lane before passing. If I'm on a bike, I'd rather you do that than nearly run me off the road when oncoming traffic comes by as you overtake me at nearly full speed.

The difficulty with this example is that it over-aggregates in the interests of describing a "typical" rural road (one lane each at most for up and down traffic), whereas:

*  Rural roads can have one lane (typical "country lane" cross-section, rare but not unknown in the US), or two.

*  Unit lane widths in the automobile age have historically ranged from 8' to 12'.

*  Shoulders may or may not be provided.

*  The shoulders that are provided may be grass (stabilized vegetated), gravel, paved, or some combination of the three.

*  Striping patterns vary in terms of provision of centerline, provision of shoulder stripe, and compliance with the latest edition of the MUTCD in terms of the previous two items.  MUTCD striping warrants are driven by traffic volumes, which creates the theoretical possibility of a very wide rural road with no centerline and no center stripe.

*  Slope treatments vary considerably, in terms of lateral location of top point (can be right at the edge of the traveled way), steepness, presence of rounding, presence of concrete tiles or rubble drains in regard to shoulder edge, hinge points between shoulder and said drainage arrangements, etc.

In the design manuals for cycling facilities I have seen, including a 1990's British publication called Cycling-friendly Infrastructure, reference is made to the concept of a "dynamic envelope" that belongs to both cyclists and motor vehicles.  It is defined as the actual width of the vehicle plus the range of lateral movement it makes when the operator is attempting to go straight ahead.  The general idea behind specifying a dynamic envelope is to ensure that it is taken into account in choosing widths for cycling facilities so that the dynamic envelopes of cyclists and motor vehicles do not overlap.

The problem with the dynamic envelope concept is that the dynamic envelope of a particular vehicle is not hard-edged; instead, it is like a statistical interval.  In the case of a pickup truck with the quoted width of 95" (let's make it a round 9' for simplicity to include mirrors), dynamic envelope might mean that the entirety of the vehicle is within a 10' band centered on the lane about 60% of the time, within a 12' band centered on the lane about 99% of the time, etc.  Dynamic envelope width will be influenced to an extent by unit lane width since more precise tracking is required for unit lane widths down to 10' (this produces capacity effects--capacity of a facility with 10' lanes is typically about 70% of capacity of a facility with identical lane count but 12' lanes).  Below 10', vehicles will deflect to the side to avoid traffic in an adjacent lane (whether oncoming or travelling in the same direction), which is why nobody has been insane enough to propose sub-10' unit lane width for new-build since about 1930.  Such substandard facilities do, however, exist.

My personal rules of thumb are that no cyclist should ever be expected to cycle at speed on an unpaved surface, and when road width and typical traffic volumes are such that a cyclist and motor vehicles cannot travel side-by-side without overlap of dynamic envelopes or forced lateral deflection of one vehicle or another, cyclists should position themselves for visibility to motor vehicle drivers, turning out occasionally as required to promote platoon dispersion (maximum following vehicle count of 3, say).  So, to quote these typical scenarios (speed limits at or close to state maximum for rural two-lanes):

*  Rural state highway, traveled way consisting of two 12' lanes, and 10' paved shoulders--I would cycle on the paved shoulder.

*  Rural state highway, traveled way consisting of two 12' lanes, no paved shoulders (stabilized vegetated shoulder beginning at edge of traveled way)--I would center myself about 3' in from the edge of the traveled way.

*  Rural state highway, traveled way consisting of two 12' lanes, partially paved shoulders consisting of a 2'-4' paved margin adjacent to the traveled way and enough width of gravel or crushed aggregate to make up a total 10' shoulder width--I would center myself about 3'-4' in from the edge of seal.

Note that only the first case (cycling on the shoulder) is uncontroversial.  The latter two cases are much more marginal.  The safety research I am aware of says that cyclists are much better off cycling for visibility (which puts them in front of motor vehicles) in cases where there is not a shoulder that can effectively function as a dedicated cycle lane, but this has been done largely on roads with curbs, which implies city streets (AASHO/AASHTO geometric design guidance has long deprecated curbs on roads with operating speeds of 50 MPH or more).  There is also research that says shoulder cycling on Interstates is safe, but this relates to the uncontroversial case.  I am not aware of any research that addresses the general case of safety when cycling on open-drained, high-speed, shoulderless rural state highways and I would expect the results to vary according to whether cyclists are travelling alone or as part of an organized ride, and also the extent to which drivers are prepared to encounter cyclists on a particular segment of highway.  National standards notwithstanding, there is so little uniformity in treatment beyond the traveled way, and so few cyclists riding on interurban itineraries in general, that attempts to regress crash incidence and severity against the presence of particular features quickly leads to small-numbers problems.

In the case of rural roads under local control and designed to serve local and regional rather than through traffic, I still stick to the philosophy of cycling for visibility, but personally I feel more comfortable when a center stripe is absent, as I feel it disposes drivers to stay on their side of the stripe even if that means running me off the road.

[Brian556]

Just saw a video on the local news of a cyclist getting creamed. He was in the wrong and deserved it.

At night, he attempted to cross an intersection in the crosswalk, in violation of the light. A taxi who's light was just turning yellow cremed him. The sorry reported failed to mention that the accident was obviously the cyclists fault, even going as far to say "a taxi trying to beat the light hit a cyclist"; inferring that it was the taxi's fault.

Total sh** reporting.

[froggie]

Regarding shoulder cycling, one factor to consider is the condition of the shoulder.  If the shoulder is rutted/potholed/debris-choked, even if paved, I'd still ride in the traffic lane.

[Duke87]

That logic is actually precisely why bike riders ride in the middle of the lane- it forces you to move around them at an adequate width.

Perhaps, but it also forces you to crawl along behind them until you get to a passing zone (which depending on the road may or may not be easy to come by). I get pissed off at any vehicle that does this, bicycle or otherwise. Slower traffic keep right should not be a difficult concept. If you cannot travel at the speed the road is meant for, the obligation falls on you to get the fuck out of the way whenever someone comes up behind you. And if the shoulder is too rough for you to ride in for five seconds, then for Christ's sake just pull over and stop for five seconds instead. Or better yet, reevaluate your decision to ride a vehicle that can only do 25 MPH on a roadway with a 45+ MPH speed limit. You really don't belong there if you can avoid it.

[NE2]

get off my lawn road blah blah blah

[corco]

Or better yet, reevaluate your decision to ride a vehicle that can only do 25 MPH on a roadway with a 45+ MPH speed limit. You really don't belong there if you can avoid it.

Speed limits are limits, not "the speed the road is meant for"- a rural road is likely "meant for" all sorts of traffic, including massive John Deere combines that troll along at 15 MPH, occupying at least an entire lane. In western states, I have a legal right to run livestock in the middle of a state highway, and the burden is on you to accommodate that (and this does happen quite often in the spring and fall as animals move from summer to winter pastures) (you can attempt to overtake, and it's not that hard to do so though your car may be pooped on, but if you damage my livestock you're liable for the damages). "Meant for" is a pretty vague concept.

You're defining a rural road as a thoroughfare that cars travel down, when in reality a rural road is much, much more than that, even back east.

In the absence of bike facilities, bikes have a right to be on the road. Assuming they're traveling at a reasonable speed for a bike, they're traveling at a speed that shouldn't lead to harassment.

The only roadway a bike doesn't have  right to be on is a limited access highway in most states. If you're concerned about traveling at "meant for" speeds, stay on the freeway. Once you're off the freeway, roads have a dramatically different legal definition than you're interpreting- we have them set up for cars because that's the majority of the traffic, but the legal definition of a road in all states isn't "something cars go down"- it's a "public access right of way." More technically, the definition of a road in the US dates back to English Common Law, which indicates " "a way over which all members of the public have the right to pass and repass without hindrance." What that means is that all public access is legal unless statutorily prohibited, so your eastern states only disallow livestock on the road because they have statutes or legal wording prohibiting it, not because roads inherently disallow livestock. Unless you're on a road that statutorily disallows bikes (which would be your limited access roads), bikes have a right to be on the roadway and to travel at the speed that bikes can reasonably travel at. In many states, they are statutorily required to stay as far right as possible, but their legal right to be on the roadway still exists.

In the 4000 or so year history of roads, the idea that a road exists primarily for a single form of transportation and secondarily for other forms is a new one, propagated in the last 70 years or so and really only in a few countries. Through most of history and in much of the world today, roads are for general travel, not for travel by [form of transportation], and the law still reflects that. It probably should continue to do so, since technology will only keep progressing. This postwar American view that "roads are for cars first" is an unusual one, in the big scheme of things, and in my mind society would do well to get out of that mindset.

If you read the rest of my post and Winkler's post, you'd see there's really not much place for the biker to get out of the way.

As far as slowing down for 5 seconds, the bike was there first- it takes a lot more physical energy for the bike to slow down for five seconds than for you in a car to slow down for five seconds, so maybe that burden should fall to you.

I agree that people should keep right for the most part and facilitate passing- that's really hard to do on a bike though because attempting to facilitate a pass often leads to being run off the road.

Also, you indicate waiting for a designated passing zone- those lane stripes are designed for cars. If you come up on a piece of farm equipment or a bicycle, you can pass on double yellows if it looks sensible to do so because you should be in and out of the lane a lot faster than you would if you were passing a slow moving car.

[english si]

Often, when I move over and slow down (never stop - it's just nasty) and wave people who were 3 ft behind my back wheel past, they don't go past.

When learning to bike on the roads in a city, I quickly learnt that riding in the gutter causes cars to overtake you with about 2 foot to spare. And if they are stopped, then I should overtake them, rather than 'undertake' them. I also quickly learnt to avoid 'shared use' facilities that weren't wide enough (eg unchanged urban sidewalks - especially when they dump bus stops on them), or were busy with pedestrians.

Also, you indicate waiting for a designated passing zone- those lane stripes are designed for cars. If you come up on a piece of farm equipment or a bicycle, you can pass on double yellows if it looks sensible to do so because you should be in and out of the lane a lot faster than you would if you were passing a slow moving car.

Ditto in the UK, when it comes to double whites
129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

[seicer]

Just saw a video on the local news of a cyclist getting creamed. He was in the wrong and deserved it.

You are a fucking dipshit. Yes, a 3,000 pound car versus a 150 pound human body. Even if the cyclist was in the wrong, it's not good to wish possible death or permanent injury on somebody because they biked in a crosswalk. For fuck's sake, be compassionate.

[Duke87]

Speed limits are limits, not "the speed the road is meant for"- a rural road is likely "meant for" all sorts of traffic, including massive John Deere combines that troll along at 15 MPH, occupying at least an entire lane. In western states, I have a legal right to run livestock in the middle of a state highway, and the burden is on you to accommodate that (and this does happen quite often in the spring and fall as animals move from summer to winter pastures) (you can attempt to overtake, and it's not that hard to do so though your car may be pooped on, but if you damage my livestock you're liable for the damages). "Meant for" is a pretty vague concept.

Farm equipment crawling down roads I accept as a necessary evil, since it's gotta get where it's gotta go and has no other means of doing so. Although I'm still uninclined to pass on a double yellow since the visibility just isn't there unless you get a nice straightaway. I'm also pretty sure that it isn't legal to do so in every state.

Bicycles, meanwhile, are another story: they are either used as a means of transportation between two moderately spaced destination points, or used for recreation. The reason why bicycles on rural roads incite me so, then, is because when you're out in no-man's land and dressed in spandex I am assuming you are cycling recreationally rather than as a means of getting from A to B. If you are cycling recreationally then you are not bound to cycling along any particular route since it doesn't matter where you go. Which means it is entirely within your capability to find a place to do so that does not involve getting in my way. There are plenty of bike trails out there. Use them if you want to pretend you're Lance Armstrong, not the state highway.

[corco]

You can't get into that sort of motive judgement though- what if I live on a farm and I'm riding my bike to another farm two miles down the road? There's no bike trail nearby and I'm doing it for legitimate transportation. I understand that's not most cyclists, but if you're comfortable with one you can't discriminate against the other.

You'd be surprised how many spandex-wearers actually are biking to a destination, and how rarely those mythical bike trails exist. The mode of travel over a car might be a recreational/fitness decision, but that's their choice, not yours. The destination is still a valid destination. You just cannot get into probing people for their motives when using a public road- then it becomes a personal vendetta against cyclists, and you lose a bit of credibility when you go down that path. Even if it is recreational- if I'm a long distance cyclist, show me where all those 100+ mile long bike trails are.

Besides that, do you really, sincerely think your typical cyclist prefers to ride in traffic if there's a bike trail nearby? Cyclists don't enjoy the situation with oncoming traffic and you trying to pass anymore than you do- in fact they probably enjoy it less since they're more likely to die. In my eyes, you're making an argument that we need better bike facilities, not that it's the cyclist's fault that they're "in your way." In cases where a generally parallel bike facility that connects the same two points and bans motorized travel exists, then yeah, I get your argument that cyclists should just go use the trail because in that case everybody still has access, but those situations are I think rarer than you think. Hell, out here cyclists are legally allowed on interstate highways in some situations because no parallel regular roadway exists.

Which means it is entirely within your capability to find a place to do so that does not involve getting in my way.

I just want to clarify what you're saying here. I read this as that you believe that your right to be in a car on a public road supercedes my right to be on a bike on a public road. Is that correct? If it's not correct, how do you reconcile a belief that bikes on the road are "in your way" and should go find somewhere else to ride with a belief that both should have equal access to public roadways?

Or are you saying "okay, cycling is okay on a public road but only if it has a specific destination?" In that case...shit, we're roadgeeks. Is driving a car and potentially getting in someone's way on a public road for recreational purposes not acceptable? Why is it different to be a recreationally driving car that could potentially drive below the speed limit while occupying a full lane width as opposed to a recreationally riding a bike below the speed limit while occupying a partial lane width? Do we run with margins- e.g. it's okay to travel recreationally if you're going 15% below the speed limit but not 50% below the speed limit? How do you propose we enforce this? Is it constitutional to do so? Do you really want to live in a world where that's questioned?

[J N Winkler]

In cases where a generally parallel bike facility that connects the same two points and bans motorized travel exists, then yeah, I get your argument that cyclists should just go use the trail, but those situations are I think rarer than you think.

Another point is that such facilities are often unsuitable for cycling compared to the public road:  the classic example is a sidewalk conversion (either shared-use or segregated; example shown at link is segregated) on a residential road which requires cyclists to yield at every driveway crossing.

Quite often curbside cycle lanes are just not wide enough.  The example shown at the link was actually part of my commute route for a number of years, and I usually centered myself just to the left of the stripe and edged right (at a very low deflection angle, to maximize visibility to following vehicles) whenever I was moving at speed and needed to get around a bus or delivery vehicle.

Plus, edging away from the parallel-facility issue, there are cases where the cyclist actually needs to be fairly close to the (implied) centerline of the road, in order to be visible to traffic coming from either side of a blind curve.  (The speed limit on the length of road shown at the link is 60 MPH but this is in the same purely nominal sense that rural county roads in the frontier-state tier or the intermountain West in the US often have statewide speed limits of 50 MPH or higher.  Operating speeds on this length of road are not that much greater than 30 MPH.)

[NE2]

Another point is that such facilities are often unsuitable for cycling compared to the public road:  the classic example is a sidewalk conversion (either shared-use or segregated; example shown at link is segregated) on a residential road which requires cyclists to yield at every driveway crossing.

Lucky. Here they make us stop.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.13571,-81.829176&spn=0.015346,0.028346&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.135715,-81.829071&panoid=t-maru5hH8_z32LU2LqRig&cbp=12,231.2,,0,8.86

[Duke87]

You'd be surprised how many spandex-wearers actually are biking to a destination

Maybe I would... all I know is that I only ever see them out on their bikes. I rarely ever see them at a restaurant, at an event, etc. So I assume if you've gone through the effort to put on spandex, you are looking for exercise or something outdoorsy to do, not to get somewhere in particular (after all, spandex is not a great fashion statement if you're doing anything else). I also note that while spandex is the exception rather than the rule in the city, it describes just about every biker I've ever seen in more exurban/rural areas. To me this as well strongly suggests that spandex = recreation since the bike is a lot less useful as utilitarian transportation in less densely populated areas.

In my eyes, you're making an argument that we need better bike facilities, not that it's the cyclist's fault that they're "in your way."

This I agree with. Bike infrastructure IS sorely lacking and we absolutely could use more of it. Some European countries really put us to shame on it.

Also, I am not so much assigning fault when I say they are in my way as I am merely stating a fact. If I want to move and you are impeding my ability to do so, you are, by definition, getting in my way. And if you fail to recognize this and get out of my way, then I have every right to be pissed off at you. I always avoid trying to get in people's way as much as I can and get out of their way as much as I can if I find myself in it. I expect people to do the same for me. But some people are obnoxious and don't give a shit if they're being an obstacle.

I just want to clarify what you're saying here. I read this as that you believe that your right to be in a car on a public road supercedes my right to be on a bike on a public road. Is that correct?

If a facility is designed for cars, then cars have priority for use of it, yes. But also note that I didn't say "public road", I said "road with a 45+ MPH speed limit". Bikes fit in just fine on lower speed roads and I don't mind them there. City streets are often designed to be multimodal.

[NE2]

If I want to move and you are impeding my ability to do so, you are, by definition, getting in my way. And if you fail to recognize this and get out of my way, then I have every right to be pissed off at you.

How Republican of you.