http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/drivers-get-rolled_766425.html?page=1 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/drivers-get-rolled_766425.html?page=1)
Thoughtful.
/me makes some popcorn
Even this wingnut paper believes environmental benefits are "obvious and undeniable". Discuss.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 12, 2013, 08:48:38 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/drivers-get-rolled_766425.html?page=1 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/drivers-get-rolled_766425.html?page=1)
Thoughtful.
Shitty behavior isn't confined to motorists? Shocking!
One thing I've noticed is that people walk like they bike like they drive. Some are good; far too many are idiots and assholes.
There are plenty of douche bag cyclists. Similarly, there are plenty of douche bag motorists. There are also plenty of douche bag cops. There are plenty of douche bag articles, just like this one.
Quote from: realjd on November 12, 2013, 10:59:24 PM
There are plenty of douche bag cyclists. Similarly, there are plenty of douche bag motorists. There are also plenty of douche bag cops. There are plenty of douche bag articles, just like this one.
This. But we know the folks who post or write garbage like this have little regard or respect for cyclists.
I'm really curious where the claim from the bikers that "they can't just stop like a car" comes from. Bikes have brakes. And I don't think any vehicle which is unable to stop on command is safe to be riding/driving on the road.
As for the in the lane versus to the side debate, riding in the middle of the lane makes sense in an urban setting on a low speed roadway because that is how you make yourself most visible to everyone else on or near the road and thus best avoid accidents. 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.
And honestly, if you're stupid enough to blow past a cop telling you to stop and then mouth off at said cop when he later catches up to you, I sincerely hope your sorry ass gets arrested for evading law enforcement.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 13, 2013, 08:41:56 PM
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.
I've seen that happen on a 55 mph road, going up a hill, and with no other cars in sight. It's annoying.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 13, 2013, 08:41:56 PM
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.
If you think that's being a dick, you're a dick.
The best legislative thing to come out of Idaho:
http://www.sfbike.org/?idaho
Watch the video. Idaho Stop makes sense and creates a uniform set of laws regarding bikes and stop signs, which makes it less likely that bikes will recklessly blow through them and also makes them blend in better with the flow of traffic. Idaho has had this for 30 years now, and our bike safety record is great. Boise is a very bike friendly city with a lot of cyclists, despite what you might assume.
QuoteThere are plenty of douche bag cyclists. Similarly, there are plenty of douche bag motorists. There are also plenty of douche bag cops. There are plenty of douche bag articles, just like this one.
THIS.
QuoteBut 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.
QuoteIdaho Stop makes sense and creates a uniform set of laws regarding bikes and stop signs, which makes it less likely that bikes will recklessly blow through them and also makes them blend in better with the flow of traffic.
Concur. But then the motorists will complain that they can't do the same thing. Which IMO is an indicator that we have too many stop signs in this country. But that in itself is a result of too many stupid/horrible drivers who don't understand the concept of "Yield", nevermind the overly-litigatious society we now live in.
Quote from: froggie on November 14, 2013, 08:55:29 AM
Concur. But then the motorists will complain that they can't do the same thing. Which IMO is an indicator that we have too many stop signs in this country. But that in itself is a result of too many stupid/horrible drivers people who don't understand the concept of "Yield", nevermind the overly-litigatious society we now live in.
People have no clue how to yield the right of way to others, not just drivers. Ever walk around a grocery store with a cart? I have more near misses in the store than on the road as people don't look at where they are going. This also goes for pedestrians (more than a few get "Darwined" by crossing railroad tracks like that) and bicyclists (including the fool taking up the entire lane instead of staying to the right) as well as motorists and motorcyclists.
We have a society today where people are just rude to other people and for some reason it seems to be OK to do so. Note the behavior of certain posters here as an example. Motorists are rude to motorcyclists are rude to bicyclists are rude to pedestrians are rude to motorists. It's a terrible cycle, IMHO, and it direly needs to be broken. A little bit of courtesy would go a very long way to fixing this problem with no additional laws required.
You do know that it's safer for the cyclist to take up the middle or right 1/3 of the lane than to hug the curb?
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on November 14, 2013, 10:18:36 AM
You do know that it's safer for the cyclist to take up the middle or right 1/3 of the lane than to hug the curb?
Um, no, it's actually safer to take up the right 1/4 of the lane, or in the should if one exists (that's where I ride, and 1/4 of a lane still is 3 feet). Taking up the middle is just rude. Ditto for motorcyclists. They ought to be on the left 1/3 of the lane, not the middle (for their visibility). As for pedestrians, they should be over as far as possible and facing traffic (with their noses out of their iPhones).
It really boils down to being courteous toward each other. Motorists need to be patient with bicyclists in a narrow area. Bicyclists need to stop at red signals. Pedestrians need to be alert and not texting while walking. If someone else is supposed to have the right of way, yield it. Don't be an asshole whether walking, biking, or driving. Too many are while doing all three. Don't join them.
Brandon's full of shit. Dog bites man.
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2013, 10:52:55 AM
Brandon's full of shit. Dog bites man.
As noted regarding the plague of rudeness that permeates our society today, please see NE2's comment above. How is NE2 (with this comment) any different than the jerk who gets pissy with a bicyclist using more of the lane than usual in a narrow area? It's this rudeness, and believing this rudeness is either funny or effective that is the problem. It's this complete lack of couthness and courteousness that is the problem. It's a lack of respect for our fellow humans (surprisingly from a self-described "hippie" - I thought hippies were supposed to be mellow, man) that is the problem here.
A Brandon is a reflex of simultaneous inhalation of air and stretching of the eardrums, followed by exhalation of breath.
I almost killed one this morning on a residential street. speed limit 25, he was coming down a hill at least that fast in the opposite lane. he hit a dip, got air, landed and started fishtailing and damn near wiped out in my lane.
wasn't wearing a helmet either. he may very well be dead by now.
I almost killed a hep kitten. I was shooting at the target range and he was drunk and walked right in front of my gun.
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2013, 01:15:15 PM
I almost killed a hep kitten. I was shooting at the target range and he was drunk and walked right in front of my gun.
what the fuck meme are you attempting to reference this time?
Hep cats are the new awesome people.
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2013, 01:37:07 PM
Hep cats are the new awesome people.
I'm sure they are. and you're the same old shit.
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2013, 12:16:47 PM
A Brandon is a reflex of simultaneous inhalation of air and stretching of the eardrums, followed by exhalation of breath.
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2013, 01:15:15 PM
I almost killed a hep kitten. I was shooting at the target range and he was drunk and walked right in front of my gun.
As if on cue to demonstrate his rudeness, SPUI rises (or is that falls?) to the occasion.
This is part of what I talked about with the lack of civility and courtesy, and SPUI (aka NE2) does a wonderful job of illustrating a total and complete lack of civility. Thank you for playing, please don't come again.
Quote from: corco on November 13, 2013, 09:03:34 PM
The best legislative thing to come out of Idaho:
http://www.sfbike.org/?idaho
Watch the video. Idaho Stop makes sense and creates a uniform set of laws regarding bikes and stop signs, which makes it less likely that bikes will recklessly blow through them and also makes them blend in better with the flow of traffic. Idaho has had this for 30 years now, and our bike safety record is great. Boise is a very bike friendly city with a lot of cyclists, despite what you might assume.
So, vehicles have to stop for Stop signs, but cyclists don't. Likewise, vehicles have to wait for red lights, but cyclists don't. Yah, that's a set of uniform traffic laws all right - not!. Here's an idea - require drivers and cyclists sharing the same streets to be subject to and obey the SAME laws.
And if cyclists feel it's so important that they can't be bothered to stop for a stop sign or wait at a red light, regardless of whatever "justification" they create for their actions, then IMO they have no business being on the road. The fact they got the polticians to buy into this "entitlement" law is pathetic.
Quote from: roadman on November 14, 2013, 01:53:43 PM
And if I feel it's so important that I can't be bothered to obey a speed limit sign (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4490.msg234545#msg234545), regardless of whatever "justification" I create for my actions, then IMO I have no business being on the road.
Fixed for you.
Quote from: roadman on November 14, 2013, 01:53:43 PM
Quote from: corco on November 13, 2013, 09:03:34 PM
The best legislative thing to come out of Idaho:
http://www.sfbike.org/?idaho
Watch the video. Idaho Stop makes sense and creates a uniform set of laws regarding bikes and stop signs, which makes it less likely that bikes will recklessly blow through them and also makes them blend in better with the flow of traffic. Idaho has had this for 30 years now, and our bike safety record is great. Boise is a very bike friendly city with a lot of cyclists, despite what you might assume.
So, vehicles have to stop for Stop signs, but cyclists don't. Likewise, vehicles have to wait for red lights, but cyclists don't. Yah, that's a set of uniform traffic laws all right - not!. Here's an idea - require drivers and cyclists sharing the same streets to be subject to and obey the SAME laws.
And if cyclists feel it's so important that they can't be bothered to stop for a stop sign or wait at a red light, regardless of whatever "justification" they create for their actions, then IMO they have no business being on the road. The fact they got the polticians to buy into this "entitlement" law is pathetic.
Except for the part where where this is legal cyclists are statistically proven to get in fewer accidents.
Also, have you ever ridden a bike? It's a lot easier to slow to a crawl on a bike and have good visibility than a car. Coming to a complete stop on a bike and then re-accelerating is really hard, so this makes it so they blend in better with cars moving the same direction at intersections, believe it or not. This also says "okay bikers, we get that coming to a complete stop is terribly inefficient on a bike (not so much on a car), so as long as you don't blow through stop signs we won't ticket you"- that's what I'm talking about by uniformity- it makes bike behavior more predictable, which makes driving a car around them a lot easier.
I've driven very, very extensively in the urban parts of Idaho (yes, those exist) and I'll say that bikers follow a more predictable model than in other states. When you see a bike, you know they're not going to come to a needless stop but you also know they aren't going to blow through aimlessly, as happens in other states. It's just like speeding, as NE2 points out above. Because it's so terribly inefficient for a bike to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, a lot of bikes won't and so it's inevitable for that to be the case. Legalizing it while also increasing the penalty for those who roll through stop signs into traffic solves that problem better than any other known method.
Bikes are not cars. Expecting them to behave like cars and managing traffic laws around that model is doomed to fail. And in the absence of better facilities, they have just as much right to be on the road as cars do. Even if you hate bikes, you can't deny that they have a right to be on the road. So all you can do is manage that in a way that allows vehicles to operate as harmoniously and efficiently as possible. It may seem counterintuitive, but legalizing rolling stops actually does that and it's been proven to do that.
I encourage anybody who just hates bikes on the road and thinks they're evil to ride one on the road in traffic for a week. Your perspective will change, I promise. You might still think they're evil, but your perspective on how to manage them will change.
Quote from: corco on November 14, 2013, 02:22:13 PM
I encourage anybody who just hates bikes on the road and thinks they're evil to ride one on the road in traffic for a week.
And then ride one on the sidewalk of a busy commercial arterial, and notice how the dynamics change. (Hint: don't assume anyone's going to yield to you, despite being legally a ped.)
did Boise have an asshole-biker culture (see: San Francisco) before the rolling stop law?
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2013, 02:53:35 PM
And then ride one on the sidewalk of a busy commercial arterial, and notice how the dynamics change. (Hint: don't assume anyone's going to yield to you, despite being legally a ped.)
In how many jurisdictions is riding a bike on the sidewalk legal? I'd venture to guess, not very many.
The law was passed before I was born so I cant say for sure. What I can say for sure is that the rate of cyclist fatalities dropped by fifteen percent the year after it was passed.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2013, 03:01:28 PM
In how many jurisdictions is riding a bike on the sidewalk legal? I'd venture to guess, not very many.
You'd probably be wrong. Orlando is one of the very few cities in Florida that prohibits it wholesale. Massachusetts allows it outside business districts (unless there's a local law).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acurazine.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fpopcorn.gif&hash=cf6ab2c565316ac0a9ea4e2a9e937aa1179e3f20)
Bicyclists get free popcorn for helping save the environment.
Quote from: 1 on November 14, 2013, 03:36:02 PM
Bicyclists get free popcorn for helping save the environment.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpauljeurissen.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs5%2Fv130%2Fp154183562-4.jpg&hash=456fb90cc3496d851022df32a887a5dcd8f200c1)
Quote from: corco on November 14, 2013, 02:22:13 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 14, 2013, 01:53:43 PM
Quote from: corco on November 13, 2013, 09:03:34 PM
The best legislative thing to come out of Idaho:
http://www.sfbike.org/?idaho
Watch the video. Idaho Stop makes sense and creates a uniform set of laws regarding bikes and stop signs, which makes it less likely that bikes will recklessly blow through them and also makes them blend in better with the flow of traffic. Idaho has had this for 30 years now, and our bike safety record is great. Boise is a very bike friendly city with a lot of cyclists, despite what you might assume.
So, vehicles have to stop for Stop signs, but cyclists don't. Likewise, vehicles have to wait for red lights, but cyclists don't. Yah, that's a set of uniform traffic laws all right - not!. Here's an idea - require drivers and cyclists sharing the same streets to be subject to and obey the SAME laws.
And if cyclists feel it's so important that they can't be bothered to stop for a stop sign or wait at a red light, regardless of whatever "justification" they create for their actions, then IMO they have no business being on the road. The fact they got the polticians to buy into this "entitlement" law is pathetic.
Except for the part where where this is legal cyclists are statistically proven to get in fewer accidents.
Also, have you ever ridden a bike? It's a lot easier to slow to a crawl on a bike and have good visibility than a car. Coming to a complete stop on a bike and then re-accelerating is really hard, so this makes it so they blend in better with cars moving the same direction at intersections, believe it or not. This also says "okay bikers, we get that coming to a complete stop is terribly inefficient on a bike (not so much on a car), so as long as you don't blow through stop signs we won't ticket you"- that's what I'm talking about by uniformity- it makes bike behavior more predictable, which makes driving a car around them a lot easier.
I've driven very, very extensively in the urban parts of Idaho (yes, those exist) and I'll say that bikers follow a more predictable model than in other states. When you see a bike, you know they're not going to come to a needless stop but you also know they aren't going to blow through aimlessly, as happens in other states. It's just like speeding, as NE2 points out above. Because it's so terribly inefficient for a bike to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, a lot of bikes won't and so it's inevitable for that to be the case. Legalizing it while also increasing the penalty for those who roll through stop signs into traffic solves that problem better than any other known method.
Bikes are not cars. Expecting them to behave like cars and managing traffic laws around that model is doomed to fail. And in the absence of better facilities, they have just as much right to be on the road as cars do. Even if you hate bikes, you can't deny that they have a right to be on the road. So all you can do is manage that in a way that allows vehicles to operate as harmoniously and efficiently as possible. It may seem counterintuitive, but legalizing rolling stops actually does that and it's been proven to do that.
I encourage anybody who just hates bikes on the road and thinks they're evil to ride one on the road in traffic for a week. Your perspective will change, I promise. You might still think they're evil, but your perspective on how to manage them will change.
No, I'm not the evil Grinch who loates bikes and hates cyclists. However, what does bother me is the attitude of the bike lobby (at least around the Boston area) that says "we want equal access to the public streets" in one breath, then turns around and says "now give us special rights and privildges", and then - for a finale - says things like "what, make us REGISTER our vehicles to use the public streets - NO WAY!"
That having been said, all your points are well taken. And, for the record, from high school through my college years and shortly after (late 1970s to early 1990s), I was an avid cyclist. Part of my regular 10 to 15 mile riding route (which I rode at least 3X per week) was on through arterial streets in Lynn, Swampscott, and Salem, MA. At the time, all these communities allowed sidewalk riding outside the downtown business districts. However, I found the street to be much better for riding, even in traffic. And, I never saw the need to not come to a complete stop at a stop sign or to not wait for a red light to change. Of course, in those days, there were fewer stop signs and red lights to contend with then there are now.
Certainly that makes sense- there is definitely the asshole biker brigade that gives the whole group a bad name- I favor ignoring and ticketing those sorts of folks. And yeah, as you and froggie say there are way too many stop signs now. One of the issues is a planning issue- if there is an arterial, and parallel to that arterial is a residential street, it makes sense to direct bike traffic to that parallel residential street where they are out of the way of fast moving traffic, right? The problem is that parallel residential street now has stop signs every other block to keep the cars off and not for any real traffic purpose, and thats where something like Idaho stop can have great benefits- bikes dont have to stop at traffic calming stop signs and those signs keep the cars off the road. Without that, i as a biker might be more prone to ride on that arterial where its more dangerous but faster and easier since i dont have to keep stopping.
I like the idea of rolling stops for bicyclists and is what I naturally do when I ride my bike on Baltimore city streets. Baltimore is pretty hilly, and if there are no cars around and I'm riding up a hill to a stop sign, I am not going to make a full stop. I would lose all of my momentum and be more of a danger as I try to get back up to speed after the stop sign.
I try to be as courteous as I can be on my bike not just to be nice, but for my own safety.
iPhone
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2013, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 14, 2013, 01:53:43 PM
And if I feel it's so important that I can't be bothered to obey a speed limit sign (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4490.msg234545#msg234545), regardless of whatever "justification" I create for my actions, then IMO I have no business being on the road.
Fixed for you.
LOL. Called out.
Honestly, I doubt half of you have ever biked in a city. Many cities to put it blunt have poor infrastructure for bike traffic, so bicyclists are forced to share lanes with motorists. I'm sorry, but it's very hard to go faster than 35 MPH on a bike.
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2013, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 14, 2013, 01:53:43 PM
And if I feel it's so important that I can't be bothered to obey a speed limit sign (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4490.msg234545#msg234545), regardless of whatever "justification" I create for my actions, then IMO I have no business being on the road.
Fixed for you.
except ... not.
rolling through stops while yielding : flying through stop signs :: driving 12 over the limit to keep up with traffic : driving 120 in traffic
Still as unorginal and unfunny as a potato joke
Quote from: Laura Bianca on November 14, 2013, 05:47:13 PM
I like the idea of rolling stops for bicyclists and is what I naturally do when I ride my bike on Baltimore city streets. Baltimore is pretty hilly, and if there are no cars around and I'm riding up a hill to a stop sign, I am not going to make a full stop. I would lose all of my momentum and be more of a danger as I try to get back up to speed after the stop sign.
I try to be as courteous as I can be on my bike not just to be nice, but for my own safety.
This.
I always stop at a stop sign when there are other cars (or pedestrians) around, to "take my turn" as if I were any other vehicle. But if there are
no other vehicles anywhere near (if visible at all) the other approaches to the intersection, I'll roll thru it.
I also always obey traffic signals - tough sometimes at certain intersections (especially ones where there is an all-way WALK signal (and everyone has RED)) I'll hop off and become a pedestrian carrying my bike thru the crosswalk, before becoming a cyclist in the street again.
I'm kinda getting deja vu typing this....
Quote from: corco on November 14, 2013, 06:33:34 PM
Still as unorginal and unfunny as a potato joke
Hey, this spud's for you!
/OK, just as lame, I know. I say potato, Dan says potatoe.
//Yes, even worse.
I suppose I should chime in. I bike a lot in Seattle. It's the fastest mode of transportation honestly, and it's healthier. I bike to class (0.5 miles), I bike to work (5 miles), I bike to parties (a few blocks), etc. Granted, I've broken plenty of laws, and I do think police tend to be extremely lenient for biking. I admit, I've drunk biked before (which should be a DUI if it isn't already), I've biked without lights at night, blew through traffic signals/stop signs (only when there's no other traffic approaching or at the intersection), etc.
That said, I try to be courteous and respectful to other drivers. I've driven in Portland plenty, so I know the frustration drivers feel with bicyclists, so I try to avoid that if I can. I generally take note of traffic impediment and pull off if there's a lot of drivers behind me, but I'm fortunate that most of my commute to work involves a nice bike greenway (the Burke-Gilman Trail - a converted abandoned railroad ROW) which goes through my university and directly to my workplace, so I rarely have to deal with motorist traffic.
Seattle is in the infant stages of a bike-friendly road system, but traffic control devices that don't support bike infrastructure makes it both dangerous for bicyclists and motorists, as they have to share lanes causing problems. SDOT is adding these bike greenway roads, which convert side streets parallel to main arteries to effectively become bike arteries. You share the road with motorists, but it's only local motorists to those streets, and signs discourage through traffic motorists and encourage bike traffic. It's a good way to make a safer route for bicyclists without compromising motorists.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fseattlebikeblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FIMG_0172-575x429.jpg&hash=f208a53a77a76dfc2ee35c0ab8cb8e3d19adabe3)
That also said, I don't think every road has to be bike friendly. As long as you can go almost anywhere in the city in a bike friendly road, then that should be sufficient. You don't need every road to be bike friendly. Only one in every 15 blocks, honestly.
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2013, 06:29:01 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 14, 2013, 06:15:34 PM
Idaho stop? Udaho stop.
okay, you've officially reached "what the fuck is wrong with you today" status as far as I can tell.
are you having a bad narcotic experience? have you undergone a cerebral swap with a sea cucumber? seriously, you've gone from your usual occasional-asshole self to something out of the Ethan Man playbook.
So to the one or two who don't believe in the Idaho Stop or believe that all cyclists must stop at every traffic signal:
Do you actually bike? Do you actually bike with something other than heavy metal?
No? Shock.
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:
1. Most states use loop detectors that detect large amounts of metal. When it detects this, the signal begins its sequence to changing. Nearly every bike will not trip these types of signals - including most aluminum and all carbon fiber models.
2. Infrared cameras are, for the most part, not calibrated to detect human bodies. They detect large amounts of heat that radiate from a car hood, not a cyclist at a traffic signal.
Solutions include:
1. Idaho Stop is the easiest and safest, as it makes these into yields for cyclists.
2. Dedicated signal actuators for cyclists. In some cities, these are poles near curb lines that have a button to start the sequence to change the signal. Some cities, like Portland, include an LED countdown. The problem with this is that it is not feasible for left-turning movements.
Better yet, cities need to rethink how transportation works and how we can become less car focused. That's not to say that motorists are inherently evil - heck, I drive 35,000 miles a year and bike much less than that. The question is, how do we treat cycling as transportation, not recreation, and allocate resources based upon that?
Take Ohio for instance. Our rail to trails are essentially bike throughfares, formerly funded with the Clean Ohio Grant program and other grants. I'm not sure how it is for 2012 or 2013 since Clean Ohio's funding was severely cut. But why isn't it funded by the Department of Transportation? And why are sidewalks and dedicated cyclepaths afterthoughts - or funded entirely differently? If we want to even out the playing field, fix the funding situation.
I have an entry coming up on why I think recreational trails, inconsistent signage and the like are actually detrimental to cycling as a mode of transportation.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on November 14, 2013, 07:29:45 PM
I have an entry coming up on why I think recreational trails, inconsistent signage and the like are actually detrimental to cycling as a mode of transportation.
this is something I would definitely like to read about.
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.
hint: if - due to your blatant and willful disobedience of traffic laws - I have to perform an emergency evasive maneuver to avoid turning you into road hash, then you are an asshole. that is the topic of that article which the thread started out with. and I agree with it.
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.
for fuck's sake, why?
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.
QuoteI'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.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 14, 2013, 07:34:51 PM
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.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on November 14, 2013, 07:37:42 PM
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.
Quote from: froggie on November 14, 2013, 08:55:29 AM
QuoteBut 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.
Quote from: NE2 on November 13, 2013, 08:57:29 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on November 14, 2013, 07:29:45 PM
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
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 14, 2013, 07:34:51 PM
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.
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2013, 08:28:00 PM
Yes, I still beat my wife, because it makes my loins tingle.
That's animal abuse. Don't beat on goats.
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 14, 2013, 07:28:43 PM
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.
/me goes back to eating popcorn
Quote from: corco on November 14, 2013, 09:14:09 PM
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.
Quote from: corco on November 14, 2013, 09:14:09 PMThat 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: corco on November 14, 2013, 09:14:09 PM
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.
QuoteOr 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 (http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5285/5316289555_c83a44afeb_z.jpg) 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.
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.
Quote from: corco on November 16, 2013, 02:30:26 AMAlso, 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 (https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/lines-and-lane-markings-on-the-road-127-to-132)
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
Quote from: Brian556 on November 15, 2013, 01:07:51 PM
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.
Quote from: corco on November 16, 2013, 02:30:26 AM
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 (http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5285/5316289555_c83a44afeb_z.jpg) 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.
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.
QuoteWhich 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?
Quote from: corco on November 16, 2013, 12:12:25 PMIn 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 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Oxford&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.752712,-1.283469&spn=0.00724,0.01929&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.752688,-1.283141&panoid=xuiIA5WppR3ngmf-cnYGsg&cbp=12,75.24,,0,10.95) (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 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Oxford&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.764307,-1.260751&spn=0.000911,0.002411&t=m&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.764307,-1.260751&panoid=hSCgjja_Aw3zmPzzIw089w&cbp=12,188.27,,0,14.89). 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 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Oxford&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.823104,-1.254791&spn=0.003641,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.823104,-1.254791&panoid=w7ZcBAksaMIkmXiHM27vhQ&cbp=12,138.41,,0,2.94) 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.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 16, 2013, 12:54:39 PM
Another point is that such facilities are often unsuitable for cycling compared to the public road: the classic example is a sidewalk conversion (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Oxford&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.752712,-1.283469&spn=0.00724,0.01929&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.752688,-1.283141&panoid=xuiIA5WppR3ngmf-cnYGsg&cbp=12,75.24,,0,10.95) (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
Quote from: corco on November 16, 2013, 12:12:25 PM
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.
QuoteIn 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 16, 2013, 02:51:11 PM
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.
Quote from: NE2 on November 16, 2013, 02:02:14 PMLucky. 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
That's brilliant. Get a photo of that and send it into Cycle Facility of the Month (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm) as they'd love it.
Quote
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).
Typically they'll bring a change of clothes and possibly shower immediately after getting of their bikes because a dude in spandex that's just ridden a bike 30 miles typically doesn't smell all that great, so you're unlikely to see a long distance bike rider in spandex off their bike.
Quote
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 certainly agree with all those things in principle- people should be polite, and there are bikers that are not polite, and that's shitty. In this case though, it seems like the very act of a bike being on the road is by your definition an obstacle, and that's not really fair. A bike can't be expected to pull off the road and stop every time a car comes by- there has to be some give and take. If they ride in the middle of the lane until they're certain that you see them (which will naturally be some time after you actually see them), and then move over to the right when the bike judges you can safely pass without running them off the road (the bike, by nature of a being on a bike is in that situation a lot more than you are, so it makes some sense to defer to their experience), that seems like they're being fairly polite. Now, some cyclists don't do that, but that's not everybody.
Quote
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".
The thing is that if we're talking rural areas, those are the same thing. A road with a 45 MPH speed limit may very well be the only facility a bike can legitimately ride on, and in that case that's where they'll ride. If you think cars get priority over other vehicles in that situation anyway, well, I guess I don't know what to say.
That's why they allow bikes and pedestrians on certain freeways out here where there's no other facility, because you can't deny or even prioritize road access- all persons have equal right to be on a roadway, no matter how they are traveling. It can be restricted and limited if there's other/channelized facilities, but it can't be outright denied.
Certainly you can appreciate that in New England, most rural roads with 45 MPH speed limits predate the automobile (hell, in Montana most inter-city roads predate the automobile)- the car wasn't there first and the car doesn't have any more or less right to travel on those thoroughfares than anything else, nor should it. Roads were being paved for dust control long before the car- the only thing that really makes a random two lane road in Connecticut "designed for the car" is maybe some curve grading- even the concept of lanes and navigation signs existed prior to the automobile. Speed limits and other traffic laws were (and are) designed to calm the use of a motorized vehicle when they started wreaking havoc on other people's abilities to use the road. If you're talking a rural road in New England, it's hardly the road that is designed for the car- the road is just a piece of blacktop, and laws in place allow you to travel on that road but keep your actions restrained. The reason that speed limit is 45 instead of, say, 65, is precisely because other modes of transport have equal right to the road and you need to be going slow enough to see and react to them. The road has been there for a lot longer than the motorized vehicle- we had to make some modifications to that road to accommodate you crazy folks and your motorcars. That doesn't make it your road, that just means that cars were a bigger nuisance than anything before them so we had to make more substantial modifications than anything before them, so we aren't denying you your right to travel on it.
This applies in urban areas too, and on every road. The difference in urban areas is that there's enough traffic that it makes sense to channelize traffic with bike lanes and sidewalks. You're focusing on the road as a blacktop to blacktop stretch of pavement- which isn't what a road is. A road is the entire developed portion of the right of way- in urban areas, you're not annoyed because we channel different types of traffic. In rural areas, there's no need to do that so we don't, and then there's areas in between. So where we don't channel, the blacktop portion of the road IS the sidewalk and IS the bike lane.
Realistically, if you are in a car and come up on a bike or a horse or a combine, it's your duty to slow down and pass when it is safe to do so. I agree that ideally, people will be polite and try to facilitate that pass, and that it's terribly rude when people don't and maybe that should be legislated to a degree if it's really that much of a problem, but saying that cars get priority on a random rural road...that's a tough one to justify.
Quote from: corco on November 16, 2013, 05:56:15 PM
Typically they'll bring a change of clothes and possibly shower immediately after getting of their bikes because a dude in spandex that's just ridden a bike 30 miles typically doesn't smell all that great, so you're unlikely to see a long distance bike rider in spandex off their bike.
An interesting thought. It's absolutely plausible to do this, my question is, how commonly is it done? In the particular area I grew up in there was no such thing as riding a bicycle as a mode of transportation. Everyone drove everywhere. If you saw someone on their bike it was usually in workout clothes (if not explicitly spandex) and known/understood that they were bike riding for the purpose of exercise. All of them stayed off to the right, none of them ever rode in groups or in the center of the travel lane. Those things, at least in my experience, are a recent phenomenon, usually encountered in areas with nice scenery (another obvious sign it's recreational).
Quotepeople should be polite, and there are bikers that are not polite, and that's shitty. In this case though, it seems like the very act of a bike being on the road is by your definition an obstacle, and that's not really fair. A bike can't be expected to pull off the road and stop every time a car comes by- there has to be some give and take.
What you're saying is fair. I'm not complaining about people who don't move over the instant I approach them (that isn't reasonable). I'm complaining about people who don't move over
at all (often because they're in groups and they don't understand the concept of single file)
QuoteQuote
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".
The thing is that if we're talking rural areas, those are the same thing. A road with a 45 MPH speed limit may very well be the only facility a bike can legitimately ride on, and in that case that's where they'll ride. If you think cars get priority over other vehicles in that situation anyway, well, I guess I don't know what to say.
What I question is how useful a bicycle really is as a mode of transportation in a rural area. Seems to me that if you've got more than a few miles to cover you should be in a car.
But then, I'm mentally biased since I've never taken a short trip in a rural area, so I tend to want to assume there's no such thing when for people who live there I'm sure sometimes there is.
QuoteCertainly you can appreciate that in New England, most rural roads with 45 MPH speed limits predate the automobile {...} the only thing that really makes a random two lane road in Connecticut "designed for the car" is maybe some curve grading
I guarantee you that any road in New England with a 45+ MPH speed limit has had its alignment significantly straightened out both horizontally and vertically compared to what was there 100 years ago in order to allow for those speeds. There are little former alignments all over the place. And the purpose of all those upgrades is obviously to allow for cars to be able to use the road at speeds horses could never achieve.
QuoteThe reason that speed limit is 45 instead of, say, 65, is precisely because other modes of transport have equal right to the road and you need to be going slow enough to see and react to them.
I'm pretty sure the reason the speed limit is 45 is because New England likes to underpost things.
And anyways, you're right about needing to see and react to things, and sightlines do influence speed limits, but on a rural road that's more about seeing other cars (or other things, like deer) than it is about bikes and pedestrians.
Quotein urban areas, you're not annoyed because we channel different types of traffic. In rural areas, there's no need to do that so we don't, and then there's areas in between. So where we don't channel, the blacktop portion of the road IS the sidewalk and IS the bike lane.
And this is where I am going to have to fundamentally disagree. If there is no sidewalk then the road is not designed for pedestrians, and if there are no bike markings then the road is not designed for bikes either. This means if you are walking or biking in the road you are using space intended for cars and would do well to yield it to them when there is a conflict.
If I am walking down a road with no sidewalk I am going to stay off the pavement as much as I can, and if I have to be on the pavement I will hug the edge of it as much as I can. By doing this I'm staying out of the way of cars as much as I can, and also protecting myself from being run over.
It's certainly fine to disagree as a matter of preference, and to think that law needs to be changed to give cars priority, but as a matter of law and as a matter of fact- any lawyer will concur with me on this, it's simply not true that cars have higher priority on a typcial, non-limited access road than other forms of travel.
Here's a nice lit review on the matter http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/humanpower.htm
The source may seem biased, but the case law it cites is not biased, it's a matter of fact and law, so I'd read that by looking at the court cases as opposed to the intervening text.
Google the Kansas Supreme Court Case
Swift v. City of Topeka- it's dated, but has never been overturned and has been reaffirmed. It probably sums up the question the most succinctly. Notable:
QuotePublic streets are highways, and every citizen has the right to use them. Both the sidewalks, and roadways must remain unobstructed, so that people can walk along one without interruption, or danger, or drive along the other without delay or apprehension. One of the most imperative duties of the City governments in this country, is to keep their public streets in such a condition, that citizens can travel along them with safety, and without any unnecessary delay. Each citizen has the absolute right, to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor, or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements, that are known as the law of the road.
Here's a Canadian write up- Canadian road law is based on the same common law as US road law and is equally applicable, including the U.S. Uniform Vehicle Code, which affirms that cyclists also have a right to the road. Because of this, you'll note that it cites both US and Canadian court cases/policies. http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
The Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, to which the U.S. is a signatory, reaffirmed this in 1968. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/crt1968e.pdf
You won't find a court case that dictates that bikes and pedestrians have less right to access and be on a roadway or that roads are intended for cars any more or less than any other form of travel because they don't exist. A roadway is held in the public trust and giving cars priority would be blatant discrimination (cars are expensive, courts have upheld that driver's licenses for cars are acceptable because people have the right to travel on roadways without a driver's license). You think WSDOT wants to allow bikes on I-90 over parts of Snoqaulmie Pass? They certainly don't, but they have to because the law requires them to allow access on a road held in the public trust where there is not access to a parallel facility. I've seen bikes riding on it. It looks quite uncomfortable, but they have a right to be on that road, so it's not up to me or you to judge them for it.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 16, 2013, 08:38:07 PM
I'm complaining about people who don't move over at all (often because they're in groups and they don't understand the concept of single file)
I don't think you understand the concept of single file. If a two-abreast group of cyclists changes to single file, it takes twice as long to pass, which is twice as long that you're in the other lane. There may be a slight benefit when it's one or two cyclists that move to the right, since you don't spend as much time moving left, but when it's a whole group the total time is greater.
PS: it takes more time to pass a faster cyclist. Quit bitching about slow speeds.
PPS: hell yeah - I hasn't heard about the latest here. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22517938/colorado-supreme-court-overturns-black-hawks-ban-bikes
Oh, whoa, neat. Okay, and in the findings http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8822&courtid=2
QuoteIn sum, tracing the General Assembly's enactments makes it clear that bicyclists are afforded all the rights and responsibilities of other vehicles on our roadways, including being required to comply with state and municipal regulations. Local authorities, in turn, are allowed to regulate bicycle traffic, including prohibiting bicycles under specific conditions. In the case before us, the Bicyclists argue that Black Hawk did not comply with the statutory conditions in prohibiting bicycles. We agree.
QuoteAs we previously described more fully, home-rule cities may regulate bicycle traffic within their jurisdiction but may prohibit bicycles only if an alternate route is established. In light of the General Assembly's long-standing recognition of bicycling as a protected mode of transportation within Colorado and its specific decision to disallow a bicycle ban unless a suitable alternate path is provided for bicyclists, Black Hawk's bicycle prohibition ordinance fails the conflict test. It prohibits bicycling without providing a suitable alternate route where the state statute authorizes such a prohibition only when an alternate route is established.
Quote from: NE2 on November 16, 2013, 10:15:12 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 16, 2013, 08:38:07 PM
I'm complaining about people who don't move over at all (often because they're in groups and they don't understand the concept of single file)
I don't think you understand the concept of single file. If a two-abreast group of cyclists changes to single file, it takes twice as long to pass, which is twice as long that you're in the other lane. There may be a slight benefit when it's one or two cyclists that move to the right, since you don't spend as much time moving left, but when it's a whole group the total time is greater.
Who said anything about being in the other lane? The whole point of the bikes going single file in or near the shoulder as apposed to in a cluster in the middle of the travel lane is so that I can pass them without having to go all the way into the other lane. Yeah, it'll take longer to pass them all, but unlike in the alternate scenario oncoming traffic can still pass me while I'm passing the bikes, and thus I have one less potential collision to worry about.
In other news, it's nuts that a town banned bikes outright and I agree with striking that down. Especially since it's a developed area.
Also, for the record, I don't support a bike ban anywhere except on a freeway, nor do I support laws to make enforceable what I am arguing for. It should just be common sense.
Go back and read Winkler's post upthread though- on your typical rural road, many if not most vehicles can't safely pass a cyclist without entering the other lane. If you're trying to pass bikes, even bikes hugging the right of the road to the best of their ability, without entering the other lane odds are very good that you're scaring the shit out of every cyclist you pass and nearly running them off the road. If you're passing bikes on a rural two lane road while oncoming traffic passes by, you're liable to cause an accident. At the very least, you'd get a reckless driving ticket if a cop saw you trying to pull those shenanigans.
For the record, I agree that bikes should be riding single file in most cases, but if you're passing bikes on most rural roads without crossing into the other lane, it's a matter of when, not if you end up causing an accident.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 16, 2013, 10:42:03 PM
Who said anything about being in the other lane?
You did:
Quote from: Duke87 on November 16, 2013, 10:42:03 PM
The whole point of the bikes going single file in or near the shoulder as apposed to in a cluster in the middle of the travel lane is so that I can pass them without having to go all the way into the other lane.
If the lane is super-wide (14-15+ feet) then it's safe to pass within the lane, and many states require cyclists to keep to the right edge. Less than that and you go into the other lane.
Going two feet into the other lane =/= going all the way into the other lane. Oncoming traffic can still pass in the former scenario if the lane is standard width and there is a decent shoulder. And due to the lesser distance moved over it takes less time if we're dealing with one or two cyclists (as you said yourself).
Two feet in the other lane though, you're now operating under the assumption that the oncoming car is fully aware of what's going on. If that oncoming car is not aware, and an accident is caused, it will be your fault for illegally overtaking and entering that other lane. Yeah, maybe that's shitty, but unless the oncoming car makes it clear he sees what's happening by moving over towards the shoulder before you enter the oncoming lane, you're exposing yourself to an awful lot of risk.
That might be a problem with existing driving laws, but there is no burden on the oncoming car to yield lane space to you to pass a bike. It's another situation where we hope that person will be polite, but there's no obligation to do so, or even for them to be aware of what you're trying to accomplish.
Well, if I see the oncoming car move over to his right, I'm going to conclude he's making room for me. Otherwise I wouldn't attempt it. And yeah, this is courtesy, he isn't and shouldn't be required to.
Nonetheless, I get the impression that we have some very different mental images about what "I'm passing a bike on a rural road" looks like, probably arising from me being from the northeast while you're from out west. I am thinking of a mid-speed road here (posted at 40-45), not a high speed road (55+). On a high speed road passing three abreast is admittedly dangerous and probably reckless. Most "rural roads" around here don't fall into that category, but most out west do.
WRT road position (and laws telling cyclists to keep as far right as practical):
From the syllabus for UK cycling ed (p18 of .pdf) (http://bikeability.dft.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/Bikeability_Delivery_Guide.pdf)
QuoteTrainees must position themselves where they can be seen and should not cycle in the gutter. Where there is little other traffic and/or there is plenty of room to be overtaken they may ride in the secondary position. Where the road is narrow and two-way traffic would make it hazardous for the trainee to be overtaken by a following vehicle they must be observed to ride in the primary position. If the trainee is riding at the speed of other traffic then they should do so in the primary position.
And from the glossary on page 48 (flipped left and right for obvious reasons)
QuotePrimary Position "The primary riding position is in the centre of the rightmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel" (Franklin, Cyclecraft). Can also be referred to as "taking the lane" .
Secondary Position Between a half and one metre from the edge of the rightmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel. Not in the gutter.
And here's some reason why you shouldn't cycle in the gutter (http://labreform.org/education/gutter.htm).
So when it comes to overtaking one cyclist in best case conditions would be this wide:
2ft - gap between cyclist and edge of lane (as sensible & courteous cyclist moves over to right edge of secondary position to allow overtaking - but only if safe to be overtaken - ie no junctions, corners, blind summits, etc coming up)
1ft - half width of cyclist (as the other half is in that 2ft)
3'6 - minimum distance between cyclist and car - Australia looking at fining drivers for leaving less than 1m gap. HC Rule 163 on overtaking says you need to give as much room as you would a car.
5'6 - width of car
So a 12ft lane is just wide enough, though really that is a minimum bound - certainly if you are going to overtake without slowing down much on a 40-45mph then the 14-15ft between right edge of road, and the right edge of your car that NE2 gave is on that minimum bound, and if you can, you ought to be going further over.
It should also be noted that the average width of an American car is substantially greater than 5'6". To his credit, Duke's Ford Focus is actually 66.7" wide (excluding mirrors), so he's just a smidge wider than that width.
That's a small car though- the average car on the roads is a bit bigger than a Ford Focus. Your average pickup truck (which would be likely to be found on a rural road) is closer to 9' wide. A Chrysler minivan is about 6'5"' wide, a Ford Taurus is 5'10" wide, a Chevy Equinox and a Toyota Camry are 5'11" wide, and so forth. All those dimensions would exclude those pesky mirrors, so you can basically add another foot.
Quote from: corco on November 17, 2013, 01:52:06 PMIt should also be noted that the average width of an American car is substantially greater than 5'6".
Oh yes, I took everything down to the minimum, just to show that you do need a wide lane to not leave it and safely overtake a bike.
sup
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2013/11/19/a-law-like-no-other/
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommuteorlando.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2Fconvoluted-statute.png&hash=41c25bb00455468ed757e2a6ef3c468f2218c5f0)
http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-flower-street-1120-20131119,0,2052165.story
Quote from: NE2 on November 20, 2013, 02:26:44 PM
sup
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2013/11/19/a-law-like-no-other/
that reads like an engineer wrote it, and it was just bodily thrust into law without being reviewed
Quote from: Steve on November 20, 2013, 08:40:43 PM
that reads like an engineer wrote it, and it was just bodily thrust into law without being reviewed
It's actually been enlarged several times over the years. The most recent change: http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2013/01/03/florida-bicycle-lane-law-changes-again/
The confusing "too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side" bit appears in more than one state's law, so it may be part of the UVC.