AARoads Forum

Since biking has become a widely accepted alternate transportation method, I wanted to get your opinion on this.

Today, while driving down PA 32, which is a narrow 2-laned road along the Delaware River, I came across roughly 15 bikers traveling in the same direction I was. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I have a serious problem when you are riding in such a way that you force me to go into the oncoming traffic for a few seconds (crossing a double yellow) because the road isn't wide enough for you to ride alongside the motor vehicles.

The problem is PA 32 isn't a minor road exactly, and that being said, when you have to go around blind curves and hills because you have a row of bikers who are taking up 1/4 of the lane and traveling 15% of the speed you are trying to do, I would think some people would tend to get mad. There needs to be some sort of regulation that specifies which roads (especially state roads) bikers can and can't use, for the safety of the automobiles trying to use that road. The only other option besides going around them is stopping, because there's just not enough room to slide by them, unless you are going less than 5 MPH, which is a severe hazard on a 40 MPH road.

Another thing that pissed me off was the fact that bikers like to think they have the right of way - including an instance where about 5 of them actually veered INTO my path to prevent me from going around them. Um, no? When the moment was right, I gunned it and flew by each of everyone of those assholes because I was NOT going to sit behind them because they were assholes. These roads were made for automobiles originally.

I'm all for bikers utilizing roadways to get around - just not ones where motorists suffer because they have to do semi-dangerous maneuvers to travel at the posted speed limit because the road is too narrow to support both types of transportation.

Your thoughts? I know we have a few bikers on this forum as well, so I'd like to hear from their point of view as well.

I think it is not right that recreational cyclists are allowed to obstruct and endanger motorists whom are using the roads for essential need, as the were designed.

Roads were not intended to be playgrounds, which is what cyclists are using them as. It is very selfish of them to obstruct others and put their lives in danger for their personal pleasure.

I sometimes cycle recreationally, but I always use residential streets and trails.

You are totally in the right to have a serious problem with them. I think pretty much everyone who drives a motor vehicle, and isn't one of them, would agree with you.

I think the remedy to this would be to require single-file riding, with a gap between each rider that a motorist can make passes as needed and then eventually overtake the pack.

Quote from: Zeffy on September 12, 2015, 12:34:21 PM
Since biking has become a widely accepted alternate transportation method

You mean since the 19th century?

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 12, 2015, 12:57:35 PM
I think the remedy to this would be to require single-file riding, with a gap between each rider that a motorist can make passes as needed and then eventually overtake the pack.

This is already widely understood to be the right thing to do.  But just as with motorists, not everyone does the right thing.

I'm curious how the folks singling out recreational cyclists feel commuting cyclists or long-distance travel cyclists (I know quite a few of both) are different.

Also, when slow farm equipment rides the shoulder and you have to cross the double-yellow, is this just as enraging? 

Of course they should be allowed unless explicitly forbidden. A bike is as much a vehicle as a car and was around before the advent of the car even. If there are less traveled roads leading to the same destination they should be encouraged to use that route instead though, both for their own sake (less risk of accidents) and to ease traffic.

Quote from: riiga on September 12, 2015, 01:22:48 PM
Of course they should be allowed unless explicitly forbidden. A bike is as much a vehicle as a car and was around before the advent of the car even. If there are less traveled roads leading to the same destination they should be encouraged to use that route instead though, both for their own sake (less risk of accidents) and to ease traffic.

At least in the States, a lot of rural roads have incredibly narrow shoulders. You want to try to navigate around bikes on a rural road in northern New England? Good luck. On a narrow, winding road, you're going to have pass them extremely carefully because you often can't see what is coming in the opposing lane as you go around a corner.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2015, 01:48:59 PM
At least in the States, a lot of rural roads have incredibly narrow shoulders. You want to try to navigate around bikes on a rural road in northern New England? Good luck. On a narrow, winding road, you're going to have pass them extremely carefully because you often can't see what is coming in the opposing lane as you go around a corner.

Exactly, that's the problem I have with them. A lot of the (north)east roads aren't straight and feature sharp curves where you can't see anything without crossing the curve. How am I supposed to do anything when I have to share the road that has maybe a 2 foot shoulder.

For those who are unaware of the roads I'm talking about, here's a sample:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2598684,-74.8517994,3a,25.1y,327.86h,84.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJgVyqQ31sEly7eP-zbm6cA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Notice how there is barely any shoulder, there's plenty of curves, and the lanes themselves aren't wide. Plus, Pennsylvania signs further down this road dictate you are supposed to leave 4 feet of space between a car and a bike. HOW? Someone point out how that is even possible on this road. 

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 12, 2015, 01:19:29 PM

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 12, 2015, 12:57:35 PM
I think the remedy to this would be to require single-file riding, with a gap between each rider that a motorist can make passes as needed and then eventually overtake the pack.

This is already widely understood to be the right thing to do.  But just as with motorists, not everyone does the right thing.

I'm curious how the folks singling out recreational cyclists feel commuting cyclists or long-distance travel cyclists (I know quite a few of both) are different.

Also, when slow farm equipment rides the shoulder and you have to cross the double-yellow, is this just as enraging?

Yeah, I don't mind the cyclists who try not to be a nuisance. It's the people who "don't do the right thing" that really annoy me.

And as a guy from an ag state, farm equipment is just as annoying. Fortunately, there's usually not much traffic to make it really bad.

Quote from: Brian556 on September 12, 2015, 12:40:25 PM
Roads were not intended to be playgrounds, which is what cyclists are using them as. It is very selfish of them to obstruct others and put their lives in danger for their personal pleasure.

If a road has no safe alternative, then a cyclist must take the entire lane for maximum visibility. It's not a matter of being selfish, but trying to not be killed. It's the same reason that many cyclists will refuse to use some of the new protected bike lanes out of safety concerns, since they are on the shoulders and thus harder for motorists to see when turning.

Quote from: Brian556 on September 12, 2015, 12:40:25 PM
Roads were not intended to be playgrounds, which is what cyclists are using them as. It is very selfish of them to obstruct others and put their lives in danger for their personal pleasure.
You are totally in the right to have a serious problem with them. I think pretty much everyone who drives a motor vehicle, and isn't one of them, would agree with you.

You are quite right. All use of roadways shall be only for business purposes or transportation to/from specific locations. Roadways shouldn't be used for "recreation". How about we then ban RV's (they are even called Recreational Vehicles), road trips (are they for specific business purposes or indeed just for "pleasure" and therefore recreational), scenic vistas (no use unless recreational), and any other recreational use of a roadway? It is very selfish of them to use a roadway in that manner.

Or... perhaps you can understand that others exist and all have rights to use the roadway as necessary.

Cars have no legal priority in terms of their right to be on a public roadway relative to any other form of transportation. Cars simply happen to be the largest and most lethal common transportation method on roadways, so we have to design roads to accommodate cars. In no way, shape, or form should that be construed to mean that cars have more right to be on a road than any other transportation method.

There are certain situations where cyclists are banned from limited access facilities, but they have to be provided with a reasonable detour in that case (e.g. surface streets paralleling freeways)- out west, it's common to see cyclists on the interstate where there is no feasible alternate route. Everybody has a right to travel on a public roadway along a reasonably practical where one exists, not just people with cars.

Suck it up. If this is actually a dangerous situation where there is significant demand by several modes of transportation, the maintaining entity has a responsibility to make it safe, not to deny access. We channelize public roadways when necessary, as a matter of course, usually by first adding sidewalks for pedestrians and then by adding bike lanes for non-motorized wheeled travel. If that's something that needs to happen on that particular road, that's maybe what should happen.

On the note of questioning motive for travel, that's certainly not a door anybody wants to open, not in America.

As long as the bicyclists are riding single file and staying as far right as practical, I don't have a problem with it.  Can it be annoying?  Yes.  However, the same argument could be had if we're talking about a pedestrian.  Even a ped walking against traffic like they should requires a motorist to slow down and move over if there's no shoulder room.

Sounds like the cyclists may have been in the wrong if they were five-abreast. I know NJ has a specific law that cyclists must be no more than two-abreast. But since there are car drivers who occasionally break road laws (excessively speeding, tailgating, cell phone-using, DUI, hopefully very rarely on the last one), I don't get my padded spandex bib shorts in a bunch and make rash generalizations about all motorists.

Quote from: Zeffy on September 12, 2015, 02:15:43 PM
Notice how there is barely any shoulder, there's plenty of curves, and the lanes themselves aren't wide. Plus, Pennsylvania signs further down this road dictate you are supposed to leave 4 feet of space between a car and a bike. HOW? Someone point out how that is even possible on this road.

Like others have said, you slow down and wait for an opportunity to safely pass when you have a good sight line. I appreciate the fact that Pennsylvania actually has that law. Every time I ride out that way (I guess technically walk since you can't ride on the DRJTBC sidewalks), I point to that sign and comment: "That's the only good thing their corrupt Republican Governor ever did and my corrupt Republican Governor hasn't been on any exercise equipment in ages." (highlight to see what I actually say) NJ did have a bill going through its legislature requiring that passing distance for cyclists but it's being held up by the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee who's also the mayor of the densely-packed urban North Bergen. How do those drivers survive in Pittsburgh and Philly with PA's law in effect?

Quote from: Zeffy on September 12, 2015, 02:15:43 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2015, 01:48:59 PM

Quote from: riiga on September 12, 2015, 01:22:48 PM
Of course they should be allowed unless explicitly forbidden. A bike is as much a vehicle as a car and was around before the advent of the car even. If there are less traveled roads leading to the same destination they should be encouraged to use that route instead though, both for their own sake (less risk of accidents) and to ease traffic.

At least in the States, a lot of rural roads have incredibly narrow shoulders. You want to try to navigate around bikes on a rural road in northern New England? Good luck. On a narrow, winding road, you're going to have pass them extremely carefully because you often can't see what is coming in the opposing lane as you go around a corner.

Exactly, that's the problem I have with them. A lot of the (north)east roads aren't straight and feature sharp curves where you can't see anything without crossing the curve. How am I supposed to do anything when I have to share the road that has maybe a 2 foot shoulder.

Nature Boy/Zeffy - you do realise that you are speaking to someone who lives in a country that has this (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@67.2133467,21.0187561,3a,75y,18.06h,79.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spbmP2Km4AFApb-CX20fc_A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DpbmP2Km4AFApb-CX20fc_A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D284.03268%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) as a concurrency between two routes it considers of Continental importance? I'd like to see a bicycle ride on the shoulder there - it's gravel and a fairly steep slope! (I doubt they are considered shoulders). This national road (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8538651,13.3595999,3a,75y,261.92h,71.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxkVuwYvjGspt9iGeO3ZNIA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) has 3 inch-wide paved shoulders. OK - the country is flat and the roads aren't that windy, but even narrow shoulders is a better cross section!

Talk of shoulders, no matter how narrow, is so funny for my POV in Old England - where we have windy roads that are relatively heavily trafficked, barely have room for a centreline, let alone a shoulder, but are signed leisure cycle routes with relatively high levels of cycle traffic - especially on weekend mornings.

^ That the above signs even exist tells a lot about the general view people seem to hold towards cyclists in the US.

Quote from: Bruce on September 12, 2015, 02:30:44 PM

Quote from: Brian556 on September 12, 2015, 12:40:25 PM
Roads were not intended to be playgrounds, which is what cyclists are using them as. It is very selfish of them to obstruct others and put their lives in danger for their personal pleasure.

If a road has no safe alternative, then a cyclist must take the entire lane for maximum visibility. It's not a matter of being selfish, but trying to not be killed. It's the same reason that many cyclists will refuse to use some of the new protected bike lanes out of safety concerns, since they are on the shoulders and thus harder for motorists to see when turning.

A bigger issue in cities is that bike lanes often exist entirely within the range of car door swing.  In such cases I ride hard to the outer edge of the bike lane, which puts parts of me in the general traffic lane.  I don't entirely hold it against motorists, but a lot of people don't think of opening the car door as an act that involves other actors in traffic, and you have to be prepared for that as a cyclist.

It's often safer to be in the area of flow of cars because it's safer to force motorists to contend with you rather than have them give you as much attention as the gravel in the shoulder.  The former situation is safer.

Quote from: Zeffy on September 12, 2015, 12:34:21 PMThere needs to be some sort of regulation that specifies which roads (especially state roads) bikers can and can't use, for the safety of the automobiles trying to use that road.

Most roads of a certain vintage were built for bikes - not cars. Bikes gave us the Good Roads Movement and the U.S. highway system.

QuoteThese roads were made for automobiles originally.

And bikes.

Quote from: bandit957 on September 12, 2015, 05:47:21 PM

Quote from: Zeffy on September 12, 2015, 12:34:21 PMThere needs to be some sort of regulation that specifies which roads (especially state roads) bikers can and can't use, for the safety of the automobiles trying to use that road.

Most roads of a certain vintage were built for bikes - not cars. Bikes gave us the Good Roads Movement and the U.S. highway system.

QuoteThese roads were made for automobiles originally.

And bikes.

I would say that in more rural New England, they were made for horses and buggies actually.

QuoteI would say that in more rural New England, they were made for horses and buggies actually.

Until people started using cars, roads weren't really designed for any form of transportation. They were simply intended for transport, and it was up to the person traveling to choose how.

Cars changed the game by being faster and more deadly, so we had to start actually designing roads since those other forms didn't really need extensive design to function and exist safely. Somewhere along the way, we decided in America that the fact that we had to spend money to improve public roadways to accommodate cars meant that public roadways were primarily intended for cars.

Legally, the latter has never been the case. Public roads are legally intended for travel, not for travel by any  specific mode.

I would also argue, based on the deference to pedestrians, that the law errs on the side of the more vulnerable actor in the equation.  People who can kill others more quickly, in other words, own more responsibility.

Quote from: oscar on September 12, 2015, 06:22:35 PM
Also, "share the road" doesn't specify how the sharing has to happen. "May use full lane" expressly allows bicyclists to share more of the road than some motorists may think the bicyclists are entitled to.

I have no issue sharing the road with bikers. I just don't appreciate how hordes of them can ride along on a semi-major road with no opportunity for me to get around them without having to cross a double yellow. Is it even legal to cross to get around slow moving obstacles?

I also don't appreciate one intentionally moving to block my path and then doing an obscene gesture. Here's a shitty diagram of what it looked like, and I am not kidding when I say the bike (small red squares) was that far in the road. There was a curve less than 1/4 of a mile up ahead, there was oncoming traffic and there was a guy riding my ass.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyOKdBWn.png&hash=67d3ff1ce825223fb2a10bfa7086c326df7aed0a)

I also do not associate all bikers as being the type of person to do what this one did. Most of them are fine.

In this day in age, I'm still flabbergasted by the amount of people who still believe:

A) Roads were [originally] built for cars
B) Bicycles have fewer rights than cars

As has been highlighted numerous times throughout this thread, cyclists are by no means required to yield any right of way to any other road user, except where required by pavement markings or signs. Cars are bigger and (usually) faster, but are legally equal in terms of who has the right of way on a road. Sure, it might piss you off, big deal, but your ego has to take a backseat when you drive, otherwise you present a danger to yourself and other road users.

FWIW, Zeffy, I used to hold the same opinion as you, but it changed when I re-assessed my view on transportation methods in the modern era. You should consider doing the same.

I do think we should ban bikers from using lanes when there are bike facilities present. I know right where I live, bikers were using the roads all the time, it was an inconvenience to everyone. The county just built over the past 2 years $3.5 million in new bike trails next to the roads. Many bicyclists are still riding in the middle of our narrow roads though and often look angry when you speed past them. They're literally 10-15 feet away from a new paved asphalt bike trail.

Quote from: UCFKnights on September 13, 2015, 08:25:00 AM
I do think we should ban bikers from using lanes when there are bike facilities present. I know right where I live, bikers were using the roads all the time, it was an inconvenience to everyone. The county just built over the past 2 years $3.5 million in new bike trails next to the roads. Many bicyclists are still riding in the middle of our narrow roads though and often look angry when you speed past them. They're literally 10-15 feet away from a new paved asphalt bike trail.

This is important.

In the Augusta, Maine area, there's a nice bike path that runs parallel to US 201 and the Kennebec River. If you're on US 201 and you're a bicyclist then (a) you're pretty stupid and (b) you deserve any dirty glare you get. There is literally no advantage to riding on the main road when you had a specially built (and pretty wide at that) bike path that runs to the same destinations.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 08:33:43 AM

Quote from: UCFKnights on September 13, 2015, 08:25:00 AM
I do think we should ban bikers from using lanes when there are bike facilities present. I know right where I live, bikers were using the roads all the time, it was an inconvenience to everyone. The county just built over the past 2 years $3.5 million in new bike trails next to the roads. Many bicyclists are still riding in the middle of our narrow roads though and often look angry when you speed past them. They're literally 10-15 feet away from a new paved asphalt bike trail.

This is important.

In the Augusta, Maine area, there's a nice bike path that runs parallel to US 201 and the Kennebec River. If you're on US 201 and you're a bicyclist then (a) you're pretty stupid and (b) you deserve any dirty glare you get. There is literally no advantage to riding on the main road when you had a specially built (and pretty wide at that) bike path that runs to the same destinations.

Are said paths clear of debris, well-maintained, and not full of soccer moms pushing strollers who move left when you call out "On your left!"? If no, I'll probably stick to the road.


Ironically, I now have a beef with cyclists. Well not those actually riding the bikes, the people who organize races on public roads. They seem to do a poor job of notifying residents along roads where the races take place. This morning as I went out to get the paper, I noticed police directing traffic at a nearby intersection and numerous cyclists wearing numbers. I never knew there was anything going on until I got back in to see that there was indeed a race going on. I was intending to go out for a ride around 8:30-9:00 (coincidentally involving PA 32) but I gotta delay the ride so I don't head out onto the "course" and look like an idiot for "missing the turn" or passing everyone who's on their mountain bikes going way slower than me. My other experience with this was when I was helping out doing marshalling for a race in the Sourlands in 2012 and this lady walked by. I reminded her to watch out for the racers but she essentially replied "I know about the GD race, I got enough notices about it!" That should be the way people need to be notified about it, not the morning of.

Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 13, 2015, 08:51:20 AM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 08:33:43 AM

Quote from: UCFKnights on September 13, 2015, 08:25:00 AM
I do think we should ban bikers from using lanes when there are bike facilities present. I know right where I live, bikers were using the roads all the time, it was an inconvenience to everyone. The county just built over the past 2 years $3.5 million in new bike trails next to the roads. Many bicyclists are still riding in the middle of our narrow roads though and often look angry when you speed past them. They're literally 10-15 feet away from a new paved asphalt bike trail.

This is important.

In the Augusta, Maine area, there's a nice bike path that runs parallel to US 201 and the Kennebec River. If you're on US 201 and you're a bicyclist then (a) you're pretty stupid and (b) you deserve any dirty glare you get. There is literally no advantage to riding on the main road when you had a specially built (and pretty wide at that) bike path that runs to the same destinations.

Are said paths clear of debris, well-maintained, and not full of soccer moms pushing strollers who move left when you call out "On your left!"? If no, I'll probably stick to the road.


Ironically, I now have a beef with cyclists. Well not those actually riding the bikes, the people who organize races on public roads. They seem to do a poor job of notifying residents along roads where the races take place. This morning as I went out to get the paper, I noticed police directing traffic at a nearby intersection and numerous cyclists wearing numbers. I never knew there was anything going on until I got back in to see that there was indeed a race going on. I was intending to go out for a ride around 8:30-9:00 (coincidentally involving PA 32) but I gotta delay the ride so I don't head out onto the "course" and look like an idiot for "missing the turn" or passing everyone who's on their mountain bikes going way slower than me. My other experience with this was when I was helping out doing marshalling for a race in the Sourlands in 2012 and this lady walked by. I reminded her to watch out for the racers but she essentially replied "I know about the GD race, I got enough notices about it!" That should be the way people need to be notified about it, not the morning of.

Whenever I have been on it, yes. It's honestly a more pleasant bike ride than the main road.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 08:33:43 AM

Quote from: UCFKnights on September 13, 2015, 08:25:00 AM
I do think we should ban bikers from using lanes when there are bike facilities present. I know right where I live, bikers were using the roads all the time, it was an inconvenience to everyone. The county just built over the past 2 years $3.5 million in new bike trails next to the roads. Many bicyclists are still riding in the middle of our narrow roads though and often look angry when you speed past them. They're literally 10-15 feet away from a new paved asphalt bike trail.

This is important.

In the Augusta, Maine area, there's a nice bike path that runs parallel to US 201 and the Kennebec River. If you're on US 201 and you're a bicyclist then (a) you're pretty stupid and (b) you deserve any dirty glare you get. There is literally no advantage to riding on the main road when you had a specially built (and pretty wide at that) bike path that runs to the same destinations.

Not all bike trails are meant for all cyclists. A lot of people think it's cute to have little Johnny on his bike with training wheels try out bike trails because there is "no cars". However, they became a hazard to everyone else using them. Since they are allowed just fine, I can't demand them not to be there.

As well, I seemingly get more flats per mile on bike trails than roads, for whatever reason I cannot figure out. Probably people throwing crap into them to cause flats.

MUP's (Multi-Use Paths) aren't "bike paths". Rarely are they better than the road they are adjacent to. More often than not, the bike path has stop signs or other crossings that the main road does not. As a result of this, taking the roadway is safer and quicker than the adjacent path. Would you take your car on a roadway that has stop signs every block instead of the adjacent freeway if you were trying to get somewhere?

Quote from: sdmichael on September 13, 2015, 10:36:54 AM
MUP's (Multi-Use Paths) aren't "bike paths". Rarely are they better than the road they are adjacent to. More often than not, the bike path has stop signs or other crossings that the main road does not. As a result of this, taking the roadway is safer and quicker than the adjacent path. Would you take your car on a roadway that has stop signs every block instead of the adjacent freeway if you were trying to get somewhere?

I'm weird but I usually bypass I-95 because I enjoy a more scenic drive when going from town to town but point taken.

This is the trail that I am talking about: http://kennebecriverrailtrail.org/ (http://kennebecriverrailtrail.org/). It's well maintained by volunteers and there are no crossings. In fact, since it parallels the river, there are fewer intersections than if you were on the main road. It parallels the Kennebec River and the old rail line so it would be impossible for there to be crossings.

I've encountered few other paths of this nature so it may just be exceptionally good.

I think a lot of people in states with newer development (mainly areas in the west) don't appreciate just how narrow a lot of roads in the Northeast actually are. I don't think anyone argues with bikes co-existing on roads that are wide enough to handle it. A bike going (at best) 20 MPH on a narrow road with a 50-55 MPH speed limit is dangerous for all involved. I don't see why this is a point of contention.

Quote from: Zeffy on September 13, 2015, 11:20:17 AM
Fair enough, but the east coast is far more likely to utilize cars for transportation, especially in my state, than some of the Pacific Northwest states (like Washington and Oregon).

Perhaps perspective is an issue here, but the amount that cycling is used as primary transportation, and the accomodations for it, has grown tremendously in the urban areas of the northeast in recent decades.  The idea of a bike lane in Manhattan was laughable in the 1980s, and now they're everywhere.  Same with rail trails.  The big one here, the Minuteman Trail from Bedford to Somerville, is congested on weekends (as described above, sometimes a victim of its own success). 

The Northwest may be ahead in this regard, but on the East Coast we're catching up.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 11:28:29 AM
I think a lot of people in states with newer development (mainly areas in the west) don't appreciate just how narrow a lot of roads in the Northeast actually are. I don't think anyone argues with bikes co-existing on roads that are wide enough to handle it. A bike going (at best) 20 MPH on a narrow road with a 50-55 MPH speed limit is dangerous for all involved. I don't see why this is a point of contention.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to get across. If I'm going 45 MPH and I have to suddenly jam on my brakes because I come around a curve and there's a bike there and I'm in danger of hitting it without maneuvering to the opposite side of the road, it's okay? The Northeast is a different beast than the West. A lot of the roads out West are arrow straight. Only roads in a city over here are like that, and even if those are narrow I have no problems sharing those with a biker since it's not like I can go very fast on a city street anyway. Our roads twist and bend which present a danger to when you are going over 40 MPH and suddenly you see a cyclist and there's oncoming traffic in the other lane.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2015, 11:31:18 AM
The Northwest may be ahead in this regard, but on the East Coast we're catching up.

Yes, I don't deny that. However, the East Coasts's old infrastructure of curvy and narrow roads definitely doesn't help with trying to allow two vehicles to utilize the same side safely.

In my opinion, any line of "BIKES BELONG HERE" goes out the window when I have to negotiate a way around them while preparing to take a curve where I can't know if there's a car in the oncoming lane. Either I'm risking a head on collision or I'm dropping to 15 MPH to accommodate the bicyclist because there is no other way around them.

The Northeast is almost a victim of its own success in some ways. This was the first region to industrialize and build up an infrastructure to support it. In many instances, we still use the same roadways that were used 100 years ago. Look at a map of New England from 100 years ago, many of the same roadways are still being used. Whether they were built for bicycles or horses and buggies or automobiles is irrelevant, many of them cannot currently support both.

If you live in a relatively newly developed area, great but don't shame those of us who live in areas that were developed over a century ago.

Nobody's shaming anyone. 

Defensive driving requires that you err on the side of being able to stop.  Any other obstacle could be around that curve and it's your responsibility as the one steering the missile to be able to deal with it.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2015, 12:33:18 PM
Nobody's shaming anyone. 

Defensive driving requires that you err on the side of being able to stop.  Any other obstacle could be around that curve and it's your responsibility as the one steering the missile to be able to deal with it.

I understand that but I've also been on both sides of that equation. I've also had to take evasive action because some guy rounding a corner had to dodge a bicyclist.

There are some areas where riding a bike on the road just doesn't make sense. Some of the roads that I encountered when I lived in northern New Hampshire could barely fit a car, much less anything else on it. It's unfortunate for those who want to bike in those areas, I admit but it's a safety hazard for everyone involved. I know that I wouldn't feel safe being on a bicycle on those roads.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 11:44:50 AM
In my opinion, any line of "BIKES BELONG HERE" goes out the window when I have to negotiate a way around them while preparing to take a curve where I can't know if there's a car in the oncoming lane.

The problem is that this line of thinking implies that you as a car have more right to be on the road than a bike or any other form of transportation. This just isn't true and no court has EVER held that it is true. It's been pretty clearly settled through the courts that bikes have equal right to cars to be on public roadways.

Quote from: corco on September 13, 2015, 01:17:04 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 11:44:50 AM
In my opinion, any line of "BIKES BELONG HERE" goes out the window when I have to negotiate a way around them while preparing to take a curve where I can't know if there's a car in the oncoming lane.

The problem is that this line of thinking implies that you as a car have more right to be on the road than a bike or any other form of transportation. This just isn't true and no court has EVER held that it is true. It's been pretty clearly settled through the courts that bikes have equal right to cars to be on public roadways.

When some idiot runs into you because they crossed the center line to pass a bike, no law is going to heal the injuries that you suffer in the resulting accident. I'm not anti-bikes being on the road, I'm anti-bikes being on narrow, winding roads because it just isn't safe. Do they legally have a right to be there? Yes, but in all practical terms, there are more cars on the road than bikes, cars are heavier and when they collide with ANYTHING, it tends to not end well. 

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 01:20:05 PM

Quote from: corco on September 13, 2015, 01:17:04 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 11:44:50 AM
In my opinion, any line of "BIKES BELONG HERE" goes out the window when I have to negotiate a way around them while preparing to take a curve where I can't know if there's a car in the oncoming lane.

The problem is that this line of thinking implies that you as a car have more right to be on the road than a bike or any other form of transportation. This just isn't true and no court has EVER held that it is true. It's been pretty clearly settled through the courts that bikes have equal right to cars to be on public roadways.

When some idiot runs into you because they crossed the center line to pass a bike, no law is going to heal the injuries that you suffer in the resulting accident. I'm not anti-bikes being on the road, I'm anti-bikes being on narrow, winding roads because it just isn't safe. Do they legally have a right to be there? Yes, but in all practical terms, there are more cars on the road than bikes, cars are heavier and when they collide with ANYTHING, it tends to not end well. 

And you're still saying that because cars are heavier and more lethal, they should get priority. If anything, that's an argument that cars shouldn't be allowed on narrow windy roads, since cars are legally equal to all other forms of transportation but pose more of a danger than other forms of transportation.

Your thought process is kind of backwards here - I agree that there is danger, but the solution isn't "ban bikes" based on what has already been legally established. The solution is to either change car driver behavior or to design accommodations for other modes. Maybe that involves channelizing traffic onto bike lanes. Maybe that means lowering speed limits. The solution is not to give priority to one mode of transportation over another- the courts have already decided you can't do that unless you provide a reasonable alternate route.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 01:20:05 PM

Quote from: corco on September 13, 2015, 01:17:04 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 11:44:50 AM
In my opinion, any line of "BIKES BELONG HERE" goes out the window when I have to negotiate a way around them while preparing to take a curve where I can't know if there's a car in the oncoming lane.

The problem is that this line of thinking implies that you as a car have more right to be on the road than a bike or any other form of transportation. This just isn't true and no court has EVER held that it is true. It's been pretty clearly settled through the courts that bikes have equal right to cars to be on public roadways.

When some idiot runs into you because they crossed the center line to pass a bike, no law is going to heal the injuries that you suffer in the resulting accident. I'm not anti-bikes being on the road, I'm anti-bikes being on narrow, winding roads because it just isn't safe. Do they legally have a right to be there? Yes, but in all practical terms, there are more cars on the road than bikes, cars are heavier and when they collide with ANYTHING, it tends to not end well.

The problem, as you've pointed out elegantly, is idiots behind the wheel of a car.

Quote from: corco on September 13, 2015, 01:27:44 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 01:20:05 PM

Quote from: corco on September 13, 2015, 01:17:04 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 11:44:50 AM
In my opinion, any line of "BIKES BELONG HERE" goes out the window when I have to negotiate a way around them while preparing to take a curve where I can't know if there's a car in the oncoming lane.

The problem is that this line of thinking implies that you as a car have more right to be on the road than a bike or any other form of transportation. This just isn't true and no court has EVER held that it is true. It's been pretty clearly settled through the courts that bikes have equal right to cars to be on public roadways.

When some idiot runs into you because they crossed the center line to pass a bike, no law is going to heal the injuries that you suffer in the resulting accident. I'm not anti-bikes being on the road, I'm anti-bikes being on narrow, winding roads because it just isn't safe. Do they legally have a right to be there? Yes, but in all practical terms, there are more cars on the road than bikes, cars are heavier and when they collide with ANYTHING, it tends to not end well. 

And you're still saying that because cars are heavier and more lethal, they should get priority. If anything, that's an argument that cars shouldn't be allowed on narrow windy roads, since cars are legally equal to all other forms of transportation but pose more of a danger than other forms of transportation.

Your thought process is kind of backwards here - I agree that there is danger, but the solution isn't "ban bikes" based on what has already been legally established. The solution is to either change car driver behavior or to design accommodations for other modes. Maybe that involves channelizing traffic onto bike lanes. Maybe that means lowering speed limits. The solution is not to give priority to one mode of transportation over another- the courts have already decided you can't do that.

The problem is of course that re-educating drivers is a hell of a task. I try to be courteous to people on bikes when I see them but I tend to be a courteous driver overall. I do think that incorporating a bicyclist into a driver's license test would be an interesting addition because it would test your ability to react to them. As a practice, I slow down to match the speed of the bike, take the corner and then pass but a lot of people are more aggressive than I am.

It's dangerous however because our society has no clue what to do when we encounter someone on a bike.

People walk on narrow roads, too, you know.  Often out of necessity, and often without a good place to do it that isn't the road itself.

Again, what I'm reading is "bicyclists put us all at risk of bad drivers."  Seems like a classic case of scapegoating, and blaming the victim.

And honestly, I get annoyed at bicyclists also.  Especially those that take up more road than they should be.  Or ride 2 or 3 abreast in the car lane when there's a perfectly good shoulder.  And the nearly universal population of bicyclists that fly thru stop signs and red lights.

But, what I'm reading is there's some blame with the motorist here.  Generally you should be looking far enough ahead to see objects and such.  If you go around a curve and suddenly there's a bicyclist there, chances are that bicyclist was visible in the distance prior to the curve.  Many motorists look ahead no further than the car or a few feet in front of them.  They should be looking about a quarter mile ahead or greater.  There's always going to be the object that surprises them, such as a bicyclist, an animal, a tree, a kid, etc. 

BTW, I would still consider a driver driving for 3 years an amateur.  I would go at least 4 years minimum.  Heck, insurance companies and rental agencies consider one an amateur until they're 25 years old.  It's not a random, pull an age out of a bucket number.  It's years of statistics seeing that those under 25 tend to make more mistakes.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2015, 02:15:06 PM4 feet is plenty of distance, even by the standards of those in the bicyclist community.  Usually cars passing each other are only 6 feet apart.

6' is just about OK (minimum required by Australian law, for instance), but 4' is gonna get you obscene gestures at best. That's 4' from the furthest bit of the bike, of course.

Bicycles are inherently less stable wrt keeping in a straight line than cars (as the weight shifts from side to side to move in a straight line, among other things), and more susceptible to air currents created by passing traffic (as they are fairly top-heavy and rather light weight) - give them more room than cars!

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169 <- the UK rules of the road about overtaking might be helpful to this discussion (in general) and this picture (specifically to this point).
(https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_163_give_vulnerable_road_users_at_least_as_much_space_as_you_would_a_car.jpg)

And, while not Highway Code, this is UK governmental advise to cyclists (it is called 'primary position')
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthink.direct.gov.uk%2Fimages%2FCyclists-ride-centrally-on-narrow-lanes.jpg&hash=c04af81196a4e158b0d8aac89a65cf25c25ecbc1)
Part of the aim of primary position is to discourage close overtakes that riding in the gutter causes.

This is from the level 2 Bikeability - the UK Government scheme aimed at 10-11 year olds getting them to ride safely on the roads.

QuoteModule 5: Understand where to ride on roads being used

Observed Demonstration

Cyclists 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 dangerous for the cyclist to be overtaken by a following vehicle they may choose to ride in the primary position. If the cyclist is riding at the speed of other traffic then they should do so in the primary position.

Reasoning
Cyclists may be wary of cycling in the primary position as this will put them in the path of motor traffic when their natural instinct might be to keep away from it. However, where appropriate, it will actually offer them more protection as they will be able to see more, be seen more easily by other road users and most importantly it will prevent drivers from attempting to overtake them where the road is too narrow.

If unsure, the default position is the primary position.

(Secondary position is described as "Between a half and one metre from the edge of the leftmost moving traffi c lane for the direction in which you wish to travel. Not in the gutter.)

Now sure, if you want to do dangerous overtakes - either not leaving enough space, or doing it when the visibility is unsuitable, or even both - then primary position won't stop that, and will more greatly endanger the cyclist's life than if they were in secondary position. However, if that's you who doesn't want to overtake safely, please go down to the DMV or Police Station and ask them to confiscate you licence as you are a menace and danger to other road users. Don't blame the cyclists for the recklessness of others, including yourselves, you bigoted twats!

Quote from: english si on September 13, 2015, 03:21:14 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2015, 02:15:06 PM4 feet is plenty of distance, even by the standards of those in the bicyclist community.  Usually cars passing each other are only 6 feet apart.

6' is just about OK (minimum required by Australian law, for instance), but 4' is gonna get you obscene gestures at best. That's 4' from the furthest bit of the bike, of course.

In many states, the distance by law is 3 feet for a motorized vehicle passing a bicycle.

Quote from: Zeffy on September 12, 2015, 06:55:32 PM

Quote from: oscar on September 12, 2015, 06:22:35 PM
Also, "share the road" doesn't specify how the sharing has to happen. "May use full lane" expressly allows bicyclists to share more of the road than some motorists may think the bicyclists are entitled to.

I have no issue sharing the road with bikers. I just don't appreciate how hordes of them can ride along on a semi-major road with no opportunity for me to get around them without having to cross a double yellow. Is it even legal to cross to get around slow moving obstacles?

I also don't appreciate one intentionally moving to block my path and then doing an obscene gesture. Here's a shitty diagram of what it looked like, and I am not kidding when I say the bike (small red squares) was that far in the road. There was a curve less than 1/4 of a mile up ahead, there was oncoming traffic and there was a guy riding my ass.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyOKdBWn.png&hash=67d3ff1ce825223fb2a10bfa7086c326df7aed0a)

I also do not associate all bikers as being the type of person to do what this one did. Most of them are fine.

PA HB 170 specifies a 4 foot passing requirement when passing a cyclist. Most authorities on the implications of this bill note you can cross the double yellow to pass a cyclist IF YOU KNOW IT IS SAFE TO DO SO. If you cant pass a cyclist and leave a 4' buffer, it is safer for the cyclist to be right in the middle of the lane to prevent an illegal/unsafe attempt to squeeze past. An oncoming curve, a narrow road with limited sight lines, and a guy tailgating you sound like inappropriate conditions for a safely executed pass.

Most cyclists I know offer obscene gestures not to goad another driver but because the other driver seems uninterested in safely allowing the cyclists to use the roads in compliance with the law. Taking the center of the lane is used to protect cyclist safety, not say "nee ner nee ner neee ner." So the rear cyclist in your diagram was protecting his or her riding companions and making the line more visible to drivers behind the line. Also, cyclists in a close line can go faster (ie, hold you up less) and take less time to pass once than a line broken up with space between. Two abreast form an even shorter line and are even easier to pass.