Bikers on narrow roads

[Zeffy]

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.

[Brian556]

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.

[AlexandriaVA]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

Since biking has become a widely accepted alternate transportation method

You mean since the 19th century?

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? 

[riiga]

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.

[The Nature Boy]

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.

[Zeffy]

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. 

[SD Mapman]

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.

[Bruce]

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.

[sdmichael]

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.

[corco]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[Mr. Matté]

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.

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?

[english si]

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 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 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.

[riiga]

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

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[bandit957]

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.

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.

These roads were made for automobiles originally.

And bikes.

[The Nature Boy]

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.

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.

These 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.

[corco]

I 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.

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[Zeffy]

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.



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

[jakeroot]

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.

[UCFKnights]

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.

[The Nature Boy]

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.

[Mr. Matté]

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.