Bikers on narrow roads

[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.

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.

[SectorZ]

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.

[sdmichael]

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?

[The Nature Boy]

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/. 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.

[The Nature Boy]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[Zeffy]

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.

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.

[The Nature Boy]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[The Nature Boy]

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.

[corco]

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.

[The Nature Boy]

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. 

[corco]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[The Nature Boy]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[english si]

4 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).


And, while not Highway Code, this is UK governmental advise to cyclists (it is called 'primary position')

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.

Module 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!

[Brandon]

4 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.

[Weschicky]

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.

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.