Why do bikers use car lane.

[Rage Racer]

I don't know about Moscow but in most UK cities as soon as you get near the centre you can't even walk in a straight line on the pavement, let alone cycle on it. In most places it just isn't feasible, you'd be crashing into children, elderly people, bins, lamp posts, you name it.

You'd probably be more likely to crash on a pavement than you are on the road.

Hmm, OK, it depends on the location. I live in the suburbs, and pavements are not very crowded, so I can speed up to 20-30 km/h without risk of hitting anyone/anything. However, road bumps on speeds like these are pretty harmful to the wheels. So I dodge them like pedestrians and other obstacles, or slow down to avoid damaging the wheels.

If you ride so fast, cycling is the way quicker than any public transport (except for subway, of course) which keeps freezing in traffic jams.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

It is illegal for any cyclist with a rim diameter larger than 26" to ride on the sidewalk in my city.

 

[Jubby]

I'll apply the same rules to cyclists that I do to large trucks. If you have more than 4 cars behind you pull over to let them pass (or speed up, or stop driving on that road). If you have fewer cars behind you than that but they've been there for about 3 minutes, you need to pull over and let them pass (3 minutes is a long time to find a place to pull over). If doing so will cause you to pull over so often that it'll take you forever to get where you're going, your alternative is to stop using that road.

No. Don't apply your arbitrary rules that you unilaterally decided. We have laws, rules, and regulations in place already. This is operating under the case that the cyclist is following all applicable laws.
Besides voicing your opinion, telling cyclists (or large trucks for that matter) what to do based on your perceived inconvenience should be left at a suggestion to your lawmakers and see if they want to make a change. I bet you'll get far with that.
If you don't like that a cyclist is exercising their right to use the road and you feel that they're being reckless, call the police. See how many times you'll call them before they start telling you to stop.

 

[Danoff]

No. Don't apply your arbitrary rules that you unilaterally decided. We have laws, rules, and regulations in place already. This is operating under the case that the cyclist is following all applicable laws.
Besides voicing your opinion, telling cyclists (or large trucks for that matter) what to do based on your perceived inconvenience should be left at a suggestion to your lawmakers and see if they want to make a change. I bet you'll get far with that.
If you don't like that a cyclist is exercising their right to use the road and you feel that they're being reckless, call the police. See how many times you'll call them before they start telling you to stop.

You have every right to be a jerk... I'm saying don't be. I think it's interesting that you had this response to a call for consideration and courtesy.

Also, on one lane roads where trucks and other slow moving vehicles tend to hold up large traffic jams, there are typically signs every mile advising slow pokes to use turnouts to let people by. So yes, we have rules in place already, and they support me quite nicely (for good reason).

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Here in Phoenix (and I'm sure other cities) we have "Bike lanes" for them to ride in. Personally I ride a BMX and due to the fact that my brother was hit by a car before while in the bike lane, I ride on the sidewalk. I'm courteous to those walking on the sidewalk and drop down to the street if needed to give them room. Other than that, on the sidewalk most of the time. Hardly anyone walks around here, I pass maybe 1 or 2 people on the sidewalk every day. Sometimes it's another cyclist.

In Tempe this has become annoying, when College students that ride bikes join actual road ways and then get into turn lanes for cars when they could use the crosswalks and still obtain the biking lane. Also I have to walk around bikes and skateboards for several hours every day on the University Campus and I've never been hit by a bicycle or skateboard (knock on wood), so a more expansive public one with far less people I see no reason they can't use it. However, bikers should be allowed to ride in their designated lane, I find it dangerous when they try to ride in an actual car lane.

 

[White & Nerdy]

In Alaska, the law states that anyone holding up 5 or more cars has to pull over and let them by, even if they're maintaining the speed limit perfectly fine.

Unforutunately, AFAIK, until you reach the arbritrary 5-car threshold, you can hold people up for as long as you feel like.

 

[Jubby]

You have every right to be a jerk... I'm saying don't be. I think it's interesting that you had this response to a call for consideration and courtesy.

Also, on one lane roads where trucks and other slow moving vehicles tend to hold up large traffic jams, there are typically signs every mile advising slow pokes to use turnouts to let people by. So yes, we have rules in place already, and they support me quite nicely (for good reason).

Well, name calling can represent the maturity of your argument, and is not called for, so let's stick with being adults.

There are signs that require a turnout, but usually there is a sufficient shoulder that a cyclist will use. Most highways that have turnouts have those sufficient shoulders. Most of those signs are found in California on higher speed byways and were targeted to cars and trucks. You're talking about a minuscule percentage of the roads you or I have been on, let alone exist. My state has no such law, for instance. I doubt they'll expand that expectation for the other millions of miles of roads and I do not think many people would support the cost for the expectation of that. Considering your expectation: thank you for your opinion, but I'll reject your fantasy of the widespread expectation.

In Alaska, the law states that anyone holding up 5 or more cars has to pull over and let them by, even if they're maintaining the speed limit perfectly fine.

I doubt that the law supports the held up cars exceeding the speed limit, which is what you're implying. Please find the officer that will uphold that regulation in that circumstance.

I think the bottom line is for both drivers and cyclists to be respectful of each other. Give as much room, ride and drive safely. If there isn't room to pass safely, whether it be a cyclist, a moped, a slow semi-truck (we all know that happens), a car, or even a farm vehicle- which will drive on the road legally and slower than a bicycle, just don't. Wait until the opportunity exists. A respectful cyclist will provide as much room as practical and possible and even stop at times.

When I've found that the traffic while cycling has been fairly heavy, I've stopped and waited at a stop sign (or other reasonable opportunity) for a clearing, making eye contact, turning my body to face them with my foot on the ground.

For every driver that has unrealistic expectations of a cyclist stopping when they have a car or two behind them, there will be a cyclist that acts unreasonably and just keeps riding on or near the white line without providing courtesy space. Both sides need to just come to the reasonable, realistic middle ground.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I doubt that the law supports the held up cars exceeding the speed limit, which is what you're implying. Please find the officer that will uphold that regulation in that circumstance.

All I know is, there are signs along several of the longer highways that say "DELAY OF 5 VEHICLES ILLEGAL. MUST USE TURNOUTS"

So I assume that even if the drivers are only stuck behind you because they're trying to break the limit, you're supposed to pull over.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Yes, people hate it when other people are safe.... uh... no.

Funny that, because from my personal experience a lot of people do. Like people who think 40 mph in a country lane on a dark, wet night is too slow because the speed limit is 60 mph, from my recent experience. (Feel free to streetview the B4562, Cardiff at the eastern end.)

Motorists get infuriated because cyclists are the rudest people on the road. Why do I say that? What other vehicle do you know what would travel 20 or even 30 mph below the speed limit and assert their dominance over the road. Not everyone who is queued up behind you volunteered their afternoon for a slow bike ride.

I, and every cyclist, would rather be rude, than be dead. So I make no apologies if leisure or commuting cyclist inconvenienced you ever so slightly.

I'll apply the same rules to cyclists that I do to large trucks. If you have more than 4 cars behind you pull over to let them pass (or speed up, or stop driving on that road). If you have fewer cars behind you than that but they've been there for about 3 minutes, you need to pull over and let them pass (3 minutes is a long time to find a place to pull over). If doing so will cause you to pull over so often that it'll take you forever to get where you're going, your alternative is to stop using that road.

For a start, if you're on a bicycle on roads where it's difficult to overtake you're not going to have the luxury of counting cars behind you.

And secondly, if I am holding up traffic I do slow at suitable points to allow people to pass, but as acceleration from a standstill is probably the most dangerous time for a cyclist on the road (unbalance, physical effort, and clipping into pedals) then no, I don't routinely come to a complete stop.

Some motorists don't treat cyclists with the respect they ought to - that doesn't mean you know better than all of them and you have to ride as if it's a contest for road space with them as the aggressor. Similarly some cyclists don't treat other road users with the respect they ought to - but you won't catch me driving "assertively" around all cyclists.

So the alternative is you assume all road users are competent and then got caught out by the bad ones? No. That's how you get hurt.

I don't deny there are bad cyclists out there. I don't jump red lights. I've never touched anyone else's car even to lean on, and I certainly don't cut people up or tailgate them. But I do ensure I have my own space on the road.

The road is a shared space, between pedestrians, cyclists, motorbikeists, cars, vans, trucks and lorries (occasionally trams - rarely trains unless the points failed again). We all have our bit to do and if we all do it, we can share the space without needing to be a bit of a dick to anyone - but as soon as it's seen as "competing for road space" any concept of co-operation is lost and it becomes a battle. Conducting your roadgoing affairs with the mindset of controlling other users is an aggressive act of someone who thinks they're in a battle - you're psychologically set up for combat and that's when road rage occurs. Who loses when that happens, the driver or the cyclist?

There's a significant difference between combat and survival. I'm not acting in any way out of want, I'm acting purely out of need.

Talk of sharing space is easy when you're inside a steel box, because when things go wrong it's hopefully, and most likely, to be a relatively minor incident for you.

Not the same on a bicycle.

Sometimes people make mistakes too, regardless of what vehicle they're in. That doesn't necessarily make them stupid, bad or aggressive - it makes them people.

Offer up consideration and other road users give it back. Offer up aggression and you're perpetuating the problem you think you're solving.

Brilliant if you've time to build a relationship with people. I haven't. I have to assume everyone is an imbecile. The one time I make the wrong assumption is the one time I'm dead.



I know you both have a lot of experience driving, I know you're both very logical people. But you both clearly have limited to no experience of cycling on a road. I've shared the road with everything from mopeds to 100 ton road trains and even things bigger than that. You both suggest a level of trust with strangers that you can not afford as a cyclist.

 

[Danoff]

Well, name calling can represent the maturity of your argument, and is not called for, so let's stick with being adults.

Fascinating. I didn't call you a jerk, I said it was being a jerk to hold up 5 cars. You're having a seriously emotional reaction to this subject.

There are signs that require a turnout, but usually there is a sufficient shoulder that a cyclist will use. Most highways that have turnouts have those sufficient shoulders. Most of those signs are found in California on higher speed byways and were targeted to cars and trucks. You're talking about a minuscule percentage of the roads you or I have been on, let alone exist. My state has no such law, for instance. I doubt they'll expand that expectation for the other millions of miles of roads and I do not think many people would support the cost for the expectation of that. Considering your expectation: thank you for your opinion, but I'll reject your fantasy of the widespread expectation.

Yes, it is a dream of mine that people be polite and consider others. Just a dream (also the law in many cases).

I think at this point you need to take a step back and re-evaluate. It is well understood, so well understood that states have even implemented rules to the effect, that using a turnout to allow faster traffic to pass you is better for overal efficiency of the road, is considerate, will reduce road rage, and will reduce accidents.

Why you're still arguing against being polite and following what is the law in many instances (granted, not all instances) is beyond me. Try not to use the law as your guide for how to be a good person and instead just consider others. That's all I'm asking.

 

[Jubby]

Fascinating. I didn't call you a jerk, I said it was being a jerk to hold up 5 cars. You're having a seriously emotional reaction to this subject.

Your exact statement to me was. "You have every right to be a jerk... I'm saying don't be." If that is not what you meant, then write what you mean, please. I read what you wrote. If I misinterpreted it, I apologize and let's move on.

Why you're still arguing against being polite and following what is the law in many instances (granted, not all instances) is beyond me. Try not to use the law as your guide for how to be a good person and instead just consider others. That's all I'm asking.

I suggest you re-read the remainder of my last post, after I quoted W&N. If you still think I'm advocating being inconsiderate, then I don't think I can show an instance of being considerate any better.

What I'm trying to say is there are laws to tell us the boundaries of how we are required to act. Anyone has the given right to act up to that point. If you, personally, set an expectation and expect everyone to follow, that's not asking people to be considerate, it's taking away their rights or changing/enacting a law. If you want people to be considerate; first, it's reciprocal and starts with the individual requesting it, and second, you may want to try asking people nicely. Not setting a mandate that works well for you.

All I know is, there are signs along several of the longer highways that say "DELAY OF 5 VEHICLES ILLEGAL. MUST USE TURNOUTS"

So I assume that even if the drivers are only stuck behind you because they're trying to break the limit, you're supposed to pull over.

You may want to consider doing some research then. If you don't really know how the laws apply in your state and what limitations they carry, it could be problematic for you in the future.

 

[Famine]

So the alternative is you assume all road users are competent and then got caught out by the bad ones? No. That's how you get hurt.

You've covered riding "assertively" and "controlling" traffic (aggessively), you've now covered obliviousness. There is a third way - defensively. That's the alternative.

Don't manage the traffic around you, manage the space. Take care of yourself, rather than worrying about the actions of others.

I don't deny there are bad cyclists out there. I don't jump red lights. I've never touched anyone else's car even to lean on, and I certainly don't cut people up or tailgate them. But I do ensure I have my own space on the road.

That doesn't extend to preventing (or trying to - that's a laughable concept when you're on a bike and the people you're trying to control are in that "steel box") people from doing anything. It's about driving - or walking, or riding - in a predictable fashion that allows other road users to read what you're doing within the couple of seconds they have to perceive and deal with you so that they can negotiate you as you negotiate other hazards.

There's a significant difference between combat and survival. I'm not acting in any way out of want, I'm acting purely out of need.

There is no need to assert your dominance on the road.

Talk of sharing space is easy when you're inside a steel box, because when things go wrong it's hopefully, and most likely, to be a relatively minor incident for you.

Not the same on a bicycle.

There's not just bikes and cars on the road, you know. Pedestrians are more vulnerable than bikes. Should they try to control cyclists? Cars are more vulnerable than lorries (US: semi-trucks). Should they try to control HGVs?

Everyone is below or above someone else in the vulnerability stakes and yet we share the same space. How does it work? Because we all have the same rulebook. Some of us have specific rules in addition to the general framework, but all of us read from the same one.

Some of us forget it from time to time and some of us make mistakes. It's difficult telling these things apart, but I find it works best if you assume it's the latter, remember that I make mistakes too and get on with my life.

Brilliant if you've time to build a relationship with people.

The longest relationship you have with most drivers is about four seconds. You have just enough time to establish perception, make an observation and determine an intention in that time. A surprising amount of decision making occurs during that spell, including deciding whether the driver (or rider) is a bell or not.

Personally, if I were a vulnerable road user, I'd want that decision to be "not a bell" and my intention to be obvious - it's largely how I drive too (except when I've chosen to be a bell).

I haven't. I have to assume everyone is an imbecile.

Treat people like idiots and you find a surprising amount of idiocy. Treat people like someone else just trying to get somewhere and you'll find a surprising amount of cooperation.

The one time I make the wrong assumption is the one time I'm dead.

And the one time you try to assert yourself on the wrong person is the one time you're dead. You've surely seen enough helmet cam videos to know that.

I know you both have a lot of experience driving, I know you're both very logical people. But you both clearly have limited to no experience of cycling on a road.

I've ridden lots. Not so much now.

I've shared the road with everything from mopeds to 100 ton road trains and even things bigger than that.

I've shared it with actual trains. Well, light rail. And since I used to commute in Cambridge, I've shared it with recumbent cyclists, unicyclists (no, I know) and roller-bladers (yes).

And taxis, of course. Nothing scarier on the roads than private minicabs.

You both suggest a level of trust with strangers that you can not afford as a cyclist.

Not at all. As I said before, cars may be steel boxes, but that's as nothing next to an articulated lorry. I don't set out to control where and when they are, I just manage my own space. Sometimes that means I have to inconvenience myself slightly - like on the inside of them at roundabouts - but that's life.

The trick isn't controlling other people - that's like herding cats (in more ways than one). The trick is just being aware of them and your surroundings. You manage your manouevres with other road users in mind, let them look after theirs - and yes, they'll get it wrong just about as often as you do. It's considerably more infuriating for them to get it wrong because you did, and that ends up on helmet cams on Youtube too.


Incidentally, I'm sure you're aware that my last "minor incident" was at 70mph, involved a spectacular amount of road captaining from someone who thought he should control the road and prevent me from passing and my eldest daughter. Steel boxes hold more than just the driver.

 

[hogger129]

Yes, it bothers me too. In our area, our taxes pay for bike paths specifically so they can ride around on their bicycles, but they are still in the road all the time. What's the point of wasting our tax money on these paths if the bicyclists are just going to use the public streets?

 

[Joey D]

You may want to consider doing some research then. If you don't really know how the laws apply in your state and what limitations they carry, it could be problematic for you in the future.

I'm guessing that W&N is referring to impeding traffic laws, which to my knowledge exist in many states. In Michigan if you're go significantly under the speed limit and causing a backup behind you, you can be ticketed for impeding the flow of traffic.

Going too slow on the road is just as dangerous as going too fast.

 

[Danoff]

Your exact statement to me was. "You have every right to be a jerk... I'm saying don't be." If that is not what you meant, then write what you mean, please. I read what you wrote. If I misinterpreted it, I apologize and let's move on.

Yes, you misinterpreted. When I said "You have every right to be a jerk, I'm saying don't be", that does not in any way imply that you are being a jerk. Here's how that translates to the conversation "You have every right to [hold up 5 cars by going slow], I'm saying don't." See how that doesn't accuse you of holding up 5 cars? Likewise, it doesn't accuse you of being a jerk.

Apology accepted. I wrote exactly what I meant.

I suggest you re-read the remainder of my last post, after I quoted W&N. If you still think I'm advocating being inconsiderate, then I don't think I can show an instance of being considerate any better.

You could do those things and agree that you shouldn't hold up a train of cars while riding slowly. That last bit doesn't seem like much to subscribe to.

What I'm trying to say is there are laws to tell us the boundaries of how we are required to act. Anyone has the given right to act up to that point. If you, personally, set an expectation and expect everyone to follow, that's not asking people to be considerate, it's taking away their rights or changing/enacting a law.

I'm not taking away anyone's rights or changing the law by setting an expectation (that people should be considerate). I expect people to be considerate in many many circumstances, whether the law requires it or not. When they do not, I respond in a variety of ways, sometimes there is not a response to be had.

If you want people to be considerate; first, it's reciprocal and starts with the individual requesting it, and second, you may want to try asking people nicely. Not setting a mandate that works well for you.

Uh... nah.

I'll just go along my merry way accusing everyone of certain behavior (holding up 5 cars behind them) of being inconsiderate. I think I'm pretty safely correct. I'll also continue to be surprised when anyone decides that holding up a train of cars is somehow considerate.

 

[Bopop4]

Treat people like idiots and you find a surprising amount of idiocy. Treat people like someone else just trying to get somewhere and you'll find a surprising amount of cooperation.

 

[hogger129]

Get out of the road!!!

 

[huskeR32]

Get out of the road!!!

Brilliant contribution. Let me ask you something quick though. Can you send me $50? I'll set it aside until I get ticketed for riding on the sidewalks (I'm assuming you didn't read the whole thread and learn that in many places, laws require cyclists to use the road).

Once I get ticketed, I'll use your $50 to pay the fine, and I'll go back to riding on the streets. Unless of course, you want to send me another $50. Your choice I guess.

 

[Villain]

The worst thing about operating a bike on the road is that, regardless of how law-abiding and conscientious the biker may be, the bike-half of the accident between 2-wheel-vehicle versus >3-wheel-vehicle will always lose.

Case in point: my best friend was "safely" operating his motorcycle (that is to say, he was going the speed limit and was not otherwise breaking any laws) when a table that had been improperly fastened to the back of a truck fell off of said truck in front of him. Luckily he lived, unfortunately, he will be relegated to a wheelchair for the rest of his life pending medical and technological advancements.

Get out of the road!!!

Exhibit A of how cyclists are jerks and deserve zero space.

 

[hogger129]

t

The worst thing about operating a bike on the road is that, regardless of how law-abiding and conscientious the biker may be, the bike-half of the accident between 2-wheel-vehicle versus >3-wheel-vehicle will always lose.

Case in point: my best friend was "safely" operating his motorcycle (that is to say, he was going the speed limit and was not otherwise breaking any laws) when a table that had been improperly fastened to the back of a truck fell off of said truck in front of him. Luckily he lived, unfortunately, he will be relegated to a wheelchair for the rest of his life pending medical and technological advancements.



Exhibit A of how cyclists are jerks and deserve zero space.

there are bike lanes and bike paths that our tax dollars paid for. they can use those. road = motor vehicles.

 

[Blitz24]

t



there are bike lanes and bike paths that our tax dollars paid for. they can use those. road = motor vehicles.

And if there are none? We should use the sidewalk and run people over! As long as you will pay my bill and cover any lawsuits!

 

[Brett]

Except bike lanes and paths are not everywhere. Sharing the road for a short moment of time is not that big of an inconvenience. A bit of patience for other motorists, including those on bicycles, goes a long way.

 

[Bopop4]

"hogger129"

The name suits you well.

 

[Shaun]

t



there are bike lanes and bike paths that our tax dollars paid for. they can use those. road = motor vehicles.

Oldest arguement in the book that one.
So no cyclist has ever paid any tax/road registration ever.

 

[Villain]

there are bike lanes and bike paths that our tax dollars paid for. they can use those. road = motor vehicles.

No, there aren't. Or at least there are not enough for it to be a practical option.

Good thing there are roads that are paid for by the cyclists so that the small minority of cyclists can legally share the space with conscientious drivers.

Off topic:

I wonder if the forum software can support a dislike button certain users posts. There's no way I'm ever going to press like on any of yours.

On another vBulliten forum I post on, there is a "Thank" and "Groan" system. It's glorious.

Under each post it'll say something like...

"These users say THANK YOU:"

and

"These users say NO THANKS:"

I would love it if GTP had a similar system, maybe a red box on the left side that listed the users who "dislike" certain posts.

 

[Villain]

doube post

 

[hogger129]

No, there aren't. Or at least there are not enough for it to be a practical option.

Good thing there are roads that are paid for by the cyclists so that the small minority of cyclists can legally share the space with conscientious drivers.

Off topic:



On another vBulliten forum I post on, there is a "Thank" and "Groan" system. It's glorious.

Under each post it'll say something like...

"These users say THANK YOU:"

and

"These users say NO THANKS:"

I would love it if GTP had a similar system, maybe a red box on the left side that listed the users who "dislike" certain posts.

In my area, there are plenty. So you think that bicyclists aimlessly riding in the middle of the street, blocking traffic during rush hour is a better option? That's what they do in my area, even though there are plenty of bike lanes for them to ride in.

 

[Villain]

In my area, there are plenty. So you think that bicyclists aimlessly riding in the middle of the street, blocking traffic during rush hour is a better option? That's what they do in my area, even though there are plenty of bike lanes for them to ride in.

If there is a dedicated bike lane, then the cyclists in the middle of the road are probably breaking the law.

We should ban all cyclists since some of them break the law. And if I ever see ONE MOTOR VEHICLE BREAKING THE LAW I SWEARRRRRRR!!!!!

 

[colj00]

you guys are talking about bicycles like you have never touched one hah

 

[Villain]

you guys are talking about bicycles like you have never touched one hah

This explains the deja vu... I thought this was the boobs thread.