THIS has to stop!

[jwinwi]

Talking about when motorists (cage drivers) cross into the opposite lane of a two lane road to pass a bicyclist, giving them 15 feet of room when the law requires 3 feet. Especially infuriating when there is a dedicated bike lane and moving to the left of one's own lane gives the bicyclist at least six feet...
Serenity now!

[Daniel Kalal]

…when the law requires 3 feet...

That might be the law in Wisconsin, but it's not in Kansas.  Kansas requires giving a bicycle "as much room as possible" while passing.  On the other hand, motorcycles and mopeds are given the right to the entire lane--just as with a car.  Note, however, that there are local laws in Kansas that allow a bicycle to own the full lane, but there are generally signs saying so when this is the case (at least so far as I've noticed).

[Toecutter]

Nope. The law up here states that the bike "owns the lane" and to pass, a driver must pass as though passing another auto. That is "move over to the other lane".

It's illegal to ride on sidewalks, it's unlawful to ride on the shoulder... like it or not, them's the rules. The notion that bicycles have no right to the road is just wrong... not to mention it means that traveling by road is a right of the "well-to-do" only.

[oldbike54]

 Cleaned up a bit .

 Dusty

[jwinwi]

That might be the law in Wisconsin, but it's not in Kansas.



It IS the law in Wisconsin.

[John Croucher]

I live on a winding and hilly agrarian road 18 feet wide.  The section in front of my home is the top of a hill that drops 50 feet on one side and 150 feet on the other side with blind curves.  The road is a favorite for cruising, cut thru from the expressway to an industrial park and a favorite road for stretchy pants rainbow color bicycle herds nearly every day of the week.  On a normal day, 20 or more in a group will be peddling up the big hill with a line of traffic behind them.  The road is too narrow for passing.  I have never figured out how peddling a bicycle can make an individual lose their sense of safety.  I own 4 and take them somewhere else to ride.  I do not ride on my own road.

[rdbandkab]

..in that vein..   Found it interesting that while in Maine heading towards Cadillac Mt.,  motorist pulled onto the shoulder at 55 to let us pass (while in the "slow" lane).   Made me wonder how safe that would be for bicyclist..

[kballowe]

In recent history - it has been my personal opinion that bicycle discussions can get very heated.
Worse than oil threads.

You boys play nice now, ya hear ?

 

[dee g]

I live in a rural area with no sidewalks, and maybe a 12" shoulder. As long as there is no oncoming traffic, I will go into the on coming lane in my car or on the bike.  No harm, no foul.  I know that when I am pedaling my fat ass up the steep hill that I live on, I appreciate the courtesy.

[not-fishing]

I won't stop moving over giving more than 3 feet of room.

I've ridden  bicycles in large groups, racing packs, clubs and tours.  I've had a number of friends on bicycles killed by Cars, especially DUI's in the middle of the day.

I will move over even crossing a double yellow line.

I do the same for walkers and horsemen.

If it's not safe to pass I just slow down and crawl until it is.  I'm not in that big of a hurry.

Maybe it's because I've been "blown" off the road into a ditch by a logging truck on a track bike (with brakes - of course)

[Ncdan]

That might be the law in Wisconsin, but it's not in Kansas.



It IS the law in Wisconsin.

Nor NC

[Zoom Zoom]

This got my curiosity up so I looked up Ohio law. As for the 3 foot rule, it states "at least" 3 feet. Also, lots of cities prohibit riding on a sidewalk, although there are exceptions to that depending on the city and area. (Not in a business district, but ok in a neighborhood sort of thing.) The bicycle is also required to obey all traffic laws, speed limit, stop etc. Must have lighting at night.

Now it gets a bit more interesting. Even though there could be a dedicated bike lane, bicycles are not required to use it. They are supposed to keep to the right of the lane except to avoid stuff. (Pot holes, dead animals, etc.) But if the roadway is narrow enough overall, they have the right to occupy the entire lane. They are allowed to ride side by side and are not required to move over for traffic behind them.

It also goes on to say that when passing, the vehicle is not supposed to exceed the posted speed limit. (Yeah, we all do that right?)

Where I live, bikes are not so much a concern as Amish buggies, although the assured clear distance still applies. A few of the roads around here have buggy lanes but many do not. There are certain times it is just easier to not go into certain towns because you will be trapped behind a buggy for some time. (Saturday morning comes to mind.) Then, people start getting frustrated and make passes that endanger everyone around them, including oncoming traffic.

Be it buggy or bicycle, I try to give them as much space as possible. If I cannot see over a hill, I wait until I can see. I had someone flip me the bird once when they nearly had a head on with me in MY lane while passing a buggy. Now THAT is what pi**es me off!

I guess the long and short of it is that it probably is a good idea to be aware of your local and state laws. Although a bicyclist holding you up may be aggravating, like it or not they have every right to be on the road too.

John Henry

 

[Guzzistajohn]

It's not going to hurt anyone to yield a little for a bike rider in any state. What's happened to common courtesy? Are we really in such a hurry?

[Mayor_of_BBQ]

It's infuriating... in NC, the law says give 4' and pass when it's clear....  but people will hold up traffic for miles waiting for a place they can pull all the way around & pass them like a car???


in case I'm not clear, I am mad at the motorists... not the cyclists. Part of what drives drivers irritation with bikes is the perception that bike 'hold up traffic'...  if it's safe to pass, you arent doing cyclists any favors by holding up the cars beyond practicality or patience by waiting endlessly for the perfect spot to pull into a different lane and pass.  Just give the appropriate space and move on.

[Kiwi Dave]

It's not going to hurt anyone to yield a little for a bike rider in any state. What's happened to common courtesy? Are we really in such a hurry?

How about a little bit of common courtesy by the push bike rider?  He should be as close to the shoulder as the law permits, and periodically be checking for any traffic that he is holding up.  If he is holding up traffic, then he should dismount and go to the shoulder.

Push bike riders are the most arrogant users of the road I have experienced, in both New Zealand and California.

[jwinwi]

It's infuriating... in NC, the law says give 4' and pass when it's clear....  but people will hold up traffic for miles waiting for a place they can pull all the way around & pass them like a car???

OK folks, this is what I was referring to. I ALWAYS give as much space as is practical to bicyclists and pedestrians too - especially when riding; we have a responsibility to share the road but not surrender it to a pack of MAMILs who make the road less safe for everyone.
Rant over...

[twowheeladdict]

Nope. The law up here states that the bike "owns the lane" and to pass, a driver must pass as though passing another auto. That is "move over to the other lane".

It's illegal to ride on sidewalks, it's unlawful to ride on the shoulder... like it or not, them's the rules. The notion that bicycles have no right to the road is just wrong... not to mention it means that traveling by road is a right of the "well-to-do" only.

I agree, but bicyclists should have to pay road use fees like car and motorcycle riders have to.

I went down to register several bikes and the lady said "why multiple bikes, you can only ride one at a time."  I replied, "why multiple license plates, I can move one plate from bike to bike since I can only ride one at a time."  She shut up.

[Kiwi Dave]

I agree, but bicyclists should have to pay road use fees like car and motorcycle riders have to.

I went down to register several bikes and the lady said "why multiple bikes, you can only ride one at a time."  I replied, "why multiple license plates, I can move one plate from bike to bike since I can only ride one at a time."  She shut up.

Same in New Zealand.  Except registration includes ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) which is added to each registration (car and motorcycle) and removes the right to sue for damages.  Problem is ACC Levy is 8x for a motorcycle compared to that for an automobile.  Pushbike riders pay zero.

Introduced as a personal safety insurance, in reality it is another bloody TAX!

[not-fishing]

I agree, but bicyclists should have to pay road use fees like car and motorcycle riders have to.

I pay over a grand a year in vehicle registration alone, is that enough so that I can ride my bicycles?  not counting the $ 0.30 per gallon state tax

Mark

[rodekyll]

I pay over a grand a year in vehicle registration alone, is that enough so that I can ride my bicycles?  not counting the $ 0.30 per gallon state tax

Mark

The fees you pay cover the vehicles you paid the fees for.

In this climate where bicyclists are getting their own lanes and are otherwise using public infrastructure, they should be praying their share.  There is a sense of entitlement among pedalists that's inconsistent with the reality of paying for and maintaining exclusive bike zones as well as proper roads for shared use.  Why shouldn't pedal bikers pay their share?

Also, in many states, it's illegal to hold up 5 or more vehicles.  That requires pedal bikers to clear the lane for the backup they're often causing, and often, they refuse.

[John Croucher]

Where do you  draw the line on taxes, public infrastructure and Who has a right to use it?  I can't put basket ball goals up on each side of the street and play full court basket ball while blocking traffic until some one fouls.  Which in my opinion is no different than a bicycle rider blocking traffic at their convenience while not paying the fees motor vehicle encounter. Electric vehicles are not being charge road use taxes through gasoline and diesel purchases. While getting tax credits for purchasing them. Should they pull over and yield to internal combustion vehicles?

 I don't see anything changing anytime soon as long as revenue is being generated by many government agencies, law enforcement, attorneys and court systems.  If motor vehicle drivers were ticketed for every driving infraction they have each mile they drive, they would be broke and lose their license in a few miles.  Very few are actually called out and most are usually probable cause stops looking for drugs, alcohol or other clandestine activity.  Just be nice and yield to the hazards on the road. The life you save may be your own. 

[rodekyll]

Or we could stick to the topic.

[Kev m]

I try to be as courteous as possible to anyone on the road who is also being courteous.

I slow and move over, sometimes completely to the other lane for most bicyclists.

Back when I lived in PA we had a lot of narrow, tight roads with lots of blind curves.

Occasionally I'd come across a group of bicyclists riding 3-4 abreast, and maybe 10-20 deep in their own private little peleton who refused to move over in any way, even on a long section with more than sufficient site lines for a safe pass. Problem is, LEGALLY in PA I believe it was a minimum of 4' required between a car and bicycle to pass and the narrowness of the road meant there was no way to LEGALLY pass.

I get using the whole lane when climbing a blind hill or curve, it's literally the right thing for a bicyclist to do.

I don't get purposely and aggressively blocking when a legal pass could be made, then they're being dicks and are asking to be treated as such.

[not-fishing]

Or we could stick to the topic.

A little history on the topic otherwise known as beating the dead horse

The modern "safety" bicycle was invented in the 1885.  They didn't need or use asphalt roads for many decades and traveled along the same paths as horses / wagons.

Outside of a few asphalt roads, like in Washington DC, to keep the mud down from horse traffic there wasn't a lot of asphalt in the US.

Horses didn't need it, nor did bicycles.

Then came the car / trucks and with it the asphalt roads.  The cars and trucks needed the paved roads so that they could go faster or during the rainy season.

This is one reason bicycles are not taxed for "road improvements".

All the bicycle registrations I've seen here in California are placed to fund bicycle theft police costs.

Finally the cost to build a lane for a bicycle is insignificant when compared to the cost of building a road for car or truck.  It's the car / truck wheel loading that mandates the thickness of the paving section.  Heck even "bike/stroller/jogging/blading trails" here in california are built so that pickups can run on them and not for the traffic loads of bicycles.

Personally I wish more (chubby) people would get out on bicycles.  It could easily save Billions in Health Care.

Mark

[rodekyll]

We no longer accommodate horses on the roads either.

When we're talking new construction I'll agree with you about the insignificant cost.  But if it doesn't cost that much, why the peddler's resistance to paying, and why don't they use the exclusive bike path?

When we're talking about adding exclusive bike infrastructure to existing roads I disagree.  It's no longer a simple widening of a virgin right-of-way.  You either take a lane or more from the existing roadway or you widen it, reducing shoulders and sidewalks -- or your front yard.  It can require widing of Bridges and lenthening of culverts.  And so on ad nauseum.

Either way, pedesrians, wheelchairs, pets, strollers and all those things that the public sidewalks accommodate are not allowed on the bicycle entitlement-of-way.  The signs all prohibit that.  So yes, I'm still thinking the beneficiaries should contribute to the benefit.

[Toecutter]

Why not use the bicycle path?

Number one... because with very few exceptions, the idiots planning and building the bicycle paths build them as though the only purpose for riding a bicycle is "leisure". They're not built with commuting in mind, nor with "my bicycle is just as fast as a car in urban stop and go traffic". That's why.

When I was in the city, I could travel anywhere in a 10-15 km radius as fast or faster than I could drive it. Beyond 20 km, it began to lose it efficiency.

However, if I took to the bike paths instead of the roadway... A 10 km ride would end up being 25 km of snaking, winding, scenic, inefficient meandering. Great for Sunday boredom, completely pointless as means of transportation.

As for cyclist's "resistance to paying" (through registration fees).. keep in mind that most cyclists own vehicles, own homes... and therefore... pay taxes into general tax revenue, which is used, in part, to pay for roads. They also do effectively ZERO damage or wear and tear to roadways. Back to registration... a stolen bike is pretty much the lowest thing on the priority list for police... right down there with "someone dinged my car door". If it gets stolen... it's on me to get it back, if I ever find it.

Now that said... let's suppose I DO start paying to register my bicycle... does that mean you're going to suddenly stop yelling "Get on the f*ckin' sidewalk, hippy!" when you pass me? Does it mean you suddenly find patience when driving behind me?

Didn't think so... so let's lose that ridiculous argument, shall we?

[twowheeladdict]

Why not use the bicycle path?

Number one... because with very few exceptions, the idiots planning and building the bicycle paths build them as though the only purpose for riding a bicycle is "leisure". They're not built with commuting in mind, nor with "my bicycle is just as fast as a car in urban stop and go traffic". That's why.

When I was in the city, I could travel anywhere in a 10-15 km radius as fast or faster than I could drive it. Beyond 20 km, it began to lose it efficiency.

However, if I took to the bike paths instead of the roadway... A 10 km ride would end up being 25 km of snaking, winding, scenic, inefficient meandering. Great for Sunday boredom, completely pointless as means of transportation.

As for cyclist's "resistance to paying" (through registration fees).. keep in mind that most cyclists own vehicles, own homes... and therefore... pay taxes into general tax revenue, which is used, in part, to pay for roads. They also do effectively ZERO damage or wear and tear to roadways. Back to registration... a stolen bike is pretty much the lowest thing on the priority list for police... right down there with "someone dinged my car door". If it gets stolen... it's on me to get it back, if I ever find it.

Now that said... let's suppose I DO start paying to register my bicycle... does that mean you're going to suddenly stop yelling "Get on the f*ckin' sidewalk, hippy!" when you pass me? Does it mean you suddenly find patience when driving behind me?

Didn't think so... so let's lose that ridiculous argument, shall we?

Your argument is even less than my "I can only ride one motorcycle at a time, why do I have to pay for more than one plate?"

It doesn't matter to the authorities that I already pay to register other vehicles or have a house, so it doesn't matter regarding bicycles on public roads.

[wirespokes]

We've got it bad in the Portland Oregon area. The bike nazis really have a hold on the local government and got downtown streets converted from four lanes down to two with a full bike lane in the middle. The bike lanes are always empty. Traffic backs up because a turning car is waiting for pedestrians and no one can go around - it's a no-no entering a bike lane. It's a mess!

And I agree - it's very irritating when pedal bikers ride in the lane rather than at the edge. It's like they're saying "you have to watch out for me". My thought is the law of the universe "little fish gotta watch out for the big fish!" It's that way on the motorcycle and definitely that way on the bicycle. Anyone who feels differently or wants to rail against that law is asking for trouble and heading for an accident.

In Oregon motorcycles can ride two abreast and pass in the same lane. I treat bicycles the same, though do give them plenty of room if possible. Rodekyll's point about holding up traffic is a good one - but most motorists don't pay attention to that law, much less the cops. I've never heard of anyone getting pulled over for that.

[rodekyll]

Why not use the bicycle path?

Number one... because with very few exceptions, the idiots planning and building the bicycle paths build them as though the only purpose for riding a bicycle is "leisure". They're not built with commuting in mind, nor with "my bicycle is just as fast as a car in urban stop and go traffic". That's why.

When I was in the city, I could travel anywhere in a 10-15 km radius as fast or faster than I could drive it. Beyond 20 km, it began to lose it efficiency.

However, if I took to the bike paths instead of the roadway... A 10 km ride would end up being 25 km of snaking, winding, scenic, inefficient meandering. Great for Sunday boredom, completely pointless as means of transportation.

As for cyclist's "resistance to paying" (through registration fees).. keep in mind that most cyclists own vehicles, own homes... and therefore... pay taxes into general tax revenue, which is used, in part, to pay for roads. They also do effectively ZERO damage or wear and tear to roadways. Back to registration... a stolen bike is pretty much the lowest thing on the priority list for police... right down there with "someone dinged my car door". If it gets stolen... it's on me to get it back, if I ever find it.

Now that said... let's suppose I DO start paying to register my bicycle... does that mean you're going to suddenly stop yelling "Get on the f*ckin' sidewalk, hippy!" when you pass me? Does it mean you suddenly find patience when driving behind me?

Didn't think so... so let's lose that ridiculous argument, shall we?

By bike path I meant the dedicated bike lane in the street, not the meandering path through the park. I would have thought that the context made it clear, but apparently not.  Sorry for any confusion.

The rest of the argument is a rationalization of entitlement. The fact that bicycle owners also pay taxes doesn't make them special.  It makes them like everyone else, plus a bicycle.  Law enforcement and theft recovery have nothing to do with the topic.  And almost all of the comments here have been about how we work to not endanger pedalists.  So the hostility argument is particularly far fetched.

So yes, let's lose the ridiculous argument.  Everyone else using the street pays into it per vehicle.  Bicycles should too. 

[dee g]

Personally I wish more (chubby) people would get out on bicycles.  It could easily save Billions in Health Care.

Mark

Sheesh!!! I'm working on it. At least 10 miles on days when I'm not on a 12 hour shift. :-)