Oil, name something .....

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.

Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.

I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.

That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.

I cycled for three years throughout Vancouver doing my undergraduate at UBC. The roads are extremely narrow with no shoulders. Passing a cyclist can only occur when ther is a gap in the left lane so that the car in the right lane passing the cyclist can veer into the left lane to get by the cyclist on the right.

Is it your (and Beaver's) expectation that a cyclist will determine the speed of the right hand lane- ultimately slowing traffic and backing everything up so that a cyclist can have the right of way regardless of speed?

That is why Mayor Moonbeam is on a massive bike lane kick. It is thought by many to be his main concern, which is kind of funny to me. The city has evolved a lot in terms of cycling since you were an undergrad, and that includes changes to traffic patterns to accommodate cyclists on the kinds of routes you're talking about.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.

Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.

I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.

That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.

I cycled for three years throughout Vancouver doing my undergraduate at UBC. The roads are extremely narrow with no shoulders. Passing a cyclist can only occur when ther is a gap in the left lane so that the car in the right lane passing the cyclist can veer into the left lane to get by the cyclist on the right.

Is it your (and Beaver's) expectation that a cyclist will determine the speed of the right hand lane- ultimately slowing traffic and backing everything up so that a cyclist can have the right of way regardless of speed?

That is why Mayor Moonbeam is on a massive bike lane kick. It is thought by many to be his main concern, which is kind of funny to me. The city has evolved a lot in terms of cycling since you were an undergrad, and that includes changes to traffic patterns to accommodate cyclists on the kinds of routes you're talking about.

Okay fair enough.

When I'm there these days though... 1st avenue is unrideable and 10th leading into and out of the university is as well. Am I wrong here? My suggestion for these routes is the side routes instead.

Remember... I only offer what I did as food for thought. Many cyclists feel he roads were designed for them and forget the facts that driving is stressful, congested, and not all drivers will respect them the way they should (there's a ton of cyclists who have been hit by cars that can testify to this). Further, many cyclists feel they don't have to be courteous as well- which prompted the 'don't make them pass you again' comment.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.

Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.

I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.

That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.

I cycled for three years throughout Vancouver doing my undergraduate at UBC. The roads are extremely narrow with no shoulders. Passing a cyclist can only occur when ther is a gap in the left lane so that the car in the right lane passing the cyclist can veer into the left lane to get by the cyclist on the right.

Is it your (and Beaver's) expectation that a cyclist will determine the speed of the right hand lane- ultimately slowing traffic and backing everything up so that a cyclist can have the right of way regardless of speed?

That is why Mayor Moonbeam is on a massive bike lane kick. It is thought by many to be his main concern, which is kind of funny to me. The city has evolved a lot in terms of cycling since you were an undergrad, and that includes changes to traffic patterns to accommodate cyclists on the kinds of routes you're talking about.

Okay fair enough.

When I'm there these days though... 1st avenue is unrideable and 10th leading into and out of the university is as well. Am I wrong here? My suggestion for these routes is the side routes instead.

Remember... I only offer what I did as food for thought. Many cyclists feel he roads were designed for them and forget the facts that driving is stressful, congested, and not all drivers will respect them the way they should (there's a ton of cyclists who have been hit by cars that can testify to this). Further, many cyclists feel they don't have to be courteous as well- which prompted the 'don't make them pass you again' comment.

Well they aren't done yet, and the Commercial Drive/1st Ave area is next on the "hit list", which is REALLY pissing of the people who live and work in the neighborhood. Anyway, just FYI, public transit and bike routes are a HUGE hot button issue in Vancouver now. There are so many opponents to bike lanes, and so many supporters, and then there is the whole public transit strategy... they are putting an underground skytrain line out to UBC next BTW.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.

Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.

I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.

That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.

I cycled for three years throughout Vancouver doing my undergraduate at UBC. The roads are extremely narrow with no shoulders. Passing a cyclist can only occur when ther is a gap in the left lane so that the car in the right lane passing the cyclist can veer into the left lane to get by the cyclist on the right.

Is it your (and Beaver's) expectation that a cyclist will determine the speed of the right hand lane- ultimately slowing traffic and backing everything up so that a cyclist can have the right of way regardless of speed?

That is why Mayor Moonbeam is on a massive bike lane kick. It is thought by many to be his main concern, which is kind of funny to me. The city has evolved a lot in terms of cycling since you were an undergrad, and that includes changes to traffic patterns to accommodate cyclists on the kinds of routes you're talking about.

Okay fair enough.

When I'm there these days though... 1st avenue is unrideable and 10th leading into and out of the university is as well. Am I wrong here? My suggestion for these routes is the side routes instead.

Remember... I only offer what I did as food for thought. Many cyclists feel he roads were designed for them and forget the facts that driving is stressful, congested, and not all drivers will respect them the way they should (there's a ton of cyclists who have been hit by cars that can testify to this). Further, many cyclists feel they don't have to be courteous as well- which prompted the 'don't make them pass you again' comment.

Well they aren't done yet, and the Commercial Drive/1st Ave area is next on the "hit list", which is REALLY pissing of the people who live and work in the neighborhood. Anyway, just FYI, public transit and bike routes are a HUGE hot button issue in Vancouver now. There are so many opponents to bike lanes, and so many supporters, and then there is the whole public transit strategy... they are putting an underground skytrain line out to UBC next BTW.

I'm all in favour of everything you have described here.

Vancouver congestion is brutal. Anything to ease the constriction on antiquated infrastructure is a step in the right direction.

I loved it there, but the traffic was so brutal I had to leave. Every time I come back, the tension begins to build in me. The routes leading into Vancouver from the east are at least 10,000X better. Man, I can remember sitting in Langley with traffic in both lanes at a standstill. four hours before a concert and you're wondering to yourself, "I wonder if I gave myself enough time?"

In fact, last year I got stuck on Capilano Drive as people tried to go over the Lion's Gate Bridge. My gawd... I thought I'd seen the worst it could be. I was wrong.

CM189191

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

oftenreading

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.

Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.

I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.

That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.

I cycled for three years throughout Vancouver doing my undergraduate at UBC. The roads are extremely narrow with no shoulders. Passing a cyclist can only occur when ther is a gap in the left lane so that the car in the right lane passing the cyclist can veer into the left lane to get by the cyclist on the right.

Is it your (and Beaver's) expectation that a cyclist will determine the speed of the right hand lane- ultimately slowing traffic and backing everything up so that a cyclist can have the right of way regardless of speed?

That is why Mayor Moonbeam is on a massive bike lane kick. It is thought by many to be his main concern, which is kind of funny to me. The city has evolved a lot in terms of cycling since you were an undergrad, and that includes changes to traffic patterns to accommodate cyclists on the kinds of routes you're talking about.

Okay fair enough.

When I'm there these days though... 1st avenue is unrideable and 10th leading into and out of the university is as well. Am I wrong here? My suggestion for these routes is the side routes instead.

Remember... I only offer what I did as food for thought. Many cyclists feel he roads were designed for them and forget the facts that driving is stressful, congested, and not all drivers will respect them the way they should (there's a ton of cyclists who have been hit by cars that can testify to this). Further, many cyclists feel they don't have to be courteous as well- which prompted the 'don't make them pass you again' comment.

No, cyclists don't forget that driving is stressful and not all drivers will respect them. We live that every day. It's far more stressful being in traffic and knowing that if you get hit you're seriously injured at best, or killed at worst, compared to how the car driver will fare.

Yes, both sides need to be courteous and obey the rules of the road; however, drivers need to lose the assumption that the road is for them and the other vehicles (like bikes) aren't real vehicles and just need to get out of their way.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

CM189191

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.

Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?

jeffbr

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.

Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?

Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.

I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.

Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?

Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.

I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.

Well thanks, man. I can't respond any better than what you have here.

For a second... I was beginning to think I was in left field.

Go Beavers

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.

Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?

Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.

I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.

Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.

jeffbr

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.

Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?

Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.

I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.

Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.

I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.

oftenreading

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.

Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?

Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.

I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.

Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.

I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.

You can't have it both ways. You are objecting the bike taking the whole lane, which is their legal right, but also objecting to the cyclist traveling down the right hand side. By your logic, if the car driver passes me on my bike in the same lane, that is extra legal as well.

Go Beavers

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.

Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?

Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.

I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.

Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.

I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.

In your scenario,you described a driver overtaking the cyclist as the cyclist playing chicken. I guess you're saying if the cyclist was at the light first, then they wouldn't be playing chicken? And it also depends on where you are. In my state, it's legal to pass cars on the right if they're stopped, which then raises the question, if it's legal, is the cyclist still playing chicken?

jeffbr

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.

Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?

Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.

I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.

Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.

I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.

In your scenario,you described a driver overtaking the cyclist as the cyclist playing chicken. I guess you're saying if the cyclist was at the light first, then they wouldn't be playing chicken? And it also depends on where you are. In my state, it's legal to pass cars on the right if they're stopped, which then raises the question, if it's legal, is the cyclist still playing chicken?

If it is legal, then it is legal. By "playing chicken", I'm implying "intentionally creating a potentially unsafe situation". There are plenty of things that are legal but not recommended if one's primary concern is safety. If the cyclist was at the light first, or if the car was at the light first isn't really relevant. Either way, if the car wants to overtake the cyclist, the car must do so legally and safely. I'm just saying that if the car has to do this 4, 5 or 6 times with the same cyclist who insists on cutting the line, the odds of an unfortunate accident obviously increase. It makes no sense to overtake someone who you know will overtake you seconds later. That is simply creating unnecessary risk. But if one lives for risk, then have at it. I do not promote nor condone driver retaliation against cyclists. For some reason in this thread, if you are not stridently pro-cyclist, you are the enemy. I'm simply trying to voice concern regarding unsafe and in many cases illegal behavior by cyclists which could be avoided and result in a more cooperative environment. But if cyclists feel the need to create animosity and pit Us against Them, we (as a society) clearly aren't ready for cooperation. The same goes for rednecks in pickup trucks who swerve at cyclists. I have no patience, respect or sympathy for a car/truck intentionally antagonizing bikes. Simple courtesy, awareness, knowledge of the law, and common sense go a long way toward sharing the road. Neither side is immune from jackasses.

jeffbr

oftenreading said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.

Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?

Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.

I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.

Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.

I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.

You can't have it both ways. You are objecting the bike taking the whole lane, which is their legal right, but also objecting to the cyclist traveling down the right hand side. By your logic, if the car driver passes me on my bike in the same lane, that is extra legal as well.

I believe you have read something that isn't there. Where did I object to a bike occupying a lane? I object to bikes cutting the line by passing on the right hand side of stopped vehicles. But I never objected to bikes using the roads, and of course they'll be using a lane if they're on the road unless that road has a specific bike lane.

Go Beavers

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.

Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?

Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.

I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.

Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.

I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.

In your scenario,you described a driver overtaking the cyclist as the cyclist playing chicken. I guess you're saying if the cyclist was at the light first, then they wouldn't be playing chicken? And it also depends on where you are. In my state, it's legal to pass cars on the right if they're stopped, which then raises the question, if it's legal, is the cyclist still playing chicken?

If it is legal, then it is legal. By "playing chicken", I'm implying "intentionally creating a potentially unsafe situation". There are plenty of things that are legal but not recommended if one's primary concern is safety. If the cyclist was at the light first, or if the car was at the light first isn't really relevant. Either way, if the car wants to overtake the cyclist, the car must do so legally and safely. I'm just saying that if the car has to do this 4, 5 or 6 times with the same cyclist who insists on cutting the line, the odds of an unfortunate accident obviously increase. It makes no sense to overtake someone who you know will overtake you seconds later. That is simply creating unnecessary risk. But if one lives for risk, then have at it. I do not promote nor condone driver retaliation against cyclists. For some reason in this thread, if you are not stridently pro-cyclist, you are the enemy. I'm simply trying to voice concern regarding unsafe and in many cases illegal behavior by cyclists which could be avoided and result in a more cooperative environment. But if cyclists feel the need to create animosity and pit Us against Them, we (as a society) clearly aren't ready for cooperation. The same goes for rednecks in pickup trucks who swerve at cyclists. I have no patience, respect or sympathy for a car/truck intentionally antagonizing bikes. Simple courtesy, awareness, knowledge of the law, and common sense go a long way toward sharing the road. Neither side is immune from jackasses.

I'm splitting hairs, but there's meaning imbedded in your language. You're basically saying it's dangerous to have a driver do something repeatedly they don't like. I take issue with the use of "accident". If a driver is impatient and decides to make an unsafe pass on time number six, that isn't an accident. A more cooperative environment is one that encourages more responsibilty on the person who can do more damage.

oftenreading

jeffbr said:

oftenreading said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.

Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?

Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.

I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.

Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.

I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.

You can't have it both ways. You are objecting the bike taking the whole lane, which is their legal right, but also objecting to the cyclist traveling down the right hand side. By your logic, if the car driver passes me on my bike in the same lane, that is extra legal as well.

I believe you have read something that isn't there. Where did I object to a bike occupying a lane? I object to bikes cutting the line by passing on the right hand side of stopped vehicles. But I never objected to bikes using the roads, and of course they'll be using a lane if they're on the road unless that road has a specific bike lane.

You said that nobody had the right to impede the free flow of traffic and if a vehicle can't keep up with the flow of traffic it has to pull over. This was in reference to cyclists being slower than cars. Thus, your argument seems to be that if a cyclist can't keep up with the car traffic, and if there is only one lane, they do not have the right to be in the lane.

jeffbr

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.

I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.

Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.

I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.

In your scenario,you described a driver overtaking the cyclist as the cyclist playing chicken. I guess you're saying if the cyclist was at the light first, then they wouldn't be playing chicken? And it also depends on where you are. In my state, it's legal to pass cars on the right if they're stopped, which then raises the question, if it's legal, is the cyclist still playing chicken?

If it is legal, then it is legal. By "playing chicken", I'm implying "intentionally creating a potentially unsafe situation". There are plenty of things that are legal but not recommended if one's primary concern is safety. If the cyclist was at the light first, or if the car was at the light first isn't really relevant. Either way, if the car wants to overtake the cyclist, the car must do so legally and safely. I'm just saying that if the car has to do this 4, 5 or 6 times with the same cyclist who insists on cutting the line, the odds of an unfortunate accident obviously increase. It makes no sense to overtake someone who you know will overtake you seconds later. That is simply creating unnecessary risk. But if one lives for risk, then have at it. I do not promote nor condone driver retaliation against cyclists. For some reason in this thread, if you are not stridently pro-cyclist, you are the enemy. I'm simply trying to voice concern regarding unsafe and in many cases illegal behavior by cyclists which could be avoided and result in a more cooperative environment. But if cyclists feel the need to create animosity and pit Us against Them, we (as a society) clearly aren't ready for cooperation. The same goes for rednecks in pickup trucks who swerve at cyclists. I have no patience, respect or sympathy for a car/truck intentionally antagonizing bikes. Simple courtesy, awareness, knowledge of the law, and common sense go a long way toward sharing the road. Neither side is immune from jackasses.

I'm splitting hairs, but there's meaning imbedded in your language. You're basically saying it's dangerous to have a driver do something repeatedly they don't like. I take issue with the use of "accident". If a driver is impatient and decides to make an unsafe pass on time number six, that isn't an accident. A more cooperative environment is one that encourages more responsibilty on the person who can do more damage.

I won't argue with your post, and generally agree with you here. I will point out that I wasn't trying to imply that the driver will lose patience and attempt to make an unsafe pass, although that is obviously a possibility and depending on the driver perhaps even a likelihood. I was speaking to the fallible nature of humans. Any repetitive task a human carries out is subject to mistake. That is why many things are automated. Human error accounts for a lot of loss in business and manufacturing. Likewise, human error accounts for a lot of fender benders I see on the roads almost daily. But I can see how you got the embedded meaning from my post. And I do agree with your last sentence, and try to practice that. Unfortunately not everyone does. If my safety is on the line I am not waiting for the other person to demonstrate an abundance of caution or bear the larger share of responsibility for my safety. I am assuming my life is constantly at risk when I'm on a motorcycle, and put all of the responsibility for my safety on me. I don't trust turn signals, I don't trust drivers in lanes next to me, I don't trust the guy coming up behind me, I don't trust the person waiting at a stop sign, etc... I like to make eye contact. That's when I know they've seen me and they know I've seen them. Until that eye contact, I assume I'm invisible to them.

jeffbr

oftenreading said:

jeffbr said:

oftenreading said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.

You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.

For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.

Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.

For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.

Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.

If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.

I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.

In short...

1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.

If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.

I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.

Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.

Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?

Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.

I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.

Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.

I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.

You can't have it both ways. You are objecting the bike taking the whole lane, which is their legal right, but also objecting to the cyclist traveling down the right hand side. By your logic, if the car driver passes me on my bike in the same lane, that is extra legal as well.

I believe you have read something that isn't there. Where did I object to a bike occupying a lane? I object to bikes cutting the line by passing on the right hand side of stopped vehicles. But I never objected to bikes using the roads, and of course they'll be using a lane if they're on the road unless that road has a specific bike lane.

You said that nobody had the right to impede the free flow of traffic and if a vehicle can't keep up with the flow of traffic it has to pull over. This was in reference to cyclists being slower than cars. Thus, your argument seems to be that if a cyclist can't keep up with the car traffic, and if there is only one lane, they do not have the right to be in the lane.

In my state, on a two lane highway, if they are driving below the posted speed and are holding up more than 5 vehicles, regardless of whether they are on a bike, a scooter, a Harley, a Ferrari, a Mack truck, or a Porsche, they are required to pull over and let the impeded vehicles to by. On roads with passing lanes, this is not an issue, because faster traffic can legally pass slower traffic. So if Granny is impeding traffic on her bike, and cars can't get by, then yes, Granny has to pull over and allow them by. Not looking to have anything both ways. But I do look both ways when crossing the street.