Six jours

It's a typical SoCal two laner in the mountains. I haven't measured it. There's enough room that non-A&S cyclists are comfortable riding the shoulder and being passed by cars. The road surface varies from year to year, but is rarely perfect anywhere. There are, for practical purposes, no intersections or driveways. Sightlines suck, which is one of the reasons the motorcyclists are constantly getting themselves killed there. I don't know what "FRAP" means. It's been about two months since I was last there.

And it's obvious that the cyclist's decisions are always made by the cyclist. The question is whether that cyclist's decisions are any good.

I don't know what you are trying to say with your last line, other than that I'm not invited to your daughter's wedding.The road is steeply uphill. Cyclists ride up steep hills slowly. And as a former Lycra-clad prettyboy I'm qualified to speak about it.

Beyond that, I'll just note - again - the tendency of A&Sers to take a simple concept (going really slow in front of other road users is rude) and clutter it up with as much nonsense and double-speak as possible in trying to prove that rude isn't rude, as long as it's a cyclist doing it.

Digital_Cowboy

Actually it is about everything you've listed, it IS about speed, rights, court cases AND common courtesy and safety. Are there cyclists who are rude and inconsiderate? Yes there are. Are there rude and inconsiderate motorists? Again, yes there are. The "problem" is though that when a motorist behaves in an inconsiderate and rude manner they put EVERYONE in danger. Whereas when a cyclist behaves in an inconsiderate and rude manner they typically only put themselves at risk. I don't know about you, but I would rather deal with a rude/inconsiderate cyclist vs. a rude/inconsiderate motorist.

Oh, so you'd rather that the cyclists who use this road put themselves in danger by riding too close to the right edge of the road, is that really what you are saying?

No, I'd have to argue that it is the other road users who are showing contempt by not waiting until it is SAFE for them to pass the cyclists.

Also so than, I guess from the above statements that you didn't see anything wrong with what that former ER doctor out in LA did to the various cyclists. In particular the last two that even though they were riding at the speed limit (or close enough to the posted speed limit as not to really make any difference) and were riding two abreast. He swoops around them and brakes fast in front of them. One of them ending up with a severe case of road rash, the other ended up flying through his rear window, nearly loosing his nose in the process. As well as loosing several of his teeth.

When this "good" doctor called 911 he had admitted to the 911 operator that he wanted to teach them "a lesson," he had also repeated this statement to the first cop on the scene, i.e. his words were "I wanted to teach them a lesson."

He was also for whatever reason shocked and surprised that his victims refused to allow him to treat their injuries.

As you can see from the "good" doctor's actions that when motorists behave in a rude/inconsiderate manner that the results can be VERY catastrophic.

Digital_Cowboy

Uh actually IF I'm not mistaken, one state has passed legislation making pi equal to an "even" 3.

You're so sure of that, huh? And uh, how many motorists who are also on Angeles Crest on the weekend are likewise out for recreation? Why I are they considered to be more important than the cyclists? How many motorists just "take over" the public roads for their enjoyment?

And you wonder why we cyclists are angry with motorists. . .

Digital_Cowboy

Good questions.

Well said, well said. Motorists need to learn that we cyclists are the one's who are the best judge of what is and isn't safe for us when we share the roads with other road users.

That they do, don't they.

Digital_Cowboy

FRAP=As Far Right As Practicable. Are you sure that they "feel comfortable" with the road position that has been "forced" on them by rude/inconsiderate motorists? If the road, and it's sight lines are as bad as you claim that the safest (being as that is one of your alleged concerns) place for cyclists is to take the lane so that motorists coming up behind them can see them and know that they are there. Doesn't that make sense?

The flip side to that question is that "It's obvious that the MOTORISTS decisions are always made by the MOTORIST, the question is whether that MOTORISTS decisions are any good.

It seemed pretty clear to me, sorry if you're having a hard time understanding it.

So I guess using your standard of what is and isn't "rude" that an Amish person in Amish country driving their horse and buggy down the road is also being "rude" because they are slowing up traffic behind them.

mkadam68

You're right. I think it's supposed to be: faster means more responsibility & obligations. AT least, that's the impression I get when studying history of roadways & autos & licensing.

Dchiefransom

If a driver actually gives cyclists enough room when they moves over to pass, and when they move back over one cyclist length or two shouldn't matter. That's "if" the driver cuts over early enough and comes back late enough. Now, with a half-dozen riders it will make a big difference.
What we don't know here is if the road has a double yellow center line, meaning the drivers have to wait behind the cyclists for the entire climb. I've been on climbs, as a driver, where it seemed the cyclists were giving me a dirty look over their shoulder when I waited and didn't pass, since there was no safe place to do it. If the driver is waiting behind you, just keep pedaling.

ultramagnetic

Enter strawman.

Digital_Cowboy

Actually I was trying to point out the hole in Six Jours logic that a cyclist traveling as fast as s/he is capable on a given road for a given set of circumstances is being "rude" by taking the lane. As if that's "rude" behavior than it would likewise be "rude" behavior for an Amish person driving their horse and buggy to also "block" traffic.

dougmc

Just for the record, you are mistaken (though it is a popular misconception, and Indiana did come close over 100 years ago.)

Digital_Cowboy

Dougmc,

Actually, the state that I'd heard was Arkansas.

pacificaslim

It's just a numbers game to me. If I can do something that is slightly inconvenient to myself, but saves a lot of people more time, then I'm happy to do it.

For example, let's say I'm walking and want to cross the street. Well, it is within my legal rights to step into the crosswalk and make cars stop for me to cross. But if there is a line of ten cars coming along, I'd rather wait the 30 seconds it'll take them to pass and cross once they are gone, than to make them all stop and make ten people wait 30 seconds for me to cross. The 30 second penalty to me is better than the 5min aggregate loss from 10 people waiting 30 seconds. That's just the kind of guy I am...

When we ride our bikes, we find ourselves in similar situations all the time. If it really is a life and death situation, then sure, hold your line. But in 99% of the situations discussed in this forum, it's not that: it's just cyclists willing wasting a lot of other people's time to save themselves a few seconds or carry on with their conversation with their friend rather than inconvenience themselves a little by giving up the right-of-way for a few seconds.

Digital_Cowboy

The exact same thing(s) can be said about motorists. 99% of the time it's just motorists willingly wasting a lot of other people's time to save themselves a few seconds. If people got back into the habit of leaving enough time to get to heir appointments they wouldn't have to rush to get to wherever it is that they're going. And it wouldn't matter in the least who was or wasn't in front of them.

And please tell us what makes a motorists time worth more or is more important than that of a cyclists? Shouldn't the right of anyone to get where they want to go be as important/respected as much as another?

Sadly, in today's world just about everyone is only looking out for themselves, and to hell with everyone else. As proof of that, the next time one is out on the road look around and see how many cars/pickup trucks/SUV's/etc. have ONLY the driver in them. As well as watch your neighbors and see how many of them come and go within in a short period of time. Depending on one's age, our parents, grandparents and/or great-grandparents would when making shopping trips would plan their routes so that they'd "hit" multiple "targets" and planning their routes so there was little to any doubling back. Of course some would take it to extremes.

As there were some who didn't realize that just because a store on the side of town had an item that they were looking for at say "$0.07" cheaper than a store nearby. That it probably cost twice or three times that much in gas to drive across town to get it. So they would have been "ahead" of the game by buying it from the nearby store.

dougmc

Well, it's not the case in Arkansas either. The generally repeated urban legend is for Alabama -- and even that's wrong.

billdsd

My understanding of Florida law from watching Keri Caffrey's videos is that if the lane if 14' or more wide, then bicyclists are required to keep far right -- which implies that they can't ride two or more abreast. If it's narrower than 14', then bicyclists are not required to keep far right, and can ride 2-3 abreast. The reasoning behind this is that if the lane is narrower than 14 feet then it is too narrow for a bicycle and a car to share safely side by side.

I'd be surprised if 14' was the standard lane width. That would be unusually wide in my experience in most states. I've never been to Florida though I have seen Keri Caffrey's videos and I didn't see 14' wide lanes.California's law (CVC 21202) requires bicyclists to keep far right but exempts them from this requirement in substandard width lanes which it defines as a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a car to share safely side by side within the lane. If it is substandard width, then they are exempt from the requirement to keep far right and can ride 2-3 abreast if they want. California law does not name an explicit number for the width of a substandard width lane. However AASHTO and most bicycle safety experts and many state laws or road design standards name 14' as the minimum width of a lane for safe side by side sharing by bicycles and cars.

Digital_Cowboy

Whichever state it is/was I'm glad that it didn't happen. As if it did happen, I would imagine that it would raise as much of a stink that the demoting of Pluto from planet status created. And the interesting thing with Pluto is that from what I've read just because one "committee" has "demoted" it doesn't mean that all "committees" have to accept it.

So if I've read things correctly, if one likes to think of Pluto as the "smallest" planet they can continue to do so.

Digital_Cowboy

True, I forgot to add that if they are also traveling at either the speed or faster than traffic. As those are two conditions that a cyclist doesn't have to stay FRAP. The Florida Bicycle Association has the explanation of the 14' as a standard lane width on their site. It breaks down as following:

6' total for bicycles, 3' to travel in and the 3' passing buffer
8' for the average size automobile to travel in

Trust me I'd be very surprised if there were many roads an outside lane that is 14' wide. Hell, there are a LOT of two-lane roads (one-lane for each direction) that are less than 14' wide.

Except for "little nuances" here and there I think that most if not all states bicycle laws are written with similar language. Part of the "fun" is to get both the LEOs AND motorists to understand that it's we the cyclist and NOT them that get to decide if a lane is too narrow, or if there is too much debris on the far right side of the road/bike lane.

billdsd

I haven't driven or ridden that road. Working from the story, the most defined location that they gave was the Charlton Picnic Area, where they found the driver:

Charlton Flat

That gives coordinates for the general hiking trail area, which does not appear to be the picnic area but it's probably close enough for guessing at the conditions on the road where these riders were riding.

Street View of the coordinates given for the Charlton Flat Trail Area

I see no usable shoulder and narrow lanes -- too narrow for safe lane sharing by bicycles and cars.

If a bicyclist is over to the far right, a considerate competent motorist will move at least a little into the opposite lane to pass. Unfortunately, far too many drivers are neither considerate nor competent. My experience riding on the roads in this situation is that riding in the middle, even when I'm alone causes almost all drivers to move entirely into the next lane, which means that they don't pass me close. This is even true of most of the idiots who honk and yell. When I ride to the far right in this situation, I get at least some cars passing me by mere inches almost every time. I like it better when they move into the next lane.

Yes of course. Only motorist's use of the road way matters and their time and convenience is of utmost importance. Bicyclist's use of the roads is completely unnecessary and should be banned altogether, right? The world will come to an end if a motorist has to wait a few seconds or, horror of horrors, a few minutes to find a safe place to pass.

The fact is that it is not hard to move over to pass safely, especially if the bicyclists are going really slow. 5mph is so slow that passing should be trivially easy. It must be really steep. I'm 47, asthmatic and and I ride a cheap touring bike. I'm not very fast but it generally takes a 10% or so grade to get me down to 5mph. On a much more common 6% grade I'm typically doing more like 8-10mph.

You seem to have a strange definition of the word "sharing".

Digital_Cowboy

My question is that if this is such a "dangerous" and "twisting and narrow road" than why does it have such a fast speed limit that traveling at 30 - 40MPH is considered to be "slow?" That road looks like one that I think that most any cyclist would take the lane on for their safety.

It does seem to be that he is one of those cyclists/motorists that seems to think that the only place for cyclists to be on the road is cowering in the gutter pan/hugging the curb. And that as soon as we hear the sound of an engine behind us that we'd better vacate the road as quickly as possible. Otherwise it'll be our "fault" if we get passed too closely or run off of the road.

I agree, if a cyclist is traveling at 5MPH they should be real easy to pass them.

That s/he does.

Today (Sunday) when I was out on my usual ride, I had a motorist who was kind enough to allow me to pass through the intersection. And as usual I waved a thanks in return. I ran into him again outside of the pizza joint that I stop off at on my ride home.

We were talking and he is bicycle friendly. As we were talking and I was thanking him and letting him know that we appreciate it when drivers are as considerate as he was. We also talked about how they (the city) was widening the sidewalk into a MUP. I explained to him that I would be inclined to use the MUP. Explaining that I usually travel too fast for it to be safe to be on the MUP. And he understood, as I used the example that as much as we don't appreciate traffic passing us at 40MPH with inches to spare, that he wouldn't appreciate having cyclists passing him on the MUP traveling at 15 - 20MPH with inches to spare, and not surprisingly he got it.

sudo bike

You can still be cited in California under CVC 21656 if you refuse to turn out when safe to do so, in order to allow faster traffic to pass if there is no other way for them to pass you safely, such as another lane or lane sharing (legally only when there are five or more vehicles waiting to pass).

I agree. I think there are plenty of situations where riding side by side doesn't make much difference (if you are in a situation where you have to take the lane anyway, having two bikes side by side won't matter in terms of blocking traffic), but I would consider it rude at best, illegal at worst, to ride side by side when road sharing is safely possible. It doesn't have to be war between us and drivers... you can cooperate and share roads safely.

sudo bike

Precisely. While you should know your rights, just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you should evoke it at every opportunity just because you can.

Chief

Six jours,
I can't let you have a pass on this comment.

The public roads are in fact for the enjoyment and private pursuits of all of us citizens! Unless someone has red and/or blue flashing lights on the roof, their "in-a-hurry" situation is no more important than my right to travel. It does not matter if someone is going to work or going to play, there is no hierarchy of travel.

Six jours

I've already said what I'm saying. The only ones who think the cyclists are in danger are the A&Sers. The cyclists themselves are fine with it.

It is safe to pass, as long as the cyclists are single file.


So I write that it's safe to pass cyclists on a particular road, and you interpret that to mean I support attempted murder? I can scarcely imagine what's going on in your head.

But as it happens, it's a teachable moment. The road on which that particular incident happened is extremely popular for recreational cycling. The behavior of cyclists over the last decade or so has resulted in pure hatred from local residents and motorists. Cyclists take over the whole road, urinate on resident's lawns, and just generally behave as if the whole place is their personal playground. The road actually is wide enough that cyclists can ride two-up and still allow safe passing, but they often take the middle of the road anyway, or ride three, four, or five abreast, or just in a big loose packs, giving everyone the finger, pounding on hoods, and just generally being as obnoxious as they possibly can. Incidents like the one with the doctor, while inexcusable, are also inevitable.

Six jours

Yes, I am. And I don't consider any one road user more important than another. I expect cooperation, rather than the "Cyclists can do anything they want and everyone else is secondary" attitude displayed by the typical A&Ser.



I don't notice that in the real world. It's only on this thread.

Six jours

I haven't ridden with every cyclist who has ever gone up Angeles Crest, but the hundreds that I have know have never expressed discomfort with it. The great majority, I am sure, would think ludicrous the idea that they should ride in the middle of that road. It's unbelievable to me that someone would argue poor sightlines - IOW, cliffs that block a motorists' view of the exit to a corner - justify someone riding in the middle of the road. I mean, think about it: a driver comes around a corner with the assumption, rather than the knowledge, that the road in front of him will be clear, and you want us to put a near-stationary cyclist in the middle of that road? It's insane.

If the buggy could be out of the road, then yes, it would be rude. But it can't, so it's not. The cyclists can be out of the road, at least in this scenario