Dchiefransom

Yes, it was the FedEx driver's fault, and when you are behind cyclists and waiting for it to be safe to pass, and leaving a good distance between them and you, just ignore those constant dirty looks over their shoulders at you while you're waiting for a safe place to pass. Also, just because they waive you around does not mean that it's safe for you to pass. Wait until YOU know that it's safe.

sknhgy 

Bite me, Rensho.

Narrow, windy road. Truck is being held up by cyclists "taking the lane." Driver sees an opportunity to pass; perhaps not the best opportunity. Driver begins pass, sees oncoming vehicle while passing, unwisely completes pass and forces oncoming driver (me) off the road.
Yes, it was legally the Fedex driver's fault. But still I think the cyclists could have been a little more courteous and, knowing that they are holding up traffic on a narrow, windy lane, let the trailing traffic through.

Believe it or not, I consider myself a VC cyclist. One of my bikes is a road bike. My point is that sometimes it makes sense to give up your right to the lane and let traffic go by. Especially if you are out on a joy ride. That's what I do. And I and my neighbors have experienced numerous instances when cyclists could have done the same but did not. That's one big reason that cyclists aren't liked around here. I try to be somewhat of an ambassador for cyclists by going out of my way to be courteous without putting myself in danger. I have heard too many local people express considerable dislike and annoyance at cyclists.
I would get annoyed if a farmer didn't pull his tractor over ( they always do) to let traffic go by when the opportunity presents itself. I don't see why cyclists cannot do the same.

wheel

+1

as indicated you should know the laws already if you drive.

genec

So how often do you encounter motorists you are "sure" are out for a joy ride that pull over for you?

cudak888 

As indicated by this forum, most drivers don't know the law.

-Kurt

Digital_Cowboy

I think based on the majority of comments that the majority of people here in BF would on a similar road take the lane as is their legal right and despite what you seem to think IS the safest thing to do as it alerts motorists that there IS something in the road ahead of them. And how do you know that these cyclists were just out for a "joy ride?"

What I find interesting is that you acknowledge that the the FedEx driver is the one who was in the wrong yet you are still blaming the cyclists. You even claim to be a cyclist yet instead of laying all of the blame where it belongs at the feet of the FedEx driver you are blaming the cyclists who were operating in a safe and legal manner. Saying in essence that for the convenience of the driver that they should have pulled over immediately to allow him/them to pass. Even going as far as to claim (without presumably knowing differently or not) that they were out for a "joy ride." Again how do you know that they were out for a "joy ride?"

What would your reaction have been if instead of illegally passing two cyclists riding two abreast that this FedEx driver instead had illegally passed an old and slow moving VW bug? Would you have blamed the driver of the bug for the FedEx drivers actions?

The FedEx driver was in a hurry, s/he couldn't wait until it was safe and legal to pass the two cyclists so s/he gambled that they had enough time to make a pass before encountering you. They/you loss because the FedEx drivers actions caused you to have to swerve into someone's freshly cut yard to avoid a head on collision with a FedEx truck. Yet, you continue to blame the innocent cyclists.

Given that this is a "narrow, windy road" that it is more likely then not that IF the cyclists been riding like you seem to think that they should have that the FedEx driver would have totally forced them off of the road, or worse had sideswiped them?

With friends/ambassador's like you who needs enemies? I'm sorry, but it doesn't really sound like you are being a good ambassador for cycling. What it does seem to be that you are saying is that bikes do not have any rights to the road and as soon as a car approaches them that they need to leave the road to accommodate the car. Because, hey after all the person on the bike is "just" out for a "joy ride." And isn't trying to get to work, or school or grocery shopping or running any of the other 100's of errands that people run everyday in their cars.

And I am sorry, but as others have said I do not think that riding to the extreme right side of a "narrow, and windy road" is the safest place for a cyclist to be. As others have said the safest spot for them to be is right where those two "awful, mean, selfish" cyclists were taking the lane so that approaching traffic could see them. And react accordingly, that the FedEx driver didn't is no fault of the cyclists.

sknhgy 

OK. I should never have started the name calling. I apologize. And people can dress any way they want to. Including me.

Still, I believe it makes sense for cyclists to pull over at times and let traffic go by. I've been held up numerous times by riders who could have easily pulled over and let traffic go by. And it happens to others and I hear them ***** about it.

I have worked with a local organization that is trying to promote cycling and one of the roadblocks they face is the local dislike of cyclists who clog up traffic. We have narrow roads.

^^^I think it is easy for a bicycle to pull over for traffic. It would be more difficult for an old VW bug to pull over.

It's just common sense. Bikes are very manuverable. I can do figure 8's with my bike in my one car garage. Try doing that with a VW. It's no problem for a bike to pull over.

Doohickie

What UPS driver???

fify

You're just pissed at the cyclists because the FedEx driver picked a bad time to pass them. The FedEx driver is still 123% at fault, regardless of what he was passing. You have no way to know how long the FedEx guy was behind the cyclists; maybe he had just come upon them and throttled around them full bore, never even giving the cyclists time to pull over. If the road wasn't wide enough to safely pass, he may have crossed over into your lane even if the cyclists had formed up single file. I can't see how you can call yourself a VC if you can't even grasp these concepts.

Chief

Unless there is a flashing blue or red light on our roof, all of us on the road are out for a "joy ride" !! Who is supposed to determine that (fill-in-the-blank's) destination is more important than mine?

DX-MAN

sknhgy, you can believe what you want about what other cyclists "ought" to do -- what you're expecting is them to give up their rights for yours. You ready to do the same for them? Didn't think so.

Listen, nobody out there OWES you any courtesy; you have NO entitlement just because you're traveling faster. Narrow roads with no shoulders? Campaign for change! Not feasible to do so? Live with it, it's not your private planet.

And... you really... REALLY... need to get over what other cyclists wear. I've experienced the flexibility advantage of wearing spandex, and it's made a long ride longer and more enjoyable. My personal best local MUP loop, 32 miles, was done in 1:49:30 on my full-suss MTB, wearing spandex. Baggies would likely have added at least 5-10 minutes to that. But you can wear what you like, as will I.

sknhgy 

Yes, I do give up my legal rights when I occasionally pull over to let traffic go by.

I am obviously taking an unpopular stand, but I dont feel that bikes ALWAYS share the same rights and responsibilities as motorized vehicles. Do you make a complete stop at all Stop signs? Signal every turn? Do you have turn signals? Lights? If bikers want to be equal then maybe we should all have our vehicles pass inspection.

I keep thinking back to the farm equipment. You say it would be OK for a tractor or combine to go down the road at 10mph for 10 or 20 miles and not occasionally move over for traffic? Thankfully, farmers have more courtesy than that.

So, legally I should be able to dress like a viking and ride a kids trike down the road and not pull over for anyone? You would not see anything strange about that?

electrik

If they were single file and the fedex truck passed them he still would have run you off the road. Fedex ****** passed unsafely.

You have an axe to grind with roadies - it's obvious, however today they are not responsible for the truck driver's actions.

Doohickie

But you don't know how long the truck was behind the cyclists. Instead of assigning all kinds of negative assumptions against the cyclists, why aren't you mad at the vehicle who actually broke the law?

For the record, I drive like farm equipment too. I go around a blind corner about a mile from my office. I will assertively take the lane on that corner and watch for oncoming traffic. A lot of the time, a car behind me will pass me by crossing the double yellow in the blind curve. If there is no oncoming traffic, no big deal; I move over to the right and give him some room. But if I see oncoming traffic, I signal to the car behind me to slow down (left arm out and down at a 45 degree angle, palm facing rearward, maybe a pump it a few times) and they get the idea. As soon as the oncoming lane is clear I'll give them room. If the double yellow has switched to dashed yellow, I'll even waive them around. But if the car passes me on the double yellow around a curve and hits an oncoming vehicle, it sure as heck isn't my fault.

sggoodri

I personally have pulled over on occasion to let backed up traffic pass if they have been waiting a short while.

But in my experience, most drivers who are willing to endanger oncoming drivers by passing at a bad location aren't willing to wait even a "short while."

Pulling off the road every few seconds isn't a viable option, nor is riding on the edge of a narrow lane inviting close passes.

The truth is, bicyclists often ride two abreast in narrow lanes to improve their safety by discouraging close passing and making themselves more conspicuous. That this increases safety for the cyclist is hard for many motorists to believe, but it's true. The consequence is that some motorists may feel inconvenienced, and some motorists who feel inconvenienced may be willing to endanger other motorists. American society doesn't care if cyclists are endangered, but if motorists are inconvenienced or occasionally endangered by impatient motorists, they seek to ban the cause of the inconvenience, and shift the danger back to cyclists where they think it belongs, even if net safety worsens.

cyclodan

Man I get so sick of people breaking out the old "why don't bikers obey the law if they want respect" arguement!
I imagine 90% + of all drivers speed, tailgate, roll stop signs, fail to use turn signals or somehow violate traffic laws regularly. Why do you feel that cyclist somehow need to be held to higher standards?

"Bite me" indeed!!

electrik

You think they behave dangerously now... if motorists have to slow down and wait for 5 seconds the likelihood of a dangerous pass will double for every second thereafter they have to wait until at about 15seconds where the typical driver will explode in a fit of rage. In fact, this rage and risk effect is cumulative based on all occasions the driver has had to act responsibly that day.


Can you tell that again i was passed by another driver whose mirrors were within 6" of my handlebar at 70km/h with oncoming traffic - oh well... it was a nice Sunday ride up until then. Having your life threatened sometimes ruins the day. Reminds me of the time I was getting my hair coiffed and a woman was going on about road cyclists riding two abreast and how she couldn't split the lane and had to wait and that next time she was just going to just bump them all over instead of honk at them. Then the **** was onto how roadies are all wimps. Really I feel no guilt about riding two abreast if the road is too narrow for passing.

OP is totally out of line blaming those cyclists for the fedex driver's dangerous move... really, just plain out of line.

sknhgy 

That driver had already begun his pass when I came into the picture. The road is a long stretch of narrow windyness. I'm just sayin' if it was me I would have moved over and let him go by instead of staying two abreast and not even making an effort.

If I am taking the lane against a vehicle I sure as hell don't want anyone or anything between me and the ditch, in case I need an out. In drivers ed they always tell you to have an "out" available.

Do I have an axe to grind with roadies? I think they could do more to ease the flow of local traffic.

electrik

A tyrant will use any excuse. It doesn't matter if you cross your t's and dot your i's... they'll still do you wrong. Motorists do what they want because they wield the physical power of superior violence. This is something every prisoner learns about guards and a lot of the time i feel like a prisoner out there on the road.

It's still a jungle out there.

electrik

You're assuming that the roadies wouldn't have ever pulled over.

How about the fedex driver... what was his "out" - running the cyclists off the road? What was his business driving into the oncoming lane around a blind corner.

The cyclists aren't to blame. It makes about as much sense to blame the cyclists are is does to blame a horse and buggy or a broken down car. The fedex driver was too aggressive and careless, he almost caused a head-on collision by not passing with due care!

mikeybikes

Don't forget your banana.

electrik

Huh? My banana is always attached.

Digital_Cowboy

IF it is safe for them to do so, yes. Obviously these two did not feel that it was safe for them to pull over where they were. Who are you to second guess what their thought process was? You obviously weren't one of them. How do you know that from where they were sitting that the road to their right was clear and safe for them to pull over?

If you have narrow roads, then guess what taking the lane and riding two abreast IS the safest place for one or more cyclist to be. Is that really hard a concept for you to grasp?

Okay, what if instead of being a pair of cyclists who were illegally and unsafely passed by an impatient truck driver it was a pair of motorcyclists who were behaving in the same manner? They have the same maneuverability as we do. Plus they have horsepower that we don't have.

IF it is safe for them to do so. They (the two cyclists) obviously didn't feel that it was safe for them to pull over. There are sections of road that it may "look safe" from a cagers point of view but from the saddle of a bike it is an entirely different landscape. IF as you claim that you are a VC yourself you should know this.

Digital_Cowboy

If I can do so safely I will as well as I think others here will do. But MY safety takes priority over someone else connivance. That is the bottom line, if it is not safe for me to pull over I am not going to pull over no matter how many cars there are stacked up behind me.

I guess it's a good thing that you don't make the laws, because unless I am mistaken most states have already given us cyclists the same rights and responsibilities as all other legal vehicles on the road.

You keep going back to farm equipment, IF you really want to do that then I believe (again if I am not mistaken) that there was a time when cars first came out that they had to pull over to accommodate the slower moving farm equipment. As well as doing such things as not only stopping but firing a rifle/shotgun into the air to warn them that they were on the road, also again IF I am not mistaken there are a lot of states/cities/counties where those laws are still on the books. Maybe it is time for the LEOs to start enforcing those laws.

Whatever floats your boat, whatever floats your boat.

Also considering that it has been determined in at least one recent court case that bicycles ARE part of traffic and ARE moving at a reasonable speed that they cannot be cited for impeding traffic then how are they "impeding" traffic?

Digital_Cowboy

Sadly, I don't think he gets it, I think he will continue to think that the cyclists were out for a "joy ride" and were an inconvenience to everyone else out on the road. And that cyclists should always get out of the way regardless of how many cars are behind them.

It does seem like that, doesn't it? You are correct the cyclists didn't do anything wrong, yet he is piling all of the blame onto their shoulders.

Digital_Cowboy

As I think most of us will do IF it is safe to do so.

Exactly, as sadly today "everyone is in a hurry to get nowhere fast." And anything that slows them down even a second is unacceptable.

Again, exactly if we did that (even the "joy riders") we'd never get anywhere sknhgy is that what you want? For the roads to be so bike unfriendly that we can't make any headway at all?

A truth that the OP seems to be missing entirely.