Any research re: single file v. two abreast?
03-08-18, 02:27 PM
#26
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Your suggesting that cyclists should be in the traffic direction and enforcement business by deciding when we feel drivers can pass us or not. That isn't how our road system and laws work.
The road exists for use as transportation - you don't get to play football in the road if you get there first. The purpose of transportation isn't the issue, but riding abreast isn't a necessity for transportation.
Cars are obligated to wait until it is safe to pass. That isn't the same as saying that cyclists have a right to determine when to allow drivers to pass. The road system works on the premise that everyone is making their own good judgments unless there is a signal or police traffic director. Blocking the road by riding abreast is blocking the road and the cyclists usurping the other road users' discretion.
I get the impulse to forcefully block cars from passing when you don't think they should by riding abreast, but that really isn't much different than a car getting next to you and pushing you into the right side of the lane where they think you ought to ride. It is a use of force that no road user has the right to. Drivers are right to be pissed when their ability to make their own judgments about how to drive in the traffic conditions are being interfered with by abreast riders where that is illegal.
The road exists for use as transportation - you don't get to play football in the road if you get there first. The purpose of transportation isn't the issue, but riding abreast isn't a necessity for transportation.
Cars are obligated to wait until it is safe to pass. That isn't the same as saying that cyclists have a right to determine when to allow drivers to pass. The road system works on the premise that everyone is making their own good judgments unless there is a signal or police traffic director. Blocking the road by riding abreast is blocking the road and the cyclists usurping the other road users' discretion.
I get the impulse to forcefully block cars from passing when you don't think they should by riding abreast, but that really isn't much different than a car getting next to you and pushing you into the right side of the lane where they think you ought to ride. It is a use of force that no road user has the right to. Drivers are right to be pissed when their ability to make their own judgments about how to drive in the traffic conditions are being interfered with by abreast riders where that is illegal.
Comparing operating a slow moving vehicle in a legal manor on the roadway (whether it be for recreation or for utility- this purpose is unknown and not your business) to playing football is a poor analogy.
Riding two abreast often has operational advantages, it’s easier to communicate with one another, traffic coming up from behind sees them sooner, when passing the length of the cyclists is shorter than single file. Singling up on most roadways makes no sense in most cases, the faster moving traffic needs to change lanes or make a partial lane change when the cyclists are riding single file- even if they’re towards the right portion of the lane. But I suppose no amount of explaining this to you will help you understand. Riding two abreast isn’t “blocking” the road either.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand bicyclists operating on the roadway are a part of traffic too? So long as they are moving they aren’t blocking anybody. Bicyclists have the right to maintain their safety cushion and of an asservice lane position or riding two abreast is beneficial for them to do so than so be it.
Do you even ride a bike?
03-08-18, 02:50 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4409 Post(s)
Liked 1,563 Times
in
1,026 Posts
Comparing operating a slow moving vehicle in a legal manor on the roadway (whether it be for recreation or for utility- this purpose is unknown and not your business) to playing football is a poor analogy.
Riding two abreast often has operational advantages, it’s easier to communicate with one another, traffic coming up from behind sees them sooner, when passing the length of the cyclists is shorter than single file. Singling up on most roadways makes no sense in most cases, the faster moving traffic needs to change lanes or make a partial lane change when the cyclists are riding single file- even if they’re towards the right portion of the lane. But I suppose no amount of explaining this to you will help you understand. Riding two abreast isn’t “blocking” the road either.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand bicyclists operating on the roadway are a part of traffic too? So long as they are moving they aren’t blocking anybody. Bicyclists have the right to maintain their safety cushion and of an asservice lane position or riding two abreast is beneficial for them to do so than so be it.
Do you even ride a bike?
Riding two abreast often has operational advantages, it’s easier to communicate with one another, traffic coming up from behind sees them sooner, when passing the length of the cyclists is shorter than single file. Singling up on most roadways makes no sense in most cases, the faster moving traffic needs to change lanes or make a partial lane change when the cyclists are riding single file- even if they’re towards the right portion of the lane. But I suppose no amount of explaining this to you will help you understand. Riding two abreast isn’t “blocking” the road either.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand bicyclists operating on the roadway are a part of traffic too? So long as they are moving they aren’t blocking anybody. Bicyclists have the right to maintain their safety cushion and of an asservice lane position or riding two abreast is beneficial for them to do so than so be it.
Do you even ride a bike?
But the point I was making is illustrated by the bold above: Roadways are not social clubs, and if the only reason you have for slowing traffic is that you want to talk to the other cyclist, you are no longer utilizing the road for just transportation.
I ride abreast and single file all the time. And I, like most cyclists who ride in the real world, know that there are times when riding abreast makes it harder for cars to pass, and it is generally safer for cyclists to not have a line of increasingly aggravated drivers building behind them.
I will assume that you are pretending otherwise to make a point rather than accusing you of having never ridden a bicycle.
03-08-18, 03:01 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18378 Post(s)
Liked 4,512 Times
in
3,354 Posts
Thank you. People ask this type of question all of the time without thinking about what they're actually asking.
OP: Think about what you're asking of the "study". You want a study comparing the "safety" of riding 2 abreast vs. single file. Ignoring, for the moment, that you have not defined what "safety" means, for the sake of argument I'm going to assume that you mean "bicycle accident rate (hit by car) per mile traveled" (even this is probably not precise enough).
In order to compare the two riding modes, you'd have to have the following data:
Miles traveled by bicycles riding single file.
Miles traveled by bicycles riding 2 abreast.
Accidents between autos and bicycles while bicycles were traveling single file.
Accidents between autos and bicycles while bicycles were traveling 2 abreast.
Then you'd have to control for a variety of additional factors where the likelihood of the accident is not affected by single file vs 2 abreast riding, for example:
- accidents between cyclists and oncoming car
- accidents between cyclists and car entering the roadway
- etc.
The data needed are not collected. I don't think that there is any database listing the number of cycling miles single file, 2 abreast, 3 abreast, etc. So, you'd have to come up with a methodology for estimating the numbers, and you'd have to justify the methodology.
Also, accident reports are not collected this way - there is no database listing car/bike accidents and whether the cyclists were riding single file or 2 abreast (or 3, or 4, or....), nor many other factors that might affect whether or not single file vs 2 abreast might have an effect on the likelihood of the accident. So, the researcher would have to read all auto-bike accident reports individually to determine whether they fit into the data set. Again, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to formulate unambiguous criteria, so the researcher would probably be forced to make judgments that would be open to challenge.
Once all of that was done, they would have to determine if there were a sufficient number of incidents so that the results would be statistically significant.
I'm sure I'm vastly oversimplifying, but only after all of the above were done would the study mean anything. This is also why it takes work to determine if you can believe someone when they say "Studies have shown....". There are a lot of BS "studies" that prove absolutely nothing.
Controlled scientific experiments are one thing. Statistical studies of data, especially of data collected for reasons unrelated (or only weakly related) to the purpose of the study, are a whole different kettle of fish.
OP: Think about what you're asking of the "study". You want a study comparing the "safety" of riding 2 abreast vs. single file. Ignoring, for the moment, that you have not defined what "safety" means, for the sake of argument I'm going to assume that you mean "bicycle accident rate (hit by car) per mile traveled" (even this is probably not precise enough).
In order to compare the two riding modes, you'd have to have the following data:
Miles traveled by bicycles riding single file.
Miles traveled by bicycles riding 2 abreast.
Accidents between autos and bicycles while bicycles were traveling single file.
Accidents between autos and bicycles while bicycles were traveling 2 abreast.
Then you'd have to control for a variety of additional factors where the likelihood of the accident is not affected by single file vs 2 abreast riding, for example:
- accidents between cyclists and oncoming car
- accidents between cyclists and car entering the roadway
- etc.
The data needed are not collected. I don't think that there is any database listing the number of cycling miles single file, 2 abreast, 3 abreast, etc. So, you'd have to come up with a methodology for estimating the numbers, and you'd have to justify the methodology.
Also, accident reports are not collected this way - there is no database listing car/bike accidents and whether the cyclists were riding single file or 2 abreast (or 3, or 4, or....), nor many other factors that might affect whether or not single file vs 2 abreast might have an effect on the likelihood of the accident. So, the researcher would have to read all auto-bike accident reports individually to determine whether they fit into the data set. Again, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to formulate unambiguous criteria, so the researcher would probably be forced to make judgments that would be open to challenge.
Once all of that was done, they would have to determine if there were a sufficient number of incidents so that the results would be statistically significant.
I'm sure I'm vastly oversimplifying, but only after all of the above were done would the study mean anything. This is also why it takes work to determine if you can believe someone when they say "Studies have shown....". There are a lot of BS "studies" that prove absolutely nothing.
Controlled scientific experiments are one thing. Statistical studies of data, especially of data collected for reasons unrelated (or only weakly related) to the purpose of the study, are a whole different kettle of fish.
One could, of course, isolate all "group of cyclist" accidents, and look at how many cyclists were involved, lane position, etc, but one would still have to know miles travelled to get any truly meaningful data.
There are also reasons why a car would be most likely to hit, say the rear rider in a single-file line, or the left rider when going side-by-side, and leave the other riders unharmed.
A major professional cycling team could do a randomized trial, but hopefully they're not getting hit by cars enough for the statistics to be meaningful, and if they are getting hit, then they need to make safety changes such as using lead/following vehicles.
03-08-18, 03:11 PM
#29
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Montreal
Posts: 13
Bikes: 94 Bianchi Volpe, 2014 Tarmac Pro
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Quebec prohibits riding double and limits the group to 15. Given that we have the 1 1/2 meter safe passing law, the car has to pretty much change lanes to pass anyway so it doesn't make much sense. In my bike club we are usually in groups of 10 or 12 and it seems to me that passing 6 bike lengths would be preferable to 12. But as someone above said it doesn't matter much if they're going to ignore the passing distance and squeeze by anyway...
03-08-18, 03:43 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18378 Post(s)
Liked 4,512 Times
in
3,354 Posts
Kids play ball on the roads all the time. They're taught to step aside when traffic comes, rather than keeping playing on the road while a line of cars wait to get past the game.
Cyclists fall into two basic categories, "transportation cyclists", and "recreational/sport cyclists", although the lines between the two can become blurred.
Tractors, of course, are on the roads too, but they're using the roads for transportation, and not sport.
Perhaps many drivers interpret all cyclists as falling into the "sport" category, especially the ones that are wearing fancy jerseys. And, of course, all motorists are using the roads for transportation... well, except those that are using them for recreation (not that traveling to a recreational place isn't important).
Anyway, seeing two riders gabbing away likely makes them look more like the kids playing ball in the street than looking like "legitimate road transportation users", whatever that is.
People also get into the "must pass a cyclist" mindset, and seem to forget about basic driving skills, and looking for a place with adequate visibility, and traffic clearing to safely pass. And, that second cyclist just gets in the way.
Close passes? I'm much happier of a car passes me 2 feet away at 20 MPH than one that passes me 2 feet away at 70 MPH. But, unfortunately some drivers get it, and some don't.
03-08-18, 03:49 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4409 Post(s)
Liked 1,563 Times
in
1,026 Posts
Riding abreast is just fine in my book if it has zero perceived or actual impact on traffic flow by a reasonable person. If the lane is huge, the road nearly empty, the passing visibility long, etc, then there's no reason a reasonable driver can't treat the two bikes like a tractor or anything else they have to get around.
I just don't agree that cyclists have some sort of god-given right to the whole lane for chit chat, or that riding abreast is a method for controlling drivers.
I just don't agree that cyclists have some sort of god-given right to the whole lane for chit chat, or that riding abreast is a method for controlling drivers.
03-08-18, 04:37 PM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Southern Appalachians
Posts: 453
Bikes: A hauler, a commuter, and a steamroller.
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
One unsafe pass per day, then I'm taking the lane. Alone or with someone else. It is safer for me, and if it is a problem for the driver they should have left sooner.
03-08-18, 04:43 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4409 Post(s)
Liked 1,563 Times
in
1,026 Posts
03-08-18, 04:57 PM
#34
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Your post is crass and demeans you, new guy.
But the point I was making is illustrated by the bold above: Roadways are not social clubs, and if the only reason you have for slowing traffic is that you want to talk to the other cyclist, you are no longer utilizing the road for just transportation.
I ride abreast and single file all the time. And I, like most cyclists who ride in the real world, know that there are times when riding abreast makes it harder for cars to pass, and it is generally safer for cyclists to not have a line of increasingly aggravated drivers building behind them.
I will assume that you are pretending otherwise to make a point rather than accusing you of having never ridden a bicycle.
But the point I was making is illustrated by the bold above: Roadways are not social clubs, and if the only reason you have for slowing traffic is that you want to talk to the other cyclist, you are no longer utilizing the road for just transportation.
I ride abreast and single file all the time. And I, like most cyclists who ride in the real world, know that there are times when riding abreast makes it harder for cars to pass, and it is generally safer for cyclists to not have a line of increasingly aggravated drivers building behind them.
I will assume that you are pretending otherwise to make a point rather than accusing you of having never ridden a bicycle.
The fact I’m a new user here has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments or the content of my posts. If anybody’s posts are crass and demeaning, they’re yours. Insisting my character is demeaning is an ad-hominem attack.
Nobody here is saying the roadways and social clubs. Get this assumption out of your head.
When other traffic comes up on a group of slower moving vehicle operators the slower moving vehicle operators have priority. First come first served. This is traffic law 101. From there it’s the obligation of the drivers of faster moving vehicles wishing to pass to wait until it’s safe or conduct the pass safely.
The reason I asked if you’d ever ridden a bicycle is thaycyour arguments mirror that of people who don’t understand that bicyclists belong on roadways and are allowed to use them. It didn’t seem that you understood any of these basic concepts. Your arguments stink of marginalizing anti cyclist bigotry.
03-08-18, 05:04 PM
#35
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
03-08-18, 05:07 PM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18378 Post(s)
Liked 4,512 Times
in
3,354 Posts
The reason I asked if you’d ever ridden a bicycle is thaycyour arguments mirror that of people who don’t understand that bicyclists belong on roadways and are allowed to use them. It didn’t seem that you understood any of these basic concepts. Your arguments stink of marginalizing anti cyclist bigotry.
Personally, it makes me uncomfortable to feel that my actions are an inconvenience to others, so I work to try to minimize any negative impact that I will have on others.
I also try to explore both the likely views and attitudes of a cyclist towards drivers or drivers towards a cyclist.
03-08-18, 05:27 PM
#37
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
One has to look at "sharing the road" from both the viewpoint of cyclists and drivers, as well as cyclists who also drive (or drivers who also cycle).
Personally, it makes me uncomfortable to feel that my actions are an inconvenience to others, so I work to try to minimize any negative impact that I will have on others.
I also try to explore both the likely views and attitudes of a cyclist towards drivers or drivers towards a cyclist.
Personally, it makes me uncomfortable to feel that my actions are an inconvenience to others, so I work to try to minimize any negative impact that I will have on others.
I also try to explore both the likely views and attitudes of a cyclist towards drivers or drivers towards a cyclist.
Cyclists are drivers. Those who drive motor vehicles are motorists.
Both types of drivers have equal access to the roads and the right to use them safely.
Road users are inconvenienced or delayed all the time by other road users for a variety of reasons. Why do you single out bicyclists because they tend to ride slower, take up less space or that some ride for sport?
03-08-18, 05:58 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 218 Times
in
171 Posts
One has to look at "sharing the road" from both the viewpoint of cyclists and drivers, as well as cyclists who also drive (or drivers who also cycle).
Personally, it makes me uncomfortable to feel that my actions are an inconvenience to others, so I work to try to minimize any negative impact that I will have on others.
I also try to explore both the likely views and attitudes of a cyclist towards drivers or drivers towards a cyclist.
Personally, it makes me uncomfortable to feel that my actions are an inconvenience to others, so I work to try to minimize any negative impact that I will have on others.
I also try to explore both the likely views and attitudes of a cyclist towards drivers or drivers towards a cyclist.
“Sharing”also means whoever had something first gets to keep using it until they are finished using it. In the case of riding down a road, the person in front was there first, the people behind wishing to use that same space need to wait.
“Sharing”does not mean “get out of the way” or compromise one’s safety in the name of convenience of to not trigger others.
Cyclists are drivers. Those who drive motor vehicles are motorists.
Both types of drivers have equal access to the roads and the right to use them safely.
Road users are inconvenienced or delayed all the time by other road users for a variety of reasons. Why do you single out bicyclists because they tend to ride slower, take up less space or that some ride for sport?
“Sharing”does not mean “get out of the way” or compromise one’s safety in the name of convenience of to not trigger others.
Cyclists are drivers. Those who drive motor vehicles are motorists.
Both types of drivers have equal access to the roads and the right to use them safely.
Road users are inconvenienced or delayed all the time by other road users for a variety of reasons. Why do you single out bicyclists because they tend to ride slower, take up less space or that some ride for sport?
…Personally, I find any discussions about cycling with motorists futile, especially those exchanged while en route, often with hostility. When off the bike, e.g. at work they are usually pleasant, but vacuous, for example when I’m called a saint.
When they complain, it’s often about cyclists riding two or more abreast, no lights, ninjas, etc…valid complaints IMO. [However]
When they complain, it’s often about cyclists riding two or more abreast, no lights, ninjas, etc…valid complaints IMO. [However]
Regarding the question of pragmatism, though I probably too obsequiously favor keeping the drivers happy by staying FRAP.
On a few rides over the past few days I have tried out the more aggressive position, in the right tire track, with very good results. I can easily monitor the driver's responses in my rearview mirror...so far no aggressive maneuvers or honking.
I also like your strategy of gently nudging towards the center, then relenting towards the right. And I always give a wave to the cooperative driver, either before or after their pass.
On a few rides over the past few days I have tried out the more aggressive position, in the right tire track, with very good results. I can easily monitor the driver's responses in my rearview mirror...so far no aggressive maneuvers or honking.
I also like your strategy of gently nudging towards the center, then relenting towards the right. And I always give a wave to the cooperative driver, either before or after their pass.
Last edited by Jim from Boston; 03-08-18 at 07:06 PM. Reason: As I read the following posts, my rating of Fjl's quoted post diminished from 0.5.
03-08-18, 06:27 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
===================
When other traffic comes up on a group of slower moving vehicle operators the slower moving vehicle operators have priority. First come first served. This is traffic law 101. From there it’s the obligation of the drivers of faster moving vehicles wishing to pass to wait until it’s safe or conduct the pass safely.
It's not "anything goes" for slower traffic. Being "first" doesn't let them do anything they want.
In the US, cyclists riding abreast are legally required to cease doing so if there is other faster traffic.
In the US, cyclists are legally required to keep to the right if there is other faster traffic (excepting having certain reasons not to).
Slow moving vehicles are required to keep to the right and, in some states, are required (in certain defined situations) to pull off to let traffic pass.
There are also "impeding traffic" laws (these don't apply to bicyclists riding to the right).
Many (if not all) states have require drivers in the left lane to move to the right lane if there is faster traffic.
Last edited by njkayaker; 03-08-18 at 06:37 PM.
03-08-18, 06:37 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4409 Post(s)
Liked 1,563 Times
in
1,026 Posts
“Sharing” also means whoever had something first gets to keep using it until they are finished using it. In the case of riding down a road, the person in front was there first, the people behind wishing to use that same space neeed to wait. “Sharing” does not mean “get out of the way” or compromise one’s safety in the name of convenience of to not trigger others.
Cyclists are drivers. Those who drive motor vehicles are motorists.
Both types of drivers have equal access to the roads and the right to use them safely.
Road users are inconvenienced or delayed all the time by other road users for a variety of reasons. Why do you single out bicyclists because they tend to ride slower, take up less space or that some ride for sport?
Cyclists are drivers. Those who drive motor vehicles are motorists.
Both types of drivers have equal access to the roads and the right to use them safely.
Road users are inconvenienced or delayed all the time by other road users for a variety of reasons. Why do you single out bicyclists because they tend to ride slower, take up less space or that some ride for sport?
Ultimately, you are like the Chinese guy trying to stop the tanks in Tienanmen Square. Your righteousness does not translate into any sort of protection from 4000 pound cars. But your good behavior buys the same from drivers.
It takes seconds for 4 riders to go from abreast to a line. If the group is much larger, than hopefully the road chosen for the ride was carefully selected for its low traffic.
Do you even ride a bike?
But I suppose no amount of explaining this to you will help you understand.
03-09-18, 10:46 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 728
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 365 Post(s)
Liked 419 Times
in
248 Posts
Typically, there's a lot of binary thinking in this thread (as someone already said).
- Sometimes, it is legal and safe to ride single file
- Sometimes, it is legal and safe to ride side-by-side
- Sometimes, it is not safe to ride single file
- Sometimes, it is legal, but not safe, to ride side-by-side
- Sometimes, it is not legal but safe to ride side-by-side
- Sometimes, motorists get angry at cyclists operating their bicycles legally and safely
- Sometimes, cyclists go out of their way to accommodate motorists
- Sometimes, cyclists evaluate the situation and determine that their safety dictates that they operate their bicycle in a way that some motorists might consider impolite/inconsiderate/"entitled"/etc.
- Sometimes, cyclists act like d!cks and go out of their way to inconvenience motorists
- Sometimes, motorists use their cars as weapons to threaten cyclists
- And so on, and so on.
There is no single way of riding a bike that is appropriate in all situations. I'm not going to sit here at a keyboard and tell anyone that they're doing it wrong, because I haven't been where they were, when they were, under the traffic conditions, visibility conditions, and other situations affecting how they rode, I'm not familiar with what one can expect from other cyclists or drivers in the area, etc.
If someone says "my experience is that, if riding in a group, it is best to single-up when a car approaches", I don't know how I can say "no, you should always stay side-by-side because blah, blah, blah".
If someone says "my experience is that, if riding in a group it is best to ride side-by-side when a car approaches", I don't know how I can say "no, you should always single-up because blah, blah, blah".
There is good information in this thread, about why, in some situations, it might be a good idea to ride side by side. And about why, in some situations, it might be a good idea to single-up. Unfortunately, the information tends to get drowned out by the noise of people saying "you're an idiot, I'm right and you're wrong".
------------
- Sometimes, it is legal and safe to ride single file
- Sometimes, it is legal and safe to ride side-by-side
- Sometimes, it is not safe to ride single file
- Sometimes, it is legal, but not safe, to ride side-by-side
- Sometimes, it is not legal but safe to ride side-by-side
- Sometimes, motorists get angry at cyclists operating their bicycles legally and safely
- Sometimes, cyclists go out of their way to accommodate motorists
- Sometimes, cyclists evaluate the situation and determine that their safety dictates that they operate their bicycle in a way that some motorists might consider impolite/inconsiderate/"entitled"/etc.
- Sometimes, cyclists act like d!cks and go out of their way to inconvenience motorists
- Sometimes, motorists use their cars as weapons to threaten cyclists
- And so on, and so on.
There is no single way of riding a bike that is appropriate in all situations. I'm not going to sit here at a keyboard and tell anyone that they're doing it wrong, because I haven't been where they were, when they were, under the traffic conditions, visibility conditions, and other situations affecting how they rode, I'm not familiar with what one can expect from other cyclists or drivers in the area, etc.
If someone says "my experience is that, if riding in a group, it is best to single-up when a car approaches", I don't know how I can say "no, you should always stay side-by-side because blah, blah, blah".
If someone says "my experience is that, if riding in a group it is best to ride side-by-side when a car approaches", I don't know how I can say "no, you should always single-up because blah, blah, blah".
There is good information in this thread, about why, in some situations, it might be a good idea to ride side by side. And about why, in some situations, it might be a good idea to single-up. Unfortunately, the information tends to get drowned out by the noise of people saying "you're an idiot, I'm right and you're wrong".
------------
03-09-18, 09:31 PM
#42
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You are operating in a theoretical world where your "ownership" of the lane is binary. The fact of the matter is that when you do things that appear to be unjust, driver's are more likely to put your life at risk with the way they drive in reaction. When you signal that you are creating the most passable grouping of riders possible, drivers will react more reasonably to an inability to pass, and will pass you later with more clearance and less acceleration.
Ultimately, you are like the Chinese guy trying to stop the tanks in Tienanmen Square. Your righteousness does not translate into any sort of protection from 4000 pound cars. But your good behavior buys the same from drivers.
It takes seconds for 4 riders to go from abreast to a line. If the group is much larger, than hopefully the road chosen for the ride was carefully selected for its low traffic.
Not the way to start on the right foot with me or anyone else, here. You should make this a learning moment and not repeat this kind of behavior.
Ultimately, you are like the Chinese guy trying to stop the tanks in Tienanmen Square. Your righteousness does not translate into any sort of protection from 4000 pound cars. But your good behavior buys the same from drivers.
It takes seconds for 4 riders to go from abreast to a line. If the group is much larger, than hopefully the road chosen for the ride was carefully selected for its low traffic.
Not the way to start on the right foot with me or anyone else, here. You should make this a learning moment and not repeat this kind of behavior.
Enough with the “new guy” stuff and “learning” experiences too. You have some things to learn yourself. Your lack of understanding, as that of others here is not benefiting cyclists using the roadways. The reason I asked if you’d ever even ridden a bikes because your posts clearly communicated you didn’t understand fundamental key concepts about bicycling. Search for “cyclist inferiority”
Other posters supporting you are no better. Insisting one driving a bicycle on the roadway with cars is equivalent to Tiananmen Square is asinine too. The virus of fear and irrationality is evident.
I’ve wondered for years why most cycling advocates come and go from this site and now I see why. Many have done great things and made great sacrifices for all of us too. You’re welcome.
A colleague once called it “the peanut gallery” of cycling discussion forums. It’s quite appropriate.
03-09-18, 09:42 PM
#43
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
You need to stop misunderstanding and read the words written. What I’ve presented *is* backed by top cycling rights advocates. These are not ideas I invented. [SKIP]
I’ve wondered for years why most cycling advocates come and go from this site and now I see why. Many have done great things and made great sacrifices for all of us too. You’re welcome.
A colleague once called it “the peanut gallery” of cycling discussion forums. It’s quite appropriate.
I’ve wondered for years why most cycling advocates come and go from this site and now I see why. Many have done great things and made great sacrifices for all of us too. You’re welcome.
A colleague once called it “the peanut gallery” of cycling discussion forums. It’s quite appropriate.
Good Gawd, lighten up on the Holy Roller line of BS!
Sounds like the great ideas invented by so-called cycling rights advocates of the Effective Cycling persuasion who have allegedly done great things and made sacrifices for us all.
03-09-18, 11:12 PM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4409 Post(s)
Liked 1,563 Times
in
1,026 Posts
You need to stop misunderstanding and read the words written. What I’ve presented *is* backed by top cycling rights advocates. These are not ideas I invented.
Enough with the “new guy” stuff and “learning” experiences too. You have some things to learn yourself. Your lack of understanding, as that of others here is not benefiting cyclists using the roadways. The reason I asked if you’d ever even ridden a bikes because your posts clearly communicated you didn’t understand fundamental key concepts about bicycling. Search for “cyclist inferiority”
Other posters supporting you are no better. Insisting one driving a bicycle on the roadway with cars is equivalent to Tiananmen Square is asinine too. The virus of fear and irrationality is evident.
I’ve wondered for years why most cycling advocates come and go from this site and now I see why. Many have done great things and made great sacrifices for all of us too. You’re welcome.
A colleague once called it “the peanut gallery” of cycling discussion forums. It’s quite appropriate.
Enough with the “new guy” stuff and “learning” experiences too. You have some things to learn yourself. Your lack of understanding, as that of others here is not benefiting cyclists using the roadways. The reason I asked if you’d ever even ridden a bikes because your posts clearly communicated you didn’t understand fundamental key concepts about bicycling. Search for “cyclist inferiority”
Other posters supporting you are no better. Insisting one driving a bicycle on the roadway with cars is equivalent to Tiananmen Square is asinine too. The virus of fear and irrationality is evident.
I’ve wondered for years why most cycling advocates come and go from this site and now I see why. Many have done great things and made great sacrifices for all of us too. You’re welcome.
A colleague once called it “the peanut gallery” of cycling discussion forums. It’s quite appropriate.
You are clearly a vibrant personality whose communications and leadership skills have upper management written all over them. Do we have Covey to thank?
Are you on any "Heroes of Bike Advocacy" collectible trading cards?
03-10-18, 07:31 AM
#45
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
03-12-18, 11:06 AM
#46
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Just because some states, like mine, allow cyclists to ride two abreast doesn't mean it's the best thing to do in all circumstances.
In my view, road users are a sort of community and those who promote an us-versus-them mentality do little to improve safety for road cyclists. In most cases, not all, simple courtesy enhances safety.
Ask yourself this: if a group of pedestrians were walking down a protected bike lane obstructing you, wouldn't you expect them to make room for you to pass? If they made arguments like "we have a right to socialize", would that convince you that they shouldn't have to single up until you pass them?
Start with that as a model for what cyclist conduct should be.
Now, sure, if it's easy for cars to move left to pass two cyclists riding abreast, there's plenty of room for discussion. On a busy road with frequent oncoming traffic, though, or a road with a center divider where cars can't safely pass, why not just single up as a courtesy?
The best advocacy doesn't always mean shouting the loudest and fighting for every square inch of road. Sometimes, reasonableness is the most effective approach.
In my view, road users are a sort of community and those who promote an us-versus-them mentality do little to improve safety for road cyclists. In most cases, not all, simple courtesy enhances safety.
Ask yourself this: if a group of pedestrians were walking down a protected bike lane obstructing you, wouldn't you expect them to make room for you to pass? If they made arguments like "we have a right to socialize", would that convince you that they shouldn't have to single up until you pass them?
Start with that as a model for what cyclist conduct should be.
Now, sure, if it's easy for cars to move left to pass two cyclists riding abreast, there's plenty of room for discussion. On a busy road with frequent oncoming traffic, though, or a road with a center divider where cars can't safely pass, why not just single up as a courtesy?
The best advocacy doesn't always mean shouting the loudest and fighting for every square inch of road. Sometimes, reasonableness is the most effective approach.
03-12-18, 11:33 AM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 218 Times
in
171 Posts
Just because some states, like mine, allow cyclists to ride two abreast doesn't mean it's the best thing to do in all circumstances.
In my view, road users are a sort of community and those who promote an us-versus-them mentality do little to improve safety for road cyclists. In most cases, not all, simple courtesy enhances safety.
Ask yourself this: if a group of pedestrians were walking down a protected bike lane obstructing you, wouldn't you expect them to make room for you to pass? If they made arguments like "we have a right to socialize", would that convince you that they shouldn't have to single up until you pass them?
Start with that as a model for what cyclist conduct should be.
Now, sure, if it's easy for cars to move left to pass two cyclists riding abreast, there's plenty of room for discussion. On a busy road with frequent oncoming traffic, though, or a road with a center divider where cars can't safely pass, why not just single up as a courtesy?
The best advocacy doesn't always mean shouting the loudest and fighting for every square inch of road. Sometimes, reasonableness is the most effective approach.
In my view, road users are a sort of community and those who promote an us-versus-them mentality do little to improve safety for road cyclists. In most cases, not all, simple courtesy enhances safety.
Ask yourself this: if a group of pedestrians were walking down a protected bike lane obstructing you, wouldn't you expect them to make room for you to pass? If they made arguments like "we have a right to socialize", would that convince you that they shouldn't have to single up until you pass them?
Start with that as a model for what cyclist conduct should be.
Now, sure, if it's easy for cars to move left to pass two cyclists riding abreast, there's plenty of room for discussion. On a busy road with frequent oncoming traffic, though, or a road with a center divider where cars can't safely pass, why not just single up as a courtesy?
The best advocacy doesn't always mean shouting the loudest and fighting for every square inch of road. Sometimes, reasonableness is the most effective approach.
Nice post, and nice to “hear” from you. As you may recall, I rode with your group a couple times a couple years ago, but time and distance keep me from repeating. I previously posted on this current thread with a similar POV,
+ 1 to @CliffordK, + 0.1 to @Fjl229. I too don’t particularly want to inconvenience motorists either, especially since so much of my riding is during the morning commute.
So often on various discussions about “bad” cycling habits like riding two or more abreast, running stop signs, red lights, filtering,etc, many subscribers decry these practices because they “give cyclists a bad name.”
I have previously posted:… Not to debate FRAP vs Vehicular Cycling, but to find a reasonable degree of assertiveness.
So often on various discussions about “bad” cycling habits like riding two or more abreast, running stop signs, red lights, filtering,etc, many subscribers decry these practices because they “give cyclists a bad name.”
I have previously posted:… Not to debate FRAP vs Vehicular Cycling, but to find a reasonable degree of assertiveness.
Last edited by Jim from Boston; 03-12-18 at 12:03 PM.
03-12-18, 03:21 PM
#48
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You omitted a key piece of that law. The exceptions very explicitly include:
Thus, a rider legally can, and in fact should, ride towards the center of a substandard width lane (generally accepted as any lane in which it would not be safe for a motorist to pass a cyclist while remaining fully within the lane, which itself is generally accepted to be a lane width of fourteen feet). Most other states have similar wording.
On the typical two-lane road, lane widths under fourteen feet are the norm and it is legal and proper for a cyclist to ride away from the right edge on these roads. Once one rider is there, it matters little where the second rider chooses to be unless it's one of those states that prohibits riding two abreast. In fact, it will be easier for a motorist to pass two riders who are side by side than single file simply because they are a shorter object to pass, so it will take less time.
This is lawful use of the road, not "blocking" or any other loaded term.
Thus, a rider legally can, and in fact should, ride towards the center of a substandard width lane (generally accepted as any lane in which it would not be safe for a motorist to pass a cyclist while remaining fully within the lane, which itself is generally accepted to be a lane width of fourteen feet). Most other states have similar wording.
On the typical two-lane road, lane widths under fourteen feet are the norm and it is legal and proper for a cyclist to ride away from the right edge on these roads. Once one rider is there, it matters little where the second rider chooses to be unless it's one of those states that prohibits riding two abreast. In fact, it will be easier for a motorist to pass two riders who are side by side than single file simply because they are a shorter object to pass, so it will take less time.
This is lawful use of the road, not "blocking" or any other loaded term.
Okay, I know the
May Use Full Lane message hasn't quite gotten out to the entire cycling community yet, but isn't this known by all regulars of A&S?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycl..._Use_Full_Lane
Last edited by Ninety5rpm; 03-12-18 at 03:32 PM. Reason: add image/link
03-12-18, 03:28 PM
#49
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I typically ride far enough left such that there is plenty of room for another cyclist on my right.
What difference does it make to anyone else whether there is a cyclist in that space, or not?
What difference does it make to anyone else whether there is a cyclist in that space, or not?
03-12-18, 03:32 PM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4409 Post(s)
Liked 1,563 Times
in
1,026 Posts