pacificaslim

Agreed. Absolutely no one is saying the things they are arguing against. I'm out.

Digital_Cowboy

Again, as I said it's only "inevitable" when motorists who feel that they, and they alone "own" the roads. As more often than not it is motorists who don't seem to now how to share the road and to share it safely. Also it should be noted from all accounts of the last incident that I read the two cyclists involved were riding in accordance with the law and were not doing anything wrong.

From the tone of your writing it has been clear that you think that it's only cyclists who have to get the hell out of motorists way, and that motorists never have to get the hell out of cyclists way.

Sorry that you feel that way.

Digital_Cowboy

You and Six Jours are the one's who are arguing that it's a "numbers game" and that if there are more motorists on the road than cyclists that the motorists rights trump those of the cyclists.

So I think that it is a fair question to ask that if the number of cyclists equals or is greater then the number of motorists doesn't it follow that their rights trump the rights of the motorists?

Another question that I think is a legitimate question, if according to you despite the fact that we cyclists have a better view of the road. Should I have pulled off of Gandy Blvd to make way for the cars that were stacking up behind me? Even though it was JUST my OPINION that it wasn't safe for me to do so?

The bottom line sir is that when it is my ass and safety that is on the line, I trust no one's judgement but my own. As I am sure you, yourself behave.

degnaw

I'm not going to join the argument, but I will chip in. When I'm ascending on the near side of a blind curve (I'm thinking specifically Purdue Mountain Rd near State College, no streetview unfortunately, which is fairly lightly trafficked), I will move out to the left tire track for better visibility. HOWEVER, I don't consider it taking the lane, because I move back FRAP as soon as a car gets near and I feel like the driver has seen me.

Now, I wouldn't do this on a busy roadway. It is a narrow lane, but when I'm FRAP, drivers can get around fairly easily by crossing slightly over the double yellow, where crossing completely over may be an issue due to the low visibility curve.

Six jours

I'm obviously not necessary to your ongoing argument with your imagination. Enjoy...

billdsd

If you consider motorists passing within a foot of you at speed to not be a problem, then I guess we'll never find common ground. I consider it to be a major problem.The old "blind corner" excuse. People who make this excuse are telling us two things. The first is that they don't actually know how to drive. The second is that they haven't really thought the situation through.

You should never go so fast that you can't stop within the distance that you can see. It's taught by every driving instructor in every driver's education class. It's also required by the basic speed law, which is the law in California (CVC 22350). When I took drivers education, my teacher taught us to be ready for there to be a disabled vehicle around every blind corner. This is basic legal responsible driving. Anyone who can't or won't do it should not be allowed to drive.

On these winding roads the visibility typically switches back and forth so you often do see slow traffic a bend or two before you reach it; even if it's going very slowly. Once you see them, you can be even more ready. Furthermore, the kinds of riders who are tackling a road like this are probably going faster than 5mph, even up hill. In flat sections they're probably going more like 20mph and on downhill sections, faster than that. As near as I can tell, the windier portions of this road have a speed limit of 45mph. Some of the less winding sections are 55mph. Tighter corners have yellow advisory speed signs of 25-30mph. The speed differentials you cite are not realistic. No driver should have difficulty slowing down or moving over in time.

So you wait a few seconds or minutes. That's not a big deal. You do the same for slow motor vehicles but they're even harder to pass. I see paved turnouts on the road every so often. Bicyclists should use them when there are cars stuck behind them.Your mind is an alternate reality where driving fast is of primary importance and even the slightest inconvenience to a motorist due to sharing is intolerable. It's time to grow up.

In more than three decades and over a half million miles of driving on all sorts of roads in all sorts of conditions all over the country, I have yet to be stuck behind bicyclists for more than a couple of minutes before I found a safe place to pass. Even that is extremely rare. Even a few seconds has been unusual for me. I have too much experience driving to believe the whiners who claim that having to wait for a safe place to pass is a terrible hardship. It just plain and simply isn't. People making this claim are just trying to rationalize their delusions of entitlement to a right to not be inconvenienced by sharing the road with bicyclists.

billdsd

How is a motorist's right to travel being infringed upon if they have to go slow for a few seconds or even a few minutes waiting for a safe place to pass? They're still travelling...just a bit slower for a short time.

billdsd

A bicyclist's right to travel is not in any way violating the motorist's right to travel. If they're stuck behind bicyclists, then they are STILL travelling. They haven't lost any rights. They've lost the convenience of travelling faster, but travelling fast is not and never has been a right.

pacificaslim

You are the one talking about rights. I'm talking about how to behave properly in a crowded world and the difference between being a selfish individual and being one who gets along with everyone and keeps tension low. Sometimes this means not insisting on enforcing individual rights, and instead just going with the flow and giving others the right of way out of the kindness of our hearts...


Of course. What would lead you to believe I'd believe otherwise? The situation you describe is rarer than the opposite, but if it should arise, then yes, the car driver ought to wait patiently for all the cyclists and I've been on the receiving end a few times.

But again, it's not about rights trumping rights. Just behave in a manner that maximizes comfort and happiness for the community as a whole. Be willing to give what is rightfully yours because someone else could make good use of it.

billdsd

I don't think it's the least bit selfish to ride in the safest possible manner. The only way to discourage close passes that I've found is taking the lane. Riding to the far right encourages close passes. Over 100000 miles of riding experience, over 70000 of it before I learned to take the lane consistently in narrow lanes tells me that, as do the teachings of the top safety experts around.

Moreover, most of the time I ride in urban and suburban areas so most of the roads where I take the lane are multi-lane roads. All a motorist has to do is change lanes. I realize that that's a fate worse than death. All lanes other than the right lane are made of red hot lava apparently.

pacificaslim

Maybe it's not a right. There is way too much talk about rights and not enough talk about what actually works best for us all. To me, a society in which people spend less time getting from A to B and more time doing whatever it is they want/need to do at point B, is a better society.

My rule: behave, as much as possible, in such a manner that other people do not have to alter their lives to accommodate me. Pay attention, anticipate where/when someone is going, blend seamlessly, don't make others brake or swerve or anything like that to accommodate me. Sure, it requires me to consider the effects my actions will have on others, and then adjust them for the best outcome, but hey, like I said, I'm just the kind of guy who doesn't mind doing that. The rest of you all can stick to your selfish ways, but I will not ride with you.

billdsd

It's not that much time and there are all sorts of other things that delay people on the road. Most of them delay people more often and for greater time loss than bicyclists do. The only reason why people see bicyclists as different in this regard is that deep down, they can't really accept that bicyclists have a legitimate right or reason to be there. They may realize that it's the law but they just won't accept it. That's the basic disconnect here.

pacificaslim

It's because we really are in the way. It's really silly of us to expect vehicles with such different traits to "share" the same space. It's a failure of city/transportation planning and not appropriate to really blame motorists. They get used to one transportation flow that covers 99.9% of their time on the road and then all of a sudden they get thrown a curveball by coming upon a couple bikes. Of course it's going to trip them out a bit.

billdsd

Again: lots of things slow people down in the road. Bicyclists are just one of many. People accept the others. Why are bicycles different?

Why is it acceptable to move over for someone parallel parking and not acceptable to move over for a bicyclist?
Why is it acceptable to move over for a bus and not acceptable to move over for a bicyclist?
Why is it acceptable to move over for a garbage truck...
A cab picking up/dropping someone off...
A delivery truck...
A cop who has someone pulled over....
Road workers...
Emergency workers...
A heavily loaded 18 wheeler going up hill....
Bad weather...
Or just plain wait for train to go by.

I'm sure that if I put a small amount of effort into it I could think of several others. The point is that bicyclists are no worse than any of these other things and not nearly as bad as some of them but some people just won't accept that they have to suffer the trivial inconvenience. It's childish.

pacificaslim

People do move over for bikes. The only question is if they will feel happy about it or resent it. The examples you give all represent people blocking the road because they have no other option. That's why people don't get very mad about it. In my experience, people judge cyclists the same way. If there is nothing the cyclist could have contributed to make the encounter easier for everyone, then no one gets angry about having to go around the cyclist. It's only when drivers are made to feel the cyclist is being selfish that they get angry. Sometimes they are mistaken in their belief the cyclist could have moved over further - but often times they are stuck behind or cut off by a clueless or selfish cyclist (bike messengers in urban environment, slow moving chatty kathys side by side on mountain roads, etc.).

All I know is that people here who are the loudest about knowing the "correct" way to ride sure seem to be the same people who have the most negative encounters with drivers! I've only been run off the highway once and it was a problem of poor road design more than anything. Otherwise, I flow through traffic without pissing anyone off and never have any issues.

Digital_Cowboy

pacificaslim,

I'll tell you what, when a motorist has as much to loose as a cyclist as well as being willing to pay for the cyclists doctor/hospital bills, and pay to have their bike repaired/replaced as well as for their lost wages, etc. when the place that the motorist deemed to be "safe" for the cyclist to move over and let them pass turns out to not be safe, then, and only then will I allow them to determine when and where it is and isn't safe for me to pull over and let them pass.

Until than it is my judgement and my judgement alone that I'll trust in determine if it is safe for me to move over and allow motorists to pass me, and not before. Does that not make sense?

pacificaslim

Honestly, no, it does not make sense. I can't imagine going through life with your attitude.

[btw, no one has claimed motorists will make the determination: i was just arguing against the idea that any particular cyclist alone has the "right" to determine what is a "safe" place to pull over or to move to the right side. A particular cyclist may be unreasonable in their opinion and be overruled by common sense, and the court system (when ticketed).]

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, it's amazing what some people will accept in the name of being "considerate." I'd like to know (as a lot of us here) why it is so easy to get a license and so hard to have it revoked?

Exactly, or given that this is a mountain road that we're talking about. There could be a deer or bear sitting in the middle of the road. Or there could be a tree, or boulders blocking the road.

Exactly, to repeat what you said, "No driver should have any difficulty in slowing down or moving over in time." If they do they're driving too fast and are the one responsible for what happens.

Agreed, and not just cyclists but slower moving motorists should be using those turnouts as well to allow faster moving traffic to pass them. If there is no turnout than the "faster" traffic needs to slow down until there is either a turnout, or a safe place to pass them. Agreed, his comment "This is California and we don't 'tolerate' slow traffic" or something to that effect says it all. It's clear that going as fast as they can takes priority over what is safe. Agreed.

Agreed.

Digital_Cowboy

I've wondered the same exact thing. I've also have to wonder why it is that some motorists are in such a bloody hurry that they have to swoop around a cyclist to beat them to the traffic light/stop sign. And the irony is that most of them get so lost in their bloody cell phone that they don't even notice when the light has turned green and take several minutes before they put down the cell phone and start driving again.

Digital_Cowboy

Sadly, with the way that some people drive you'd think that it was.

Digital_Cowboy

Unless I can pass behind them I yield to pedestrians all the time. When I'm riding through the park I slow down to 2-3MPH if I have to in order not to put walkers at risk. Everyday when I'm riding through the park I see people riding bicycles as if they were riding down the road. They don't slow down, they zig and zag through the crowds of pedestrians. And they never apologize when they pass someone too close. They keep zooming along as if everyone else suppose to get out of their way. And based on their riding it wouldn't surprise me in the least if that is how they also drive.

Uh, because just about everything that you've written implies that cyclists ought to "bow to the motorists superiority." And that we should kiss the ground that they drive on for allowing us on "their" roads.

Okay, than how about you tell that to the two cars that passed me just this evening while I was waiting at a red light in the left turn lane (they the motorists moved into the left turn lane to pass me, I was NOT waiting in the left turn lane) while waiting for the light to change green. The first one stopped so far back that if this light was controlled by an induction loop (and it might have been but that the road had been resurfaced enough time that the lines are no longer visible) that the light would never turn.

Then out of inpatients because the light was taking "too long" to change they pull over into the left turn lane and then make their right hand turn. The next car behind them did the exact same thing. But I guess in your mind because I didn't "get out of their way" and because they outnumbered me that I was being "rude and inconsiderate," right?

And that should go both ways, motorists should be willing to wait a few seconds to a few minutes for there to be either a safe place for a cyclist to move over or for the motorist to safely pass said cyclist. They shouldn't be in such a hurry that any delay is seen as an affront to them.

I guess that even though the first car was not only so far behind me that if the light was controlled by an induction loop that it would never have been tripped, as well as not only that one, but the second one didn't have their turn signals on that I should have:

a) moved out of their way
b) somehow known that they wanted to make a right turn

Digital_Cowboy

Sadly, apparently to some it is. As it causes motorists to have to face a terrible delay in getting to their destination. Again, as I've said before if more people would leave with enough time to get to where they want to go should they encounter any sort of situation that might slow them down they'd actually be more relaxed when they got there.

Agreed, I ride in a similar environment. And I'd have to agree with your assessment about how any lane other than the right lane being either made out of red hot lava that's going to melt their tires if they move into it, or is full of broken glass that's going to tear their tires up, or there is something that we cyclists don't know about that left lane that makes it "unsafe" for motorists to move over into it.

billdsd

To be fair, it's a small minority of drivers who act like that. Even after all these years and miles, I'm still amazed that people will follow me in the right lane rather than move into the next lane. I've had people follow me for over a 1/4 mile rather than change lanes.

A bit more common is people who will pull up behind me when I'm in the middle of the lane and only then change lanes. They could easily change lanes earlier but for some reason they don't. I see people doing this to other motorists too. I don't understand it. Why wouldn't you change lanes early so that you don't have to slow down? What is so difficult about changing lanes?

Digital_Cowboy

Hmm, I must have misread the above statue, as I could swear that it grants bicyclists the SAME RIGHTS AND ALL OF THE DUTIES applicable to the driver. . .

I'm sorry, but to me a society that is so hung up on how long it takes in getting from point a to point b, that when they finally get to point b that they're stressed is not a very good society to live in. Don't you realize that in trying to got from point a to point b as quick as possible is what leads to road rage? Because people think that they're entitled to get from point a to point b in the least amount of time will become unduly enraged whenever they encounter the slightest delay. Please, please tell me that that is the world that you want to live in.

I agree that we should be considerate and not cause unreasonable delays, but some delays reasonable or not are going to be expected.

Again, isn't that a two-way street? Shouldn't the motorists also consider the effect that their rush to get from point a to point b will have on other road users?

Digital_Cowboy

Exactly, as I've said in other threads I had a woman tell me that because motorists are trying to get "goods" from point a to point b that I don't have a RIGHT to be on the road. It never occurred to her or a lot of other people that we cyclists are doing exactly the same thing.