Originally Posted by GhostRider62

That is one awful rail crossing. The shoulder leading into it disappears into a narrow wheel catcher....nasty. There is only two ways to make that crossing. On foot or take the lane. You fall with traffic next to you and you are probably dead.

The rider crossing in the middle was probably trying to minimize those risks.

Originally Posted by SurferRosa

This guilt by association is a common argument that cyclists use about themselves, and I simply don't buy it. Do drivers of autos do this? I know lazy politicians do it all the time. I look to the thread title for the correct answer.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

Please don't misunderstand, guilt by association is very wrong minded. In my mind is another form of prejudice. That said, it is a reality. Inescapably so. Drivers DO ascribe the attributes of the worst few to our population as a whole and it absolutely CAN affect their behavior. We cyclists do the same grouping. Think lifted 4 wheel drive pickup here.

I am by no means a rolling diplomat for those of us that ride bicycles. I'll happily roll a stop as long as I can do so safely and doing so will not inconvenience other road users. In this case, not passing this line of traffic that was coming up to speed is an easy choice. Not only was it the most courteous option, it was a safer choice.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

Drivers do ascribe the attributes of the worst few to our population as a whole.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

Let me see if I can break this down for you.

This is a safety and advocacy forum. Let's start with some definitions.

Advocacy is the act or process of supporting a cause

Safety is the condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger, risk, or injury.

The circumstances were this. The road is a narrow 2 lane 35 mph road marked with a double yellow line. A rail crossing that had been closed for 10 minutes is opening. There is a line of cars in each lane perhaps a quarter mile long coming up to speed following the opening. There is anywhere from 4-7 feet of space between the cars in each of the lanes. There are a number of parking lots that cars may be entering or exiting. It's not uncommon for motorists to let other motorists into or through traffic in such circumstances. Motorists are not expecting a cyclists to be passing them in these circumstances, so they are very unlikely to check the rear view mirror before turning. There is an intersection a few hundred feet down the road.

The cyclist has a number of options. Keep his place in traffic and remain on the high traffic road. Keep his place in traffic and turn onto the nearby side-street. Remove himself from traffic until the congestion subsides. Pass as much of the traffic as possible on a double yellow until traffic comes up to his speed, then reenter traffic, forcing those he just passed to be stuck behind him at 20MPH on a 35MPH road.

The cyclist exercised the latter option. Revisiting the word safety, his illegal actions eliminated NONE of the safety threats and introduced more into the traffic scenario. The area is a no passing zone during ideal visibility and traffic conditions for a reason. The 3 foot (or more) rule is in effect in most states because moving autos and bicycles passing each other at that distance is unsafe. There was less than 3 feet between him and the cars he was passing.

From an advocacy standpoint, his actions had a detrimental effect. Nobody likes getting caught by long trains. It is rude for a cyclist to illegally pass a line of cars that are coming up to speed only to force those drivers he just passed to be stuck behind him at 20 MPH on a 35 MPH road. Motorists often have a negative perception of cyclists for no legitimate reason. Giving them a legitimate reason serves to further that negative perception and can build a negative attitude. Negative attitudes can and do foster dangerous behaviors and interactions. Cutting in line because you think you are more important than the people you cut in front of is frowned upon in our society. If you don't think it is, and don't think it's rude, cut in line next time you go to the grocery store, a sports event or movie.

Now with the obvious out of the way, I'll give our members the opportunity to change my mind on the subject rider being a rude idiot.

Explain to me how the riders choice made him safer. Explain to me how his actions were not discourteous.

The purpose of this post is to highlight how the rider's unsafe actions had a detrimental effect on advocacy.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

I am a bit confused. The rider did neither of the two things you identified as the only way to make that crossing. The rider was passing at close distance on a double yellow in between two rows of moving cars.

Originally Posted by GhostRider62

Yes, you are confused.

I am advocating two solutions to a very problematic rail crossing.

Where did I say the rider took either of the two alternatives? The rider crossed the tracks in the middle of traffic by the yellow lines.

The rider crossing in the middle was probably trying to minimize the inherent risks of a lousy shoulder that significantly narrows at the rail crossing AND the pavement has large gaps at that edge, which is why I characterized it as I did. The rider had two safe choices as I mentioned, but failed to take either. Riding up the middle is just plain stupid. Crashing on angled rail tracks is very common. You are seeing this as some sort of affront to you personally. I am merely pointing out that this crossing with traffic each direction is very potentially deadly.

Originally Posted by SurferRosa

This guilt by association is a common argument that cyclists use about themselves, and I simply don't buy it. Do drivers of autos do this? I know lazy politicians do it all the time. I look to the thread title for the correct answer.

Originally Posted by CliffordK

On occasion, as soon as the track clears, I've looked both ways, tossed the bike on the shoulder and crossed. Then was a half mile down the road before the cars caught up.

Originally Posted by jon c.

I have a lot of groups who come to my area to ride. I usually ride solo. I think I benefit from absolution by lack of association. There's not a lot of traffic, but the roads turn enough that it can be very hard to pass 20 riders. You can get stuck for 2 or 3 miles. Drivers see a single cyclist and feel a sense of relief as one rider is easy to get by.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

I won't do a group ride that may result in cars getting hung up behind us for a protracted period of time. The group I ride with when I do my occasional group rides are very respectful and accommodating of motorists.

Originally Posted by jon c.

I have a lot of groups who come to my area to ride. I usually ride solo. I think I benefit from absolution by lack of association. There's not a lot of traffic, but the roads turn enough that it can be very hard to pass 20 riders. You can get stuck for 2 or 3 miles. Drivers see a single cyclist and feel a sense of relief as one rider is easy to get by.

Originally Posted by Daniel4

I've waited in-line with congested traffic before and then I realized it doesn't make any sense.

Cyclists who filter remove themselves from being part of the congestion. Those cars are going to be waiting the 10-minutes regardless if the cyclist was in front of them or not. But the line up is shorter than the length of that bike.

Originally Posted by GhostRider62

I left a club that I used to ride with when they would not go single file from 3-abreast for the local police hitting hit lights. They also are fond of sitting and laying in the road when another rider is fixing their flat. I hate them especially when they ride 3-4 abreast on small lanes and I am going the other direction being forced into the ditch. So, yes, cyclists can be idiots, too.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Huh?

Originally Posted by prj71

I guess I don't care how others ride their bicycle. Not my monkeys, not my circus. Thus I see no reason for his rant.