Blasted for legally riding on the road even though there’s a bike lane
#1
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 228
Bikes: Specialized
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Liked 54 Times
in
44 Posts
Blasted for legally riding on the road even though there’s a bike lane
Too many kids clogging the bike lane so I took the street. Among comes trouble maker, rolls his window down and starts yelling, why am I riding on the street being an idiot. So I shouted back, why are you yelling at me for legally riding on the road. There’s too many kids in the bike lane.
As far as I know, you can ride on the road even though there’s a bike lane if you perceive a safety hazard for yourself or others.
Another stress free Sunday.
As far as I know, you can ride on the road even though there’s a bike lane if you perceive a safety hazard for yourself or others.
Another stress free Sunday.
Last edited by b88; 03-10-24 at 01:57 PM.
Likes For b88:
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 6,927
Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3281 Post(s)
Liked 2,119 Times
in
1,195 Posts
Agree with the judgement call about safety on a path. I think NYC requires a dedicated path be used if one exists alongside a road, or some such, with the caveat of safe conditions. Who makes that judgement call is sometimes in question.
Likes For Steve B.:
#3
The Wheezing Geezer
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Espańola, NM
Posts: 1,073
Bikes: 1976 Fredo Speciale, Rivendell Clem Smith Jr., Libertas mixte
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked 952 Times
in
457 Posts
I don't have an AK-47, nor anything similar, nor any desire to acquire one.
But I have thought about the reactions I would get in my town if I rode with one strapped across my back!
Luckily, aside from one soda thrown at me, and one shouting, finger-waving exchange, things have been fairly mellow here.
P.S. - I hate that adrenaline feeling, too.
But I have thought about the reactions I would get in my town if I rode with one strapped across my back!
Luckily, aside from one soda thrown at me, and one shouting, finger-waving exchange, things have been fairly mellow here.
P.S. - I hate that adrenaline feeling, too.
Last edited by Fredo76; 03-10-24 at 02:06 PM.
Likes For Fredo76:
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,459
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 406 Times
in
278 Posts
Likes For Rick:
#5
Senior Member
Nowhere in any drivers handbook in America will it specifically say that where there is a bike lane, a bicycle can still ride on the street. And even if it did, you wouldn’t find a question in a written drivers license test. That being the case, drivers will of course think that a cyclist shouldn’t ride outside a bike lane.
When I got my Japan drivers license, that wasn’t the case. The handbook and test make it very clear that cyclists use the roadway, and make very clear the harsh consequences a driver will face if they hit a cyclist. This being the case, cycling on Japanese roadways is quite safe.
Japan’s approach to safety focuses on drivers, because no matter how safe you try to make a vehicle or a road, it will only be safe as the driver you operates a vehicle on that road. Therefore, Japan’s driver training for licenses and traffic laws are harsh, and the system works. Japan’s per capita traffic fatality rate is one-fifth America’s rate.
When I got my Japan drivers license, that wasn’t the case. The handbook and test make it very clear that cyclists use the roadway, and make very clear the harsh consequences a driver will face if they hit a cyclist. This being the case, cycling on Japanese roadways is quite safe.
Japan’s approach to safety focuses on drivers, because no matter how safe you try to make a vehicle or a road, it will only be safe as the driver you operates a vehicle on that road. Therefore, Japan’s driver training for licenses and traffic laws are harsh, and the system works. Japan’s per capita traffic fatality rate is one-fifth America’s rate.
Likes For 50PlusCycling:
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 6,927
Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3281 Post(s)
Liked 2,119 Times
in
1,195 Posts
Nowhere in any drivers handbook in America will it specifically say that where there is a bike lane, a bicycle can still ride on the street. And even if it did, you wouldn’t find a question in a written drivers license test. That being the case, drivers will of course think that a cyclist shouldn’t ride outside a bike lane.
.
.
Here’s a link to the NYC law that essentially states to use a bike lane except when conditions occur that makes it unsafe.
https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloa...es-english.pdf
Likes For Steve B.:
#7
Thread derailleur
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Glendora, CA
Posts: 659
Bikes: Croll '94 & Cannondale Supersix '15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 375 Post(s)
Liked 474 Times
in
272 Posts
Just another variation of road rage. We can cause a driver several seconds of delay and they go ballistic.
I rode down a slightly twisty road recently, with six vehicles ahead of me and maybe two behind.
One of the motorists behind laid-on his horn, despite zero chance to reach his destination any quicker.
When the road widened, he passed rather closely and blared his horn again.
I laughed when he got hung up at the left turn light and I breezed up to the front of the same left turn line.
He sounded his horn again and made a special effort to drive in my bike lane, a half mile further.
Hopefully, he accepted defeat when I passed him again a mile away at a stop light. Four miles and a tie score!
I rode down a slightly twisty road recently, with six vehicles ahead of me and maybe two behind.
One of the motorists behind laid-on his horn, despite zero chance to reach his destination any quicker.
When the road widened, he passed rather closely and blared his horn again.
I laughed when he got hung up at the left turn light and I breezed up to the front of the same left turn line.
He sounded his horn again and made a special effort to drive in my bike lane, a half mile further.
Hopefully, he accepted defeat when I passed him again a mile away at a stop light. Four miles and a tie score!
Likes For roadcrankr:
#8
Full Member
Nowhere in any drivers handbook in America will it specifically say that where there is a bike lane, a bicycle can still ride on the street. And even if it did, you wouldn’t find a question in a written drivers license test. That being the case, drivers will of course think that a cyclist shouldn’t ride outside a bike lane.
When I got my Japan drivers license, that wasn’t the case. The handbook and test make it very clear that cyclists use the roadway, and make very clear the harsh consequences a driver will face if they hit a cyclist. This being the case, cycling on Japanese roadways is quite safe.
Japan’s approach to safety focuses on drivers, because no matter how safe you try to make a vehicle or a road, it will only be safe as the driver you operates a vehicle on that road. Therefore, Japan’s driver training for licenses and traffic laws are harsh, and the system works. Japan’s per capita traffic fatality rate is one-fifth America’s rate.
When I got my Japan drivers license, that wasn’t the case. The handbook and test make it very clear that cyclists use the roadway, and make very clear the harsh consequences a driver will face if they hit a cyclist. This being the case, cycling on Japanese roadways is quite safe.
Japan’s approach to safety focuses on drivers, because no matter how safe you try to make a vehicle or a road, it will only be safe as the driver you operates a vehicle on that road. Therefore, Japan’s driver training for licenses and traffic laws are harsh, and the system works. Japan’s per capita traffic fatality rate is one-fifth America’s rate.
this from “bikelaw.com”, an NC cycling law site. Needless to say I get the occasional jackass yelling at me if I’m not using the bike lane
Likes For 13ollocks:
#9
Forum Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kalamazoo MI
Posts: 20,672
Bikes: Fuji SL2.1 Carbon Di2 Cannondale Synapse Alloy 4 Trek Checkpoint ALR-5 Viscount Aerospace Pro Colnago Classic Rabobank Raleigh C50 Cromoly Hybrid Legnano Tipo Roma Pista
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3100 Post(s)
Liked 6,641 Times
in
3,804 Posts
Thread moved from General to A+S.
__________________
#10
Must be symmetrical
In general, I think we all have to be careful about assuming cyclists have a full legal right to the road, even if we have a moral one. it is often a lot more complicated than that. But really, from pedestrians to semi-trucks, all forms of transportation have limits on where they can and can't go. So why not bikers too?
Where I live, if there is a marked path, cyclists are required to use it (but technically a mandatory path is itself only allowed if it is too dangerous to ride on the street--this means that most mandatory paths are themselves probably illegal).
A quick search regarding CA suggests that cyclists are required to use bike lanes unless they are passing, avoiding hazards etc. I think OP is from CA? if so, then you were ok to go out into the street. But the question, however, would be if you were out there longer than strictly necessary to get around the kids.
But one thing that occurs to me is we as cyclists probably cannot have our cake and eat it too. If we want improved bike infrastructure, we may have to accept that this infrastructure will probably bring with it increased restriction of cyclists to that infrastructure.
After all, one reason to build bike paths is to separate traffic, not just for the bikers' safety, but let's be honest, because it's better for cars too. The same principle applies to sidewalks--separating pedestrians and cars is better for both, and neither is allowed to be to cross over for more than a short period of time. And if there is a big investment in bike infrastructure, politicians are going to want to make sure it's used and that the benefits are visible. So it seems only logical to then require cyclists to use the expensive new bike path (that they lobbied for).
Where I live, if there is a marked path, cyclists are required to use it (but technically a mandatory path is itself only allowed if it is too dangerous to ride on the street--this means that most mandatory paths are themselves probably illegal).
A quick search regarding CA suggests that cyclists are required to use bike lanes unless they are passing, avoiding hazards etc. I think OP is from CA? if so, then you were ok to go out into the street. But the question, however, would be if you were out there longer than strictly necessary to get around the kids.
But one thing that occurs to me is we as cyclists probably cannot have our cake and eat it too. If we want improved bike infrastructure, we may have to accept that this infrastructure will probably bring with it increased restriction of cyclists to that infrastructure.
After all, one reason to build bike paths is to separate traffic, not just for the bikers' safety, but let's be honest, because it's better for cars too. The same principle applies to sidewalks--separating pedestrians and cars is better for both, and neither is allowed to be to cross over for more than a short period of time. And if there is a big investment in bike infrastructure, politicians are going to want to make sure it's used and that the benefits are visible. So it seems only logical to then require cyclists to use the expensive new bike path (that they lobbied for).
#11
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
Racers that say they are riding fast to train, DO NOT belong on bike trails. They belong on the streets where they are a legal vehicle. Hiker biker trails are for everyone. and walker and slower cyclist should not have to get out of the way of anyone that wants to ride very fast.
BTW on a lot of clogged city street a fast cyclist is probably faster than the general traffic is moving anyway.
BTW on a lot of clogged city street a fast cyclist is probably faster than the general traffic is moving anyway.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3796 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
798 Posts
I'm having trouble picturing where this happened. Did this involve a bike lane or a MUP (AKA: Bike Path)? What city did this happen in?
.
.
Likes For work4bike:
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 6,927
Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3281 Post(s)
Liked 2,119 Times
in
1,195 Posts
In general, I think we all have to be careful about assuming cyclists have a full legal right to the road, even if we have a moral one. it is often a lot more complicated than that. But really, from pedestrians to semi-trucks, all forms of transportation have limits on where they can and can't go. So why not bikers too?
Where I live, if there is a marked path, cyclists are required to use it (but technically a mandatory path is itself only allowed if it is too dangerous to ride on the street--this means that most mandatory paths are themselves probably illegal).
A quick search regarding CA suggests that cyclists are required to use bike lanes unless they are passing, avoiding hazards etc. I think OP is from CA? if so, then you were ok to go out into the street. But the question, however, would be if you were out there longer than strictly necessary to get around the kids.
But one thing that occurs to me is we as cyclists probably cannot have our cake and eat it too. If we want improved bike infrastructure, we may have to accept that this infrastructure will probably bring with it increased restriction of cyclists to that infrastructure.
After all, one reason to build bike paths is to separate traffic, not just for the bikers' safety, but let's be honest, because it's better for cars too. The same principle applies to sidewalks--separating pedestrians and cars is better for both, and neither is allowed to be to cross over for more than a short period of time. And if there is a big investment in bike infrastructure, politicians are going to want to make sure it's used and that the benefits are visible. So it seems only logical to then require cyclists to use the expensive new bike path (that they lobbied for).
Where I live, if there is a marked path, cyclists are required to use it (but technically a mandatory path is itself only allowed if it is too dangerous to ride on the street--this means that most mandatory paths are themselves probably illegal).
A quick search regarding CA suggests that cyclists are required to use bike lanes unless they are passing, avoiding hazards etc. I think OP is from CA? if so, then you were ok to go out into the street. But the question, however, would be if you were out there longer than strictly necessary to get around the kids.
But one thing that occurs to me is we as cyclists probably cannot have our cake and eat it too. If we want improved bike infrastructure, we may have to accept that this infrastructure will probably bring with it increased restriction of cyclists to that infrastructure.
After all, one reason to build bike paths is to separate traffic, not just for the bikers' safety, but let's be honest, because it's better for cars too. The same principle applies to sidewalks--separating pedestrians and cars is better for both, and neither is allowed to be to cross over for more than a short period of time. And if there is a big investment in bike infrastructure, politicians are going to want to make sure it's used and that the benefits are visible. So it seems only logical to then require cyclists to use the expensive new bike path (that they lobbied for).
#14
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 228
Bikes: Specialized
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Liked 54 Times
in
44 Posts
In general, I think we all have to be careful about assuming cyclists have a full legal right to the road, even if we have a moral one. it is often a lot more complicated than that. But really, from pedestrians to semi-trucks, all forms of transportation have limits on where they can and can't go. So why not bikers too?
Where I live, if there is a marked path, cyclists are required to use it (but technically a mandatory path is itself only allowed if it is too dangerous to ride on the street--this means that most mandatory paths are themselves probably illegal).
A quick search regarding CA suggests that cyclists are required to use bike lanes unless they are passing, avoiding hazards etc. I think OP is from CA? if so, then you were ok to go out into the street. But the question, however, would be if you were out there longer than strictly necessary to get around the kids.
But one thing that occurs to me is we as cyclists probably cannot have our cake and eat it too. If we want improved bike infrastructure, we may have to accept that this infrastructure will probably bring with it increased restriction of cyclists to that infrastructure.
After all, one reason to build bike paths is to separate traffic, not just for the bikers' safety, but let's be honest, because it's better for cars too. The same principle applies to sidewalks--separating pedestrians and cars is better for both, and neither is allowed to be to cross over for more than a short period of time. And if there is a big investment in bike infrastructure, politicians are going to want to make sure it's used and that the benefits are visible. So it seems only logical to then require cyclists to use the expensive new bike path (that they lobbied for).
Where I live, if there is a marked path, cyclists are required to use it (but technically a mandatory path is itself only allowed if it is too dangerous to ride on the street--this means that most mandatory paths are themselves probably illegal).
A quick search regarding CA suggests that cyclists are required to use bike lanes unless they are passing, avoiding hazards etc. I think OP is from CA? if so, then you were ok to go out into the street. But the question, however, would be if you were out there longer than strictly necessary to get around the kids.
But one thing that occurs to me is we as cyclists probably cannot have our cake and eat it too. If we want improved bike infrastructure, we may have to accept that this infrastructure will probably bring with it increased restriction of cyclists to that infrastructure.
After all, one reason to build bike paths is to separate traffic, not just for the bikers' safety, but let's be honest, because it's better for cars too. The same principle applies to sidewalks--separating pedestrians and cars is better for both, and neither is allowed to be to cross over for more than a short period of time. And if there is a big investment in bike infrastructure, politicians are going to want to make sure it's used and that the benefits are visible. So it seems only logical to then require cyclists to use the expensive new bike path (that they lobbied for).
Many cyclists on road bikes on that street will not use the bike lane because of the speed they traveling.
Last edited by b88; 03-11-24 at 10:19 PM.
#15
Full Member
In my town (Chapel Hill NC), the main street used to be two lanes each way, and some time during the pandemic they converted the sidewalk-adjacent lane in each direction to a dedicated bike lane separated from the remaining traffic lanes by parking spaces. A good move in principle, but I consider the bike lanes to be more dangerous than the traffic lanes, because cars and pedestrians pay absolutely no attention to bike lane traffic - their sole concentration is on the traffic lanes, so you have to have your head on a swivel to ensure that a car or pedestrian doesn't obliviously cut in front of you when entering or leaving the roadway. Add the cars and trucks that park in the bike lane, forcing you out into the traffic lane, car doors (unlike the traffic lane, the bike lane isn't wide enough to ensure adequate clearance from doors) etc. My "long term view" is that, the more people using the bike lanes, the more other street users will start to register bike lane traffic. So, I use the bike lanes when I can, unless it's early morning when the traffic lanes are empty. However, sometimes I feel like my albeit-small gesture toward normalizing bike lane usage is "taking one for the team", because it's certainly not doing me any good.
Likes For 13ollocks:
#16
Banned
In California the DMV guidelines state that the bike rider should "ride as near to the right curb or edge of the roadway as possible" unless on a one-way street in which case the rider should be as close to the left curb as possible.
It also states that "stay visible (for example, never weave between parked vehicles)". When there are parked cars anywhere the cyclist needs to ride therefore they need to be out in the traffic lane to be able to do this.
Expecting law enforcement officers in their cars to understand or care about the safety of bicyclists is not realistic. I worry about not getting hit, regardless of the legal aspects.
It also states that "stay visible (for example, never weave between parked vehicles)". When there are parked cars anywhere the cyclist needs to ride therefore they need to be out in the traffic lane to be able to do this.
Expecting law enforcement officers in their cars to understand or care about the safety of bicyclists is not realistic. I worry about not getting hit, regardless of the legal aspects.
#17
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
One of our city bicycle ordinances state that the city can declare any arterial off limits to cyclist is it is so posted.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,459
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 406 Times
in
278 Posts
In California the DMV guidelines state that the bike rider should "ride as near to the right curb or edge of the roadway as possible" unless on a one-way street in which case the rider should be as close to the left curb as possible.