Slow Bikes Keep Right

"Larry Sheldon" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would you still insist on taking the lane even though you're struggling
>>>> to maintain 3 MPH?
>>>
>>> I don't know about Brent, but I can maintain 8 to 10 mph up those types
>>> of grades (and that's if I don't have the benefit of previous momentum).
>>> I do tend to keep a bit further to the right when going slow, but I'm
>>> not going to ride less than 2 feet from the edge of the road regardless.
>>>
>>> Drivers need to learn how to time their passes such that they don't try
>>> to force the cyclist off the road while trying to pass at the same time
>>> a car is coming from the opposite direction.
>>
>> Alternatively, a case can be made--like the slower motor vehicle that
>> needs to turn out to let slower traffic pass--that if the motor vehicle
>> has to cross over either a lane marker or the center divider to pass a
>> bicyclist, than the bicyclist is not riding far enough to the right. If
>> the bicyclist cannot ride any further to the right, common sense states
>> they should turn out (but here is where they bicyclist has an
>> advantage--they can still walk the bike after turning out!) and let the
>> passing traffic through.
>
> Cars and trucks don't do that for anybody, why should cyclists?
>
At least some drivers of cars and trucks that do respect traffic flow most
certainly do use turnouts, or at least pull over to the shoulder if an
actual turnout does not exist, to let faster traffic pass. (Of course, they
do not get out and push their cars or trucks because the mass of the
car/truck is obviously too large to push for a long distance).

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
> ...

>>> * Partly incorrect. Yes, the road signs read "Share The Road" , but
>>> if a clear opportunity exists for the bicyclist to ride as far to the
>>> right as possbile, they MUST do so.

>> Practicable, not possible.

> Which still means that if the bicyclist can move more to the right
> without causing a danger to themselves, they should do so.

And that determination is up to the cyclist who is in a better position
to observe road conditions including obstacles/debris that pose a hazard
to him or her as opposed to the driver in the vehicle behind him.

On Sep 8, 9:55*pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." >
wrote:
> "Sherman L. Cahal" > wrote in ...
> On Sep 7, 10:00 pm, Brent > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2009-09-07, Steve A > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 7, 5:20 pm, "D. Stussy" > wrote:
> > >> "larry_scholnick" > wrote in message
>
> > ....
>
> > >> > This sign was on a reasonably steep uphill grade along Palos Verdes
> > >> > Drive East, on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, southwest of Los Angeles.
>
> > >> > My question: What does it mean?
>
> > >> > Does it mean: Bikes that are going slower than the average bike
> > >> > should
> > >> > keep right?
>
> > >> > Or does it mean: Bikes that are going slower than the average car
> > >> > (Speed Limit 35) should keep right?
>
> > >> > If it had been on a downhill section, I know that some bikes would be
> > >> > doing the same speed as the cars, but on a steep uphill section bike
> > >> > riders struggle to keep moving at all.
>
> > >> I'm guessing that these slow uphill riders have been coming out into
> > >> the
> > >> lane and impeding cars.
>
> > > Some bicyclists are entirely too arrogant. I had one shout at me for
> > > passing him on a wide, unstriped town street. When I pulled up to the
> > > light, he pulled up next to me to lecture me about passing him. My
> > > response: If you have a wide roadway, keep to the right; I'm a
> > > bicyclist myself and the idea is to share the road, meaning let cars
> > > have the right of way whenever possible. I mention this because it is
> > > highly likely these arrogant riders will think "I'm not a SLOW bike"
> > > and continue to hog the whole lane. Well, if they get passed/cut off
> > > (but I certainly _don't_ mean forcing a crash), they get what they
> > > deserve for being so arrogant.
>
> > No, cars do not have the right of way 'whenever possible'. They have the
> > right of way when they have it under the rules of the road.
>
> > I bike a good number of roads with 25 and 30mph posted speed limits. The
> > vast majority of them are correctly posted because they are residential
> > roads. I can do the posted limit on many of them much of the time. When
> > I drive them, I obey that speed limit. It is EXTREMELY rare, to the
> > point of never happening that anyone even attempts to pass me. Also, I
> > am usually going 2mph under the limit (driving) because the speedometer
> > reads 2mph high.
>
> > Bicycling these roads I am often at the speed limit (speedo is
> > accurate). I will move towards the center of the lane when going that
> > fast because that's where the better pavement is, and at that speed, am
> > no longer legally required to be on the far right edge. Drivers of
> > course think they *MUST* pass and then try to do so, very often coming
> > way to close to me in the process. What bothers me the most is they do
> > it for no gain. I immediately catch up to them in a hundred feet or
> > three where there is a stop sign or traffic light. They will risk
> > killing me to wait at a stop.
>
> > And yes, I will occasionally end up giving some of these drivers a
> > lecture if they say even one word to me. These drivers won't dare try
> > that crap when I'm driving those roads at 25mph, so they shouldn't do it
> > when I'm bicycling them. They don't get to shove me off the road or over
> > to the side just because their vehicle is bigger. Those who think they
> > should, should have someone in a gravel truck do them what they do to
> > bicyclists.
>
> > Given your description of the road type, you're probably passing
> > bicyclists whom if they were driving the same speed you'd have no
> > problem staying behind. It's only because they are on bicycles that it
> > becomes an issue for you.
>
> > Today a driver of a pickup was behind me. it was a difficult spot to
> > pass so I sprinted up to 29.5 mph in a 30mph zone. The only reason I did
> > was because he was back there, it consumed limited energy for me. He
> > held back. When it got easier to pass I slowed and moved to the edge and
> > he passed. No problems. he was even a little close, but he was acting
> > right before that so I just let it go. That's the way it should be, but
> > often isn't. I've even had drivers intentionally run me off the road
> > when I've moved over to let them pass. One of the reasons I only do it
> > in circumstances where I am 98% sure of the driver is reasonable and I
> > have a safe exit.
>
> Exactly. Those who rarely ride, hold a belief that cyclists belong on
> sidewalks and on paths, and who never ride, will often post knee-jerk
> comments such as what Steve stated above. Traffic lanes are not
> reserved for the express use by automobiles only, unless designated as
> such (e.g. limited-access highways). You MUST share the lane with
> other cyclists, even if they are using more of the lane than you would
> prefer.
>
> * Partly incorrect. Yes, the road signs read "Share The Road" , but if a
> clear opportunity exists for the bicyclist to ride as far to the right as
> possbile, they MUST do so.
>
> For instance, I typically ride in the right tire-track so as to avoid
> debris, glass and the like in the areas near to the curb. It also
> allows me to remain more visible to the motorist, to assert my right
> to the lane, and to avoid hidding people opening their car doors (it
> happens more often than you'd think).
>
> * But in the clear absence of any debris, you are in violation of the
> vehicle code pertaining to bicycles every time you fail to keep as far right
> as possible.
>
> [snip...]

Ohio and Kentucky state statutes make no reference to that. In
compliance with "Sharing the Road," you are given the full lane if
needed. In Colorado, it is state law to pass only if you can give
three feet of clearance -- not a huge buffer.

Sherman

On 2009-09-09, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> In message >, Brent
> wrote:
>
>>> How fast can you bike when going up a 6% grade?
>>>
>>> Would you still insist on taking the lane even though you're
>>> struggling to maintain 3 MPH?
>>
>>I *NEVER* go that slowly. On the steepest grades I encounter I'm
>>typically doing 17-18mph, 15 if I'm tired.
>
> Well, OK, but you live in Chicago, where the "hills" are the size of
> speed humps. The closest 6% grade to you is probably in Wisconsin.
>
>>> BTW, I agree that such signs are a waste of money. The reasonable
>>> pedalcyclists already keep to the right, and the arrogant ones are
>>> just going to ignore the signs.
>>
>>But arrogance seems to be defined as 'in my way and bicycling', not
>>doing a proper travel speed that would be accepted if driving instead.
>
> Aggogance is defined as taking the lane when doing less than the
> prevailing speed of traffic. If you're able to keep up with everyone
> else, I don't care what you're driving. Of course, if you're in my way
> and driving Slothily, I don't care what you're driving either.

I don't pull over in my car when I am doing 25 in a 25 so I'm not going
to do it on a bicycle either. It's not arterial roads I'm talking about
here, but residential roads. Roads that if I did 30mph in my mustang,
the SUV drivers (doing > 30mph) who nearly run me down while I am
biking would demand I get ticketed to keep their children 'safe'.

On Sep 9, 10:46*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> In message >, Brent
>
> > wrote:
> >On 2009-09-08, Paul D. DeRocco > wrote:
> >>> "Brent" > wrote
>
> >>> No, cars do not have the right of way 'whenever possible'. They have the
> >>> right of way when they have it under the rules of the road.
>
> >> Sure, but from a moral point of view bicyclists can't claim equality with
> >> cars on the road:
>
> >> 1) The roads were built for cars. If no one biked, we'd have pretty much the
> >> same roads; if everyone biked, we'd have only bike paths.
>
> >Roads are built for the heaviest and largest vehicles that will be used
> >upon them. this is merely good engineering practice.
>
> So Clark Street in Chicago (platted in the 19th century and not even
> paved until the 1930s) was built for semis?
>
> Your statement may be true for NEW roads, but most of the roads we're
> stuck with are far from new and FAR from optimal for mixed
> automobile-bicycle traffic.

IME the newest roads around here are the worst for bicycles - hard
curbs right up against the white line, so you have nowhere to go when
things go wrong.

nate

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Larry Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Would you still insist on taking the lane even though you're
>>>>> struggling to maintain 3 MPH?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about Brent, but I can maintain 8 to 10 mph up those
>>>> types of grades (and that's if I don't have the benefit of previous
>>>> momentum). I do tend to keep a bit further to the right when going
>>>> slow, but I'm not going to ride less than 2 feet from the edge of
>>>> the road regardless.
>>>>
>>>> Drivers need to learn how to time their passes such that they don't
>>>> try to force the cyclist off the road while trying to pass at the
>>>> same time a car is coming from the opposite direction.
>>>
>>> Alternatively, a case can be made--like the slower motor vehicle that
>>> needs to turn out to let slower traffic pass--that if the motor
>>> vehicle has to cross over either a lane marker or the center divider
>>> to pass a bicyclist, than the bicyclist is not riding far enough to
>>> the right. If the bicyclist cannot ride any further to the right,
>>> common sense states they should turn out (but here is where they
>>> bicyclist has an advantage--they can still walk the bike after
>>> turning out!) and let the passing traffic through.
>>
>> Cars and trucks don't do that for anybody, why should cyclists?
>>
> At least some drivers of cars and trucks that do respect traffic flow
> most certainly do use turnouts, or at least pull over to the shoulder if
> an actual turnout does not exist, to let faster traffic pass. (Of
> course, they do not get out and push their cars or trucks because the
> mass of the car/truck is obviously too large to push for a long distance).

I quit doing that when driving a big truck because everybody stops to
look to see what I stopped-for.

That and the fact that frequently they don't want to go faster than I do
or can--they just want to be in front.


--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

Scott in SoCal wrote:
> In message >, Larry Sheldon
> > wrote:
>
>>> Alternatively, a case can be made--like the slower motor vehicle that
>>> needs to turn out to let slower traffic pass--that if the motor vehicle
>>> has to cross over either a lane marker or the center divider to pass a
>>> bicyclist, than the bicyclist is not riding far enough to the right. If
>>> the bicyclist cannot ride any further to the right, common sense states
>>> they should turn out
>> Cars and trucks don't do that for anybody, why should cyclists?
>
> "I perceive everyone else to be an asshole, therefore I'm going to be
> one, as well."
>
> Fantastic.

As is your ability to read and think--a fantasy.

Why should a cyclist be required to leave the road whe n nobody else is
required to?
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

Scott in SoCal wrote:
> In message >, Arif Khokar
> > wrote:

>> I don't know about Brent, but I can maintain 8 to 10 mph up those types
>> of grades (and that's if I don't have the benefit of previous momentum).

> I don't care what kind of vehicle you're driving; if you're moving at
> 10 MPH, I expect you to pull over and allow faster traffic to pass.

First, I'm not taking up the whole lane when going uphill at those
speeds (I'm in the right tire track, which is about 2 to 3 feet from the
curb). Second, the road itself doesn't have that much traffic, and
third, any car can easily pass me by crossing over the center line
(straddling it momentarily is sufficient to pass a cyclist). There's
plenty of visibility (since it's a straight road, so opposing traffic
isn't going to appear out of thin air and result in a head-on collision).

> Anything else is downright selfish.

It's downright selfish to put the cyclist's life in danger by passing
within inches of him when there's plenty of opportunity to allow for
more space when passing.

Scott in SoCal wrote:
> BTW, I agree that such signs are a waste of money. The reasonable
> pedalcyclists already keep to the right, and the arrogant ones are
> just going to ignore the signs.

True as far as it goes. The signs would serve a purpose though, by
depriving cyclists of the excuse "I didn't know" when they get
ticketed for not keeping right -- but first we'd need a few cops
with the balls to write those tickets.

I'm not surprised there aren't any in Colorado.

On 2009-09-09, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> In message >, Brent
> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-09-08, Paul D. DeRocco > wrote:
>>>> "Brent" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> No, cars do not have the right of way 'whenever possible'. They have the
>>>> right of way when they have it under the rules of the road.
>>>
>>> Sure, but from a moral point of view bicyclists can't claim equality with
>>> cars on the road:
>>>
>>> 1) The roads were built for cars. If no one biked, we'd have pretty much the
>>> same roads; if everyone biked, we'd have only bike paths.
>>
>>Roads are built for the heaviest and largest vehicles that will be used
>>upon them. this is merely good engineering practice.
>
> So Clark Street in Chicago (platted in the 19th century and not even
> paved until the 1930s) was built for semis?

In that case it wasn't even built for cars.

> Your statement may be true for NEW roads, but most of the roads we're
> stuck with are far from new and FAR from optimal for mixed
> automobile-bicycle traffic.

Who said anything about optimal mixed use? I responding to a statement
that was apparently about dimensional and weight limits. A bicycle is a
small vehicle that isn't particularly heavy, therefore, if a 'road' is
designed 'for' bicycles you get a forest preserve bike path. When a road
is designed, rebuilt, whathaveyou the goal is making it useful to the
heaviest and largest vehicles intended for use upon it.