Are Cyclists Causing Traffic Problems on Country Roads?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pain
AI Thread Summary
Cyclists riding three abreast on narrow country lanes are seen as a danger to traffic, causing significant delays and forcing cars to veer into oncoming lanes. Many drivers express frustration over cyclists not riding single file, which would allow for safer passing. While some cyclists argue they have the right to occupy the lane as vehicles, this can lead to dangerous situations, especially on bends. The discussion highlights a tension between the rights of cyclists and the need for courtesy on the road, with both parties needing to recognize each other's presence and responsibilities. Ultimately, the conversation underscores the importance of mutual respect and safety for all road users.
  • #51
Here is a link which explains some of the motivations as to why bicyclists might ride two abreast.

Note: this article may not apply everywhere (technically, it doesn't apply anywhere outside of North Carolina. But the general idea might apply in other places, depending). Check your local laws and regulations.

http://www.bikewalknc.org/2015/04/why-cyclists-ride-two-abreast/
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
This issue applies even on bike paths. I witnessed (was essentially involved in) a bad wreck caused by some fast bikers not minding the traffic in front of them and basically running someone over because I happened to be passing in the opposite direction at the same time and they didn't have room to go around. And I sometimes see bikers riding two or three abreast even on a 6-8 ft wide trail.

This isn't specifically a bikers vs cars issue, it is a general issue with humans: certain people think they are the only or most important ones on the trail/road. There's a saying I sometimes see on billboards (paraphrased): "Drive like you own the car (or bike), not the road".
 
  • #53
Daz said:
Try driving in Cambridge (UK). The cyclists there are a pain in your wallet too. I reckon Cambridge must have more bikes per square mile than any other place on earth

I live in Cambridge and ride a bike, and let me tell you, you've got nothing on Davis, California.

and the vast majority are ridden by people with absolutely no concept of road safety. I’m convinced they think traffic lights only apply to cars and not bikes.

This annoys me a lot. I always stop at lights. I don't think it's the "vast majority", though. I think about 20% fail to stop at lights. It's usually someone who didn't bother wearing a helmet. Everyone who appears to be an "experienced biker" always seems to obey the rules.

As for staying to the side of the lane (the left here, the right in most places), it is not always safe to do so. Cambridge has great bike lanes, and I use them, but sometimes they end and then we share a lane. When the road is wide enough, I stay over to the side and cars can pass. But if the road narrows, it is safer for me to ride in the middle of the lane, to discourage car drivers from trying to pass me unsafely. This doesn't happen for any long stretches; there are just a few "squeeze points" where I deliberately take up more space before getting back over to the side. This takes up a maximum of 3-5 seconds of people's time, and it keeps me safe.

Someone earlier complained that bikers don't pay to use the roads, which is nonsense. Roads are paid for out of income taxes.
 
  • #54
Ben said.
Someone earlier complained that bikers don't pay to use the roads, which is nonsense. Roads are paid for out of income taxes.

Car drivers pay a tax, they have to have a license and insurance and an mot, if a cyclist causes an accident try prosecuting him, he has no insurance so usually one has to make a civil claim.
 
  • #55
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/bike-accidents-collisions-with-cars-29549.html

Although intersections represent a relatively small portion of a cyclist's travel route, they are where a cyclist is most at risk of getting hit by a car or otherwise involved in a car accident. Only 11% of bicycle accidents involve a collision with a car; but of these, 45% take place in intersections. (Contrary to popular fears, the majority of bicycle accidents -- 59% -- involve only the cyclist, who loses control of the bike and crashes.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to minimize the risk of intersection accidents with cars, cyclists need to maximize their visibility, understand the rules of the road, learn to recognize some of the most dangerous intersection hazards, and take safety precautions when approaching and riding through an intersection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It also pays to learn the basic legal rules of liability -- that is, who is responsible for an accident. Cyclists who don't follow road rules or don't keep a proper lookout might be deemed responsible for an accident. And cyclists who do follow the rules of the road but are nevertheless hit by a driver who doesn't follow the rules of the road may be surprised to find that the driver and police blame the cyclist for the crash59% of accidents only involve only the cyclist, heck what do we have lemmings.
 
  • #56
Ben Niehoff said:
Roads are paid for out of income taxes.

I'm sure this varies by country and state. Here in the US, in many states part of the gasoline tax goes toward maintaining the roadways. :smile:
 
  • #57
wolram said:
I am not sure if this a law or just a code but it is there in the highway code rules.

Astronuc said:
I suspect that a code is a civil law. It does state - "Rules for cyclists (59 to 82)" and "The Highway Code rules for cyclists, including an overview, road junctions, roundabouts and crossing the road."
In the UK Highway Code, wherever it says "MUST" or "MUST NOT" in capitals, then it's the law. Otherwise it's not the law but failure to observe could be used against you in the event of an accident.
 
  • #58
I once was behind a large truck. The trucker, I gather, did not like cyclists. Upon coming alongside one, he lugged the engine, or something, and blew out an enormous cloud of black soot all over him.
I used to try to stay out of traffic when I rode.
 
  • #59
dipole said:
This whole issue essentially boils down to people annoyed at having to occasionally apply their brake and not travel at 15 mph over the speed limit for the sake of other people's lives. It's easy to see who is a very selfish person from their stance on this issue.
It's easy to see who is a very selfish person from their willingness to unnecessarily slow traffic behind them, claiming the drivers would otherwise be speeding if they didn't.
dipole said:
Wrong. Some people do feel better about using a bike than a car, but most just want to combine monetary savings, convenience and exercise into one practical solution to their daily commutes. No one wants to ride their bike in the same space as cars. I hate riding a bike on motorways, but the vast majority of people have no choice. This makes them entitled?
Attached is an example of what I'm talking about: white male, upper middle class, expensive bike, dressed in "bicyclist" costume, . These guys don't commute to work on their bikes, they just go out riding in their spare time wallowing in bike culture. They often travel in packs, and are the most adamant about their rights. They're not about saving money, it's a kind of gentlemanly gang thing for them.

In my experience, practical cyclists, cyclists who use bikes primarily for transportation, are usually the most careful not to
Screen shot 2015-10-12 at 7.56.07 PM.png
impact traffic.
 
  • Like
Likes Jaeusm
  • #60
Astronuc said:
I generally ride alone

Yeah, I can see that, I always thought of you as the cool "lone wolf" type :cool:.

Personally, I think everyone should drive mopeds (or scooters). Gas efficient, get's you there basically as fast as a car, you can accommodate an order of magnitude more on the given causeway, etc.

IDK what the solution is, but I think that it's probably to have a separate infrastructure for peddling bikers/scooters and traditional cars/buses.
 
  • #61
I think this thread has served it purpose, it has shown what laws apply to cyclists, the rest is personal opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
zoobyshoe said:
Attached is an example of what I'm talking about: white male, upper middle class, expensive bike, dressed in "bicyclist" costume,
At best the is stereotypnig. At worst, this is profiling. Are we really going to go here?

So we assume that, based on similar appearance, individuals are identical, share the same values and motivations?
Because these guys on that kind of bike, wearing that riding outfit with this colour skin were rude, means that it's a safe assumption that the next guy I encounter that looks like that is going to have the same manners and attitude?

zooby, please send me your mugshot. I will determine, based things I see in it (with a very heavy dose of arbitrary prejudgement), how you and all other zooby-like people I have never yet met will behave. I can tell by the clothes you wear, and by my understanding of what class of person buys that kind of shirt. o0)
 
  • #63
wolram said:
I think this thread ha s served it purpose, it has shown what laws apply to cyclists, the rest is personal opinion.
+1

We sure have shed some light on a subject people have very strong - and quite polar - views on. Forget politics and religion - it's road etiquette that will bring people to blows. :woot:
 
  • #64
wolram said:
I think this thread has served it purpose, it has shown what laws apply to cyclists, the rest is personal opinion.

Agreed. Thread is tied off.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
26
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
9K
Replies
43
Views
8K
Back
Top