Are Cyclists Causing Traffic Problems on Country Roads?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pain
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
63 replies · 6K views
DaveC426913 said:
No, They are obeying the law within their rights.
They are in a space they have as much right to as a driver. Your analogy is egregiously flawed.
In California, the situation described in wolram's OP would likely put the bicycle riders at least partially at fault for an accident. Bike riders are supposed to ride as far to the right as practicable so as to avoid impeding the flow of traffic. Also, if bicycle riders are slowing traffic, they are required to pull to the side to allow traffic to pass, just like any other slow vehicle is required to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Physics news on Phys.org
zoobyshoe said:
With good reason: the government didn't institute the paving of roads for bicycles. The whole thing, all that money and work, has always been primarily directed to the convenience of cars.
So what? The road is still a shared resource, with cyclists, motorcycle riders, etc. having just as much right to use them as car drivers. I suspect your attitude that everyone else is a guest in the car driver's realm is the main problem when it comes to accidents involving bikes.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Vela is right, but about drivers having a sense of entitlement. They think they're the bear and it's their bear cave. They're wrong.
It is certainly the law that you can't bump cyclists off the road, and every driver has to abide by that, but it is unnecessary to rationalize that to yourself by calling car drivers "entitled" for not wanting traffic grossly slowed down, and to recast cyclists as "oppressed people standing up for their rights." They have the law on their side, yes, but they abuse that to be pains in the a--.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jaeusm
vela said:
In California, the situation described in wolram's OP would likely put the bicycle riders at least partially at fault for an accident. Bike riders are supposed to ride as far to the right as practicable so as to avoid impeding the flow of traffic. Also, if bicycle riders are slowing traffic, they are required to pull to the side to allow traffic to pass, just like another other slow vehicle is required to.

Well, if the law in a given area states how they're supposed to ride, and they're not riding that way, that is a completely different kettle of fish from 'they should just be courteous and stay out of my way because I'm over-driving my stopping distance'.
 
vela said:
I suspect your attitude that everyone else is a guest in the car driver's realm ..
Exactly.
 
zoobyshoe said:
It is certainly the law that you can't bump cyclists off the road,
It is more than that. They are entitled to a safe distance from other vehicles, and entitled to not be pushed around. In essence, they are entitled to respect.
 
zoobyshoe said:
Exactly.
Right, but that's patently flawed. Cyclists are as legally entitled as autos.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The government didn't allow women to vote, but that too passed.
Do men get to feel a sense of entitlement that, once upon a time, the system was meant for them?
It's just not the same thing. Pain-in-the-butt cyclists are more likely to be from the upper middle class, to have expensive bikes and flashy bicycling costumes and helmets. They're elitists, not the oppressed.
 
WWGD said:
Dont want to veer too far off, but this is questionable in many ways: deaths on the job, imprisonment rates: 13: 1, advantages in family court obtaining custody, no fighting in grisly wars, etc. Besides the fact that women seem to have physiological advantages, longer lives, much fewer early deaths, etc. A very weak case IMHO.

Still, the case of cyclists should be addressed in its own terms.
I am simply refuting the 'as it once was, so should it be now' argument. It's a terrible argument.
 
There is a major issue in NYC with bicyclists riding at high speed in the sidewalk, or driving high speed in the road against the direction of traffic . And the new public bike program does not help, used by many tourists who do not know the local driving habits nor local laws and rarely use the designated bike lanes. Many of those who ride on the sidewalk and/or against the direction of traffic are delivery men (never seen a woman) , humble people, but those using the public bikes are often well-heeled tourists..
 
Okay, thread re-opened after OT cleanup. This is a valuable discussion, and we want to keep it open. Please stay on-topic, and don't veer off into analogies with other social injustices and so on. The discussion is about how bicyclists and cars can better co-exist.

In California, as mentioned earlier, us bikers are required to stay to the right and ride single file

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?...ntent_en/dmv/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffdl37

and recently there was a new California law enacted that required cars to provide a buffer zone when passing (I need to look that reference up). It is definitely a cooperative venture to make way for normal car traffic and keep bicyclists relatively safe. I hope that both themes are on everyone's agendas... :smile:
 
zoobyshoe said:
Bike lanes are an afterthought that was fitted to pre-existing roads not designed for them. Cyclists should bear that in mind.
Perhaps in some jurisdictions, but in the area where I live, we have bike lanes on the side of the road on many roads by design. We also have bike trails that are narrow pavements that are sometime shared with pedestrians. Otherwise, we generally have wide shoulders, or wide lanes so there is ample room to ride a bike safely. We have many recommended routes in addition to dedicated lanes, so there are plenty of opportunities to cycle safely to work or for recreation.

I drive a car and I cycle. I generally try to ride my bike to work weather and schedule permitting. I'm sure there are cyclists and car drivers who feel entitled, but they seem to be few. Most, if not all, cyclists also drive cars. There are plenty of vehicles with bike racks on the back, and some with kayak racks on top. Lots of folks are involved in outdoor recreation, including hiking, fishing or hunting.

There are several hundred cyclists in the area, some of whom belong to clubs, but other wise, we can share our rides and enjoy some friendly competition see who can ride various segments the fastest. A number of cyclists do have high tech bikes that run in the thousands of dollars, but I ride a bike that I bought for less than $400. I generally ride alone, but there are several cycling clubs that are available. I do see them occasionally, and they do ride two or three abreast, but also single file when conditions require.
 
Astronuc said:
I drive a car and I cycle. I generally try to ride my bike to work weather and schedule permitting. I'm sure there are cyclists and car drivers who feel entitled, but they seem to be few. Most, if not all, cyclists also drive cars. There are plenty of vehicles with bike racks on the back, and some with kayak racks on top.

.

Yet none of the cycling snobs carries a car rack on them. Except for Lou Ferrigno *, who had like three of them.

* Hulk.
 
In GB the roads are busy, we have some cycle lanes but they are far from adequate, some of our roads are ancient and would cost a kings ransom to modify, in other words we just do not cater for cycling along country lanes, if cyclists do use them it is up to them to respect motorists and ride single file.
 
Astronuc said:
Perhaps in some jurisdictions, but in the area where I live, we have bike lanes on the side of the road on many roads by design.
Sure, if there's space and the road is being redone, they can design a comfortable bike lane. That majority of surface streets in the majority of cities have no extra space for this, though. There are buildings on either side limiting the road width. Yet, bike lanes are shoehorned in, and these are the places you might encounter cyclists slowing traffic. You also encounter cyclists on roads where there is no bike lane riding down alongside parked cars. If there's no oncoming traffic you can swing around them and pass, but if there is, you just have to crawl along behind them.

Personally, when I was riding my bicycle, I'd get off the road if I saw I was slowing cars down. I really do consider the road intended for cars first, bicycles, Amish buggies and skateboards second.
 
wolram said:
I am not sure if this a law or just a code but it is there in the highway code rules.
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."
 
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.

zoobyshoe said:
It's my impression that cyclists feel they are morally superior to auto drivers and, therefore, should be deferred to. The cyclists feel they are both protecting the environment and taking care of their own health, while the auto driver is hurting the environment and getting fat while doing it. Pumped up by this feeling they are so much more responsible than car drivers, they do not mind blocking your way, and, in fact, probably enjoy it.

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?

wolram said:
I would not mind if cyclists paid to use the roads, but they do not, many times i have noted a gaggle of cyclists slowing down traffic and causing a long tail back, to me it is clear they should ride single file then the traffic can pass unhindered.
The wear and tear roads experience, aside from weather, is due to cars, not bikes. If you think bikes should have to pay tolls, then you should also agree that pedestrians using side-walks, children riding scooters, old ladies hunched over walkers, and every other individual who takes advantage of paved infrastructure should also have to pay to use the road - which is absurd. And do cyclists not pay taxes? Your assertion that you "pay for the road" and thus deserve some special privilege is ridiculous. You pay tolls to drive on some roads because you car is slowly destroying them.
 
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.

Cyclists peddle at what 15mph? that is how slow traffic has to slow to, on the UK roads that causes major tail backs and frustrated car drivers who have to be at a certain place at at a certain time, why should they be delayed by none paying cycle traffic,
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?

I am talking about leisure cyclists they are the ones that travel in (gaggles)

The wear and tear roads experience, aside from weather, is due to cars, not bikes. If you think bikes should have to pay tolls, then you should also agree that pedestrians using side-walks, children riding scooters, old ladies hunched over walkers, and every other individual who takes advantage of paved infrastructure should also have to pay to use the road - which is absurd. And do cyclists not pay taxes? Your assertion that you "pay for the road" and thus deserve some special privilege is ridiculous. You pay tolls to drive on some roads because you car is slowly destroying them.

Now you are being silly. no where in this thread have i picked on the individual cyclist.
 
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/
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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   Reactions: Jaeusm
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.