The end of driving on the weekend. 09/16/14

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by speeder

The bicyclists in that video are riding as far over to the right as possible. I sure hope that the MC rider got sued into lifelong poverty.

It seems to me that the motorcycle rider was fixiated on the cyclists. He saw them, and rode into them. He wasn't looking far enough ahead, he didn't slow down, didn't adjust his trajectory, was unaware of his closing speed, and as stated above, he was already heading off the road BEFORE the cyclists became a factor.

That said, I don't think the MC rider should be sued into lifelong poverty. It was an accident. I don't think he would do something like that on purpose - and it looks like he did some significant damage to his bike. It seems like the bicycle riders were ok - they all got up. Sure, their bikes were damaged - but those can be repaired. It could have been far worse for all involved. So repair the damage and move on. No need for public hangings over a mistake.

There is a risk when one rides on public roads - that risk is inversely proportional to the size of the vehicle one is using. IE: drive a car, and the risk is less than if one rides a motorcycle or bike.

-Z

[Joe Bob]

That corner is notorious for accidents, that videographer sets up there EVERY weekend when there are crowds, it is above the Rock Store where Leno hangs out. Everyone who has been up there and is an idiot hot rods around the corner and can buy the tape. R Nickey Mouse or whatever his name is.

Illegal turn outs and parking, double off camber turns......I don't take that drive out of the Store and simply turn around go back the way I came. Poor choice for the cyclist but the motorcyclist was 100% at fault.

[arominus]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Double to triple the speed is significant - "10-20 mph" may not seem so "vast", but but seen in those terms, it really is. Even at much higher speeds (like freeway speeds) we all understand how very frustrating it is to get caught behind someone doing that much less than the speed limit, and how dangerous it can be when those frustrated motorists try to get around one another under those conditions.

You have carefully avoided addressing the "vast delta" in mass - and how that makes it even more dangerous than motorist on motorist at disparate speeds. Oh, and let's not forget visibility - cyclists present a very small profile to pick out against a dynamic background. Most of us can remember seeing them seemingly "coming out of nowhere".



Thank you - I was hoping someone would bring up this tired old saw. I'm fully aware of this funding situation - I used to make this case myself when I was cycling as a way of countering the "you don't pay road taxes" argument. I realized the error in my logic many years ago...

Which brings us right back to my earlier (and intentionally silly) argument - if I pay taxes that support public roads, and some forms of recreation are allowable on those public roads, why can't I play basketball right out in the middle of them? Tennis? O.k., how about taxpayer supported public golf courses? I don't golf, but I do ride dirt bikes - why can't I use these publicly funded venues for my form of recreation? The argument that "I pay taxes, therefore I can utilize (insert public resource of choice) however I like" does not hold water under any other circumstances, especially when my use is so different (and incompatible) with the generally intended and agreed upon use.

Again, we get back to compatible uses. Cyclists claim their use of motorways is "compatible" with motor vehicle use. At least most motorways - we do have the good common sense to disallow them from most stretches of freeway. The speed differential is simply too great out there - most of us agree on that.

What motorists are getting at is that bicycles are no more compatible with motorized traffic on other forms of motorway, even at relatively "low" speed for cars - which is very high speed for cyclists. In their own, dedicated lanes, yes. Mixed in with general traffic, no. Size and speed are too disparate there as well.

So whats your real answer here? ban bikes from all roads? keep in mind this includes children. You ready to put that $70 a year on them for wanting a bike so they can ride to school?

FYI, colorado has had the 3ft rule for years, we survived just fine. We have guys that write in to the local paper stating that they are looking forward to running cyclists down (because they hate them) so i ride on the sidewalk quite a bit these days. Its safer for me.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by uncle_scott

To me, this is ultimately a matter of poor road design. As a society we have not done well with accommodating different forms of transportation on our roads. Only in the past few decades has the push for sidewalks in every subdivision been moving forward. From a simple cost standpoint, it is many times cheaper to incorporate a bike facility and pedestrian facility into a road project from the onset. Retrofitting, and creating independent facilities in their own right-of-way are the very most expensive thing we can do.

If we are all seeing cyclists on the road, and the issue seems to be getting more prevalent, then why are we reacting with "common sense" and providing adequate facilities for these road users?

In SoCal, another part of the problem is squeezing two lanes where there used to be one in an effort to accommodate more cars. This takes away margins of safety for all concerned.

Basically you have extreme jerks in both camps. I've encountered hostile drivers and hostile bikers (pedal and moto). I've encountered clueless drivers and bikers. The vast majority just want to get from point A to point B in one piece. But the self-importance of a few often makes that a difficult task.

[BE911SC]

I taught my daughter, a new driver, to look at all cyclists as de facto lawyers who are itching for a fight. Yes, yes, not all cyclists are jerks, etc. Yeah, got it. However, all of them would sue your tail off if given the slightest provocation.

With cyclists taking on a kind of holier-than-thou (and even a victim status*) nowadays, in our relentlessly politically-correct society, one must approach each and every one of them as a potential lawsuit. I joke that most of them are law students or practicing attorneys who know an easy buck when they see one and since many lawyers are cyclists they can influence the public domain by getting such laws passed and strictly enforced. You would also have to assume that the judge hearing your "unlawful crowding of a cyclist" case also rode his bicycle to the court that day.

*Cars are the enemy, especially in crowded cyclist nirvanas such as San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. To most cyclists (okay, all cyclists) people who drive cars are, in fact, victimizing cyclists (and pedestrians**) with their huge four-wheeled weapons that emit toxic pollution that threatens the health and well-being of cyclists. Add to that the GoPro cameras on the cyclists' helmets that capture your evil terror weapon coming an inch too close to the threatened cyclist and the next step is a summons. Only the truly fortunate driver will get a finger flipped at them in the rear-view mirror. Consider yourself lucky and go buy a lottery ticket.

You gotta' be careful out there. You'd better give cyclists all the room you can give them or you might get surrounded by them at the next light and your car might get damaged as they take out their self-righteous victim rage on you and your evil terror weapon. (They, of course, drive their BMWs, Volvos and Porsches any way they see fit and don't you dare point that out to any of them.)

**Pedestrians are lower on the victim status list than cyclists. Ever try to cross a busy city street, with the green Walk light, only to have a cyclist almost run you over, the cyclist treating you as if you are some kind of inferior person who needs to watch the f**k out for him next time? Any loser can walk but it takes a special kind of superior being to ride a sophisticated two-wheeled device while clad in only the best and the latest sophisticated gear. Clearly you must see the superior status (and in court it will be victim status) of the modern cyclist. Give them a wide berth or you won't know what the hell happened to you.

[Tobra]

Actually, I did have cyclist almost run me over in SF running a red light. Saw him at the last moment when he popped out from behind a van parked on the side of the street, jumped back and my back pack caught his handlebars. He went flying, and I got a nice gash on my leg from it. I picked up his bike for him and got it out of the street, he came at me all furious that I had "made him crash" and would "pay for it."

Did you know that despite the fact that modern bicycles are very light, if you swing it hard enough, it is a fairly serviceable weapon; knocked that guy right into a light pole. He sort of lost interest in kicking my ass after that.

[wayner]

Here are the roads in the country and city where I roll.

I am very fortunate than in the country or the city, I have my own lane, regardless if I am in my car, on my bike, or walking.

Walker hate cyclists as much as cyclists hate cars, and cars hate cyclist as much as cyclist hate walkers. I am fortunate that my city divides them up

Problems happen when a cyclist uses a mixed use path to connect two routes, and ride like they think they are still trying to win the tour.

Problems happen when cars for some odd reason, even on 4 lane roads, ride with their right tires on the right white line when passing a cyclist at 50mph, even though they have two of their own lanes to use and the other one is completely empty, let alone their lane being more than wide enough.

I echo the common sense comment. Sheesh, what do some people think will happen if their car touches a cyclist, or their bike touches a pedestrian?

Where are their heads?

See what I mean when you look at the lane position of the two cars in the last pic, as well as the white van, not wrong, just and example of how much room there is to move over.

We now have a law that you have to move over an entire lane when passing a stopped police or emergency vehicle because those guys keep getting hit too, even with flashing lights, uniforms and safety vests.

[Bill Verburg]

Originally Posted by nostatic

There are douche bicyclists. Just like there are douche motorcyclists. And douche drivers. You can't really generalize - unless you want to because *they* annoy you.

I rarely ride my bicycle on the street anymore as drivers have become distracted and downright homicidal. Everyone is important and in a hurry. People do pass with less than 3'. And I ride way to the right. But a smart cyclist also knows that people in parked cars open their doors without looking so when you go by a parked car you have to give enough room to allow for that (if you can't see into the car - which is often the case).

As stated above, one problem with dedicated bike lanes is that they tend to accumulate crap - dirt, sticks, trash from cars, etc - and they don't get cleaned. So they end up being more dangerous than the road. But most places don't have separate (i.e. with curbing) lanes.

Perfect summary!

I'll just ad that here in the East there are often no shoulders what so ever and the edges of the road are often the first to deteriorate due to the harsh climate. I road irregularity that would never be felt in a car can be a major issue causing the bike to alter course intentionally or not. Way back in the mists of time when I was studying for my first license I recall a section of the manual that related to bicyclists, to paraphrase it said, slow, give them room and to watch for and expect unexpected course alterations that they may need to make.

I can't believe the self centered responses from many of the posters here, Do we ban our grand parents from driving next because they go a little slower and are a little more cautious than the whippersnappers, Lets ban all towing as they also go slower and can inhibit the speed of our passage, while we are at it lets be sure to get all the under powered older cars off the road they are obviously an impediment and get in the way.

We all pay the taxes that pay for the roads and a little courtesy goes a long way on both sides but as stated there is a % of every group that falls into the category of douche. From what I can see here self centered douche might be more apt.


Besides the unconscious danger that some drivers present there is a sub set that enjoys the power to intimidate others w/o the threat of any retaliation, these uber douches don't really intend to hurt anyone they just enjoy the thrill of the hunt

[VaSteve]

I was in Bar Harbor last mont and took my bike to go riding every morning. On day I decided to ride around the county roads on the "quiet side" of MDI. Holy sheet. The roads were so bad that I almost turned back. Instead, I was committed to the ride and rode near the double yellow for some sections. Nobody honked or got nasty, its vacation land after all. The rest of the time I limited myself to park loop road but I made the point to get up at 7 am (on vacation) so as not to deal with the cars, hikers, walkers and campers alson on the road.

[VaSteve]

I make a point to wave folks by if its safe when I see them in my mirror.

[Brando]

Originally Posted by fintstone

There should be a cycle lane paid for by road bike licensing fees. If a person wants to ride their bike on the road, they should be subject to the same rules as cars (including minimum speed) and ticketed.

There should be a law on bike licenses ... err wait a minute.

I wonder if the 3-foot rule applies to bikers. What if a cyclist is not keeping to the right of the lane and intentionally blocking traffic? (per the video above)

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by herr_oberst

Well, truth is, cars tend to actually get BETTER mileage when they go slower.

To a point but as a rule, below 45 it gets worse again.
http://www.mpgforspeed.com/

[Kraftwerk]

O.P. you have it all wrong, here are the guys that you really should worry about:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152181542777854&fref=nf

[wayner]

Originally Posted by Brando

I wonder if the 3-foot rule applies to bikers. What if a cyclist is not keeping to the right of the lane and intentionally blocking traffic? (per the video above)

Then he is an idiot...UNLESS it is a zone that is unsafe for you to pass, in which case blocking the lane out of self preservation is acceptable.

I would expect as soon as it is safe for you to pass the cyclist would move over and wave you by.

On one end of the scale are people who want to demonstrate their rights and biases at any cost, and at the other are the ones who recognize situations developing and do what it takes to avoid tragic incidents. I don't think it matters if they are walking cycling riding a motorcycle of driving a car or motorhome or 18 wheeler. There are good attitudes and bad.