Anger at the idiots - why?

[Ninety5rpm]

Can we vent here?

Exclusive to red-light runners and/or helmeltless riders?

What about groups (especially small...2-4 riders) that don't single up when cars approach?

Should we single up so the cars can get by easier or should we keep the road and force them to wait til they can pass safely? All the while hoping they do actually wait til it's safe to pass?

In most U.S. states the law that requires cyclists to keep right does not apply in many cases, including when a lane is "too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane." It also does not apply in many other cases, including when passing others, as in a rotating paceline, and when approaching "a place where a right turn is authorized".

There are excellent safety reasons for these exceptions. When approaching potential turn places, sharing lanes should be discouraged to practically eliminate the chance of being right hooked, and to make yourself more conspicuous to potential crossing and turning traffic in front of you. If you ride far right in a narrow lane, that encourages and invites motorists to try to dangerously squeeze in next to you. I've encountered countless number of cyclists who tried riding further left more often, and, without exception, all were pleased and surprised at the much improved treatment they got. Here is a video example of what I'm talking about.

How narrow is a narrow lane? Basically any lane under 14 feet.

Wide outside lane
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States of America, wide outside lane (WOL), or wide curb lane (WCL), is a term used by cyclists and bicycle transportation planners to refer to the outermost lane of a roadway when it is wide enough to be safely shared side by side by a bicycle and a wider motor vehicle at the same time. Generally, the minimum width standard for a WOL is 14 feet (4.3 m)[1]. A WOL may also be known as a wide outside through lane (WOTL) to differentiate it from a right turn only lane (an outermost lane for traffic that will turn right, not intended for use by through traffic).

Conversely, a narrow lane is a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared side by side by a bicycle and a wider motor vehicle at the same time. When the outside lane of a roadway is a narrow lane, it is sometimes referred as a narrow outside lane (NOL) or a narrow curb lane (NCL). To encompass only through lanes, the term narrow outside through lane (NOTL) is sometimes also used.

In some jurisdictions, the rules of the road apply differently for a cyclist when the roadway has a WOL or a NOL. For example, in the state of California all cyclists are legally required to ride "as close as practicable to the right-hand" side of the roadway when the lane is wide enough "for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane." What exactly constitutes "wide enough" is not specified and has not yet been addressed by case law. Vehicular cycling experts recommend that a cyclist always use the full lane when it is narrow. In other words, a person should not attempt to share a marked lane which is not wide enough for effective (i.e., efficient, safe and lawful) passing within the lane.

To illustrate how WOLs are generally considered to be facilities which primarily benefit cyclists, consider a road marked with a bike lane; if the bike lane stripe is removed, what remains is a WOL. Some vehicular cyclists and bike lane opponents advocate for WOLs instead of bike lanes, arguing that WOLs provide most, if not all, of the benefits, without any of the drawbacks that bike lanes impose on a person just because they are traveling by bicycle. Still others maintain that the primary purpose of providing the additional roadway width (whether in the form of a WOL or a bike lane) is to facilitate the passing of cyclists by motorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_outside_lane

So whenever a group is riding in a situation where a solo cyclist should be controlling the lane, it's also not a good place to single up and keep right for the same reasons. This occurs far more often, especially in urban and suburban areas, than most people realize. Consider that every driveway is a "place where right turns are authorized", and traffic lanes are rarely 14 feet or wider.

I can understand motorists not getting this and getting upset with cyclists who don't ride single file, but it's sad to see fellow cyclists complain about it. Very, very different from running red lights.

 

[flyor64]

In most U.S. states the law that requires cyclists to keep right does not apply in many cases, including when a lane is "too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane." ...

I can understand motorists not getting this and getting upset with cyclists who don't ride single file, but it's sad to see fellow cyclists complain about it. Very, very different from running red lights.

I figured you get me at some point ...I've read your stuff on the other commuter type threads...learned quite a bit from you actually...but I still don't completely agree with your post above.

And if you read my original post I was implying, if not very clearly, that there is a judgement call to be made by the cyclist in some situations, i.e. wide lanes or lanes with big shoulders or bike lanes even. We have a lot of both in Europe...and alot of the times those shoulders and/or bike lanes are connected to relatively narrow roads.

I actually agree 100% with your post when the lane is narrow with no shoulde/BL or worse, a guard rail...but where my observation (and complaint sometimes) comes in is when there is an obvious shoulder or bike lane available and they are not used...this IMHO is not sharing the road.

It goes both ways is all I am saying...

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I figured you get me at some point ...I've read your stuff on the other commuter type threads...learned quite a bit from you actually...but I still don't completely agree with your post above.

And if you read my original post I was implying, if not very clearly, that there is a judgement call to be made by the cyclist in some situations, i.e. wide lanes or lanes with big shoulders or bike lanes even. We have a lot of both in Europe...and alot of the times those shoulders and/or bike lanes are connected to relatively narrow roads.

I actually agree 100% with your post when the lane is narrow with no shoulde/BL or worse, a guard rail...but where my observation (and complaint sometimes) comes in is when there is an obvious shoulder or bike lane available and they are not used...this IMHO is not sharing the road.

It goes both ways is all I am saying...

Well, we might be more in agreement than it initially appears, but the distinction between places where the roadway can be safely and reasonably shared, and places where bicyclists would be best served to control the lane even if riding solo, much less as a group, is crucial.

Shoulders and bike lanes should not be conflated, either. There are standard minimum widths for bike lanes, not for shoulders. Bicyclists are never required to use shoulders (except in one or two crazy anti-bike U.S. states), and should never be judged for choosing to not ride in a shoulder, no matter how wonderful it may appear, especially from inside an air-conditioned, sound-muffling, shock-absorbing motor vehicle.

Even on roads with bike lanes there are often good reasons to ride in, and even control, the adjacent traffic lane. This is true of course when the bike lane is obstructed with debris or something, but also even in places with frequent driveways, or whenever the cyclists are traveling at speeds much higher than 15 mph (traveling much faster than 15 mph is arguably unsafe so close to the road edge as a bike lane).

 

[Archibald]

so is this why you get annoyed at people who do what you believe to be "the wrong thing"??

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

If you get annoyed with riders doing stuff like; running red lights, not wearing helmets, riding on footpaths/sidewalks, etc... why do you get annoyed at those that do these things?
Why is there such fervour towards people who choose to endanger their own lives and p*ss motorists off?

I'll answer that for the crazies, because you won't get a straight answer from them. They're basically lunatics, comparable to the freaks that stand on street corners rambling on and on how the end of the world is coming. Some people need a soap box to stand on to somehow justify sticking their noses in other peoples' business, and the "you're giving us a bad name" crowd is the worst. I suggest they go take their frustrations out on Critical Massers, they'd have a field day playing fake bike cop.

 

[broken chain]

I wear no helmet.I run red lights with extreme caution.I will not run a red light in heavy traffic.I have not worn a helmet ever!!!!Thats about 53 years.
I really don't think a helmet is going to help when a 3000# vehicle runs you over.
I have crashed many times and aside from reciting the pre amble to the constitution every time a microwave oven is on I seemed to have weathered the storm very well
just my 5.00<-adjusted for inflation

 

[BikeCentric]

I'll answer that for the crazies, because you won't get a straight answer from them. They're basically lunatics, comparable to the freaks that stand on street corners rambling on and on how the end of the world is coming. Some people need a soap box to stand on to somehow justify sticking their noses in other peoples' business, and the "you're giving us a bad name" crowd is the worst. I suggest they go take their frustrations out on Critical Massers, they'd have a field day playing fake bike cop.

I have to agree. I think that if someone is truly riding their bike like a lunatic (which is by definition a subjective judgement unique to each individual), then observers will simply see a lunatic riding a bike. I highly doubt the thought process among the majority of sane human beings is along the lines of "OMG I just saw a lunatic on a bike; therefore every person on a bike must be a lunatic!"

So regardless I try to worry about myself and my own riding, i.e. the things I can control myself and not worry that I might be perceived as "a crazy bike rider" because some other random person that I don't know may or may not have seen someone else riding recklessly. LOL it boggles the mind that people get angry about such things IMHO.

 

[Lifeshape]

I always wear a helmet and always take calculated risks when running red lights, stop signs, etc. If (ok, when...) I run the light and have someone blast me with their horn, I never give the finger or respond impolitely. I simply wave my hand and accept the fault.
When traffic is dense and things get sketchy, as much as I don't want to stop and unclip, I will. It's the right, and safe, thing to do given the circumstances. Furthermore, as for the helmet vs. the 3000lb car argument, the helmet transcends just the auto. What happens when you are cruising without traffic and you encounter a pothole, a puncture, or a fork split? I'd hate to have seen the helmetless after effects from Beloki, or more recently Voigt, after their spills...
JUST BE SAFE, PEOPLE!

 

[Boeing]

That's simple, by pissing off those motorists those people are endangering my life as well.

concur. straight up

 

[Boeing]

I will share anoter take

One thing to consider for what it's worth here in socal, given the litigious society we live in: Personal Responsibility. If you have ever been involved in an accident and subsequent litigation you may know that one question a bike rider may have to answer is this (regardless if the rider is a victim or perp) Did you take every precaution to avoid harm to yourself or others? The list might surprise you. Bike maintenance, proper bike fit, tire pressure, protective clothing (Helmet), did you read the manual, where are the warning stickers on the bike? reflective gear etc..proper knowledge of city and county rules governing etc etc.....

I am in no mood to change anyones mind but some might argue in some countries or cities or counties etc, that you are not a responsible rider unless you have considered every personal precaution. To demonstrate otherwise one could further argue that your lack of preparation can "and did" endanger someone else on the road regardless of circumstance.


SO you get mowed my a truck and are not wearing a helmet. could this alone could compromise your families settlement or clear the accused of fault. maybe not but it offers doubt and doubt is not your friend going into a jury trial because the jury is not a jury of your peers.

I am not an attorney nor do I pretend to be one. However I have some personal experience in this area

no need to detail however I remember clearly every question that was asked of me regarding my personal routine in preparation of my bike and rides and maintenance and road knowledge etc. Helmet was one of them, but they could see it in pieces in the pictures; but I was asked If I properly fastened the strap.

I dont remember the accident to this day but I recall the questions about my routine etc.

I made a comment to a teammate a few weekends ago about no helmet. He rolled up with a lot of hair product probably because he has the only hair line remaining in the group. But he got twisted ****ed at me until I reminded him of the contract code he signed for the sponsors before he received his kit.

good night

 

[Boeing]

I'd hate to have seen the helmetless after effects from Beloki, or more recently Voigt, after their spills...
JUST BE SAFE, PEOPLE!

All I have to add here is that I get to see my kid go to college because I was wearing a helmet. Giro saved my life or at least allows me to eat solid food. .

to each their own

safe indeed

 

[Archibald]

it boggles the mind that people get angry about such things IMHO.

and yet they do, which is what I'm trying to work out.

I, myself, am finding that I get annoyed at the red light runners while commuting. If I watched one get taken out by a car going in the other direction I'd simply say "sucked in. you only have yourself to blame"... that said, I'd still go and assist, as I doubt I could just ride on.
But there's no real rational reason for me to get p*ssed off with them - other than the bigger picture of the reaction of motorists and where that will lead...

 

[riobonito92]

It's different now I have a wife and a kid - I have slowed down and become more careful, but to be honest, I still find riding a bike at speed through heavy traffic, stopping for nothing and taking "calculated" risks exciting. Over the years I have slammed into a few suddenly opened doors, have been forced off the roads numerous times and have been punched in the face by an irate driver. In all this time (20+ years) I have never hit a pedestrian, never caused anyone else to get hurt.

Every time I drive a car, (and my car driving is the reverse, obsessively careful) I consider myself to be a potential murderer. Driving a tonne of heavy metal at forty miles an hour is obsenely reckless. Car driver's mistakes kill.

But we are so enamoured of the car that traffic surfing cyclists are the objects of hate and car drivers are untouchable. That makes no sense to me.

 

[guilder]

It's not safe to wait in intersections for green lights. You're a distraction to drivers which increases the chance of a car-car accident taking you out.

Intersections are dangerous places.

Helmets are important and set a good example. Motorists may respect a rider serious about the sport and protecting his/her vulnerabilities.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

What a jerk! Call the police!!

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Dammit!! You're giving us a bad name!

 

[broken chain]

What a jerk! Call the police!!

Now if he busts a red light I will be REALLY impressed!!

 

[Archibald]

It's not safe to wait in intersections for green lights. You're a distraction to drivers which increases the chance of a car-car accident taking you out.

whilst not exactly on topic, in the words of John McEnroe... You can't be serious

 

[Ferdinand Artichoke]

one word

competency

if you're bleeding... even if 'it aint your fault'
if other road users are gettin crazy at you... 'even if it aint your fault'

you're probably not a competent road user- like that guy with the umbrella!

 

[stephens]

That's simple, by pissing off those motorists those people are endangering my life as well.

You're blaming the wrong group. Blame the drivers. Do not try to give them any excuse or justification for their dangerous behavior. Stress that no matter how cyclists ride, car operators have the responsibility to not hit them! That's the cross they must bare for sitting in a climate controlled hunk of metal spewing pollution into our common air. (and fwiw, i drive at least 20k miles a year).

 

[Hugh Januss]

You're blaming the wrong group. Blame the drivers. Do not try to give them any excuse or justification for their dangerous behavior. Stress that no matter how cyclists ride, car operators have the responsibility to not hit them! That's the cross they must bare for sitting in a climate controlled hunk of metal spewing pollution into our common air. (and fwiw, i drive at least 20k miles a year).

No that is not right, every road user has the responsiblity to conduct themselves in a safe and lawabiding manner. Neither the weight, efficiency, nor comfort level have a bearing on that. The group I am talking about is the huge increase in urban cyclists who see it as a part of their group image to ride irresponsibly, to blatantly run red lights even in crowded intersections. These are no better than the car driver who thinks s/he owns the road, or devotes all his/her attention to the cell conversation while driving, or even seems to drive in a manner which suggests that s/he has no idea that the car has the capability to actually indicate to other road users which way s/he intends on turning next.
I have ridden in traffic for going on 40 years and am still alive to tell about it. Do I ever run lights or stop signs? Of course. Do I try always to do it in a way that is courteous and respectful of other road users? Yes, I think that has a lot to do with why I am still here. I plan my routes for more 4 way stops than lights and more right turns than lefts. I stop at all traffic lights when cars are present. I slow down at 4 way stops even when I don't see any cars. If there is a car opposing at a 4 way stop, I stop, often they will motion me do go first. When they do I give them a wave or a nod and a smile, when they don't, I obey the law. Ninety5rpm is entirely right in his assessment of when to take the lane and so on, but at the same time I see racing cyclists all the time who ride side by side on narrow climbs and will not interupt their conversation for a second to help the guy in the car stuck behind them at 15 mph safely get around them. I usually observe that from a vantage point just behind after having already done the right thing.

 

[guilder]

whilst not exactly on topic, in the words of John McEnroe... You can't be serious

Wasn't the topic helmets and stop signals/signs before it went where you think it is?

Stopping and waiting at intersections is like waiting for an awkward situation to inevitably occur. Last time I was out I approached an intersection where two choppers(mc) were waiting. The light changes and somebody in the opposite lane tries to beat them by making a left turn in front of them. Awkward! Everything stopped. Motorists show little more respect for motorcyclists than they do for bicylists. You'd think they'd be afraid of the biker types.

You're blaming the wrong group. Blame the drivers. Do not try to give them any excuse or justification for their dangerous behavior. Stress that no matter how cyclists ride, car operators have the responsibility to not hit them! That's the cross they must bare for sitting in a climate controlled hunk of metal spewing pollution into our common air. (and fwiw, i drive at least 20k miles a year).

No matter who's wrong cyclists pay for it. Motorists, particularly the old fcks who are living in the past, know they can lie their way out of trouble with any lame excuse like e.g. the bicyclist swerved, because it's good enough for the 50%+ of cops who will sympathize with them. Evidence is required for motorists to get punished for running down cyclists e.g. obvious intoxication, speeding in the opposite direction, or admitting fault. Even then, you need good luck in a civil suit.

Riding bike falls under the same rules as the auto, yet cyclists have the right of way as do pedestrians. Which is it? It's bound to psss some motorists off.
Some drivers overcompensate, while some are oblivious to the threat they pose to cyclists.

Best thing to do is show respect and you'll receive it. And don't ride where you're bound to run into trouble.

 

[Archibald]

Wasn't the topic helmets and stop signals/signs before it went where you think it is?

Stopping and waiting at intersections is like waiting for an awkward situation to inevitably occur. Last time I was out I approached an intersection where two choppers(mc) were waiting. The light changes and somebody in the opposite lane tries to beat them by making a left turn in front of them. Awkward! Everything stopped. Motorists show little more respect for motorcyclists than they do for bicylists. You'd think they'd be afraid of the biker types.

err... no.
It was about why you get annoyed/p*ssed off when you see riders do something wrong - the red light running was an example one of those actions.
Did you read the first post?

But your belief that stopping at an intersection as being foolhardy defies logic just because of the occasional idiot motorist trying to pull off the 'beat the oncoming traffic' stunt. Better yet, maybe riders should continue through the intersection just as the light goes red so that those making their late right turn can nail us...

 

[guilder]

err... no.
It was about why you get annoyed/p*ssed off when you see riders do something wrong - the red light running was an example one of those actions.
Did you read the first post?

But your belief that stopping at an intersection as being foolhardy defies logic just because of the occasional idiot motorist trying to pull off the 'beat the oncoming traffic' stunt. Better yet, maybe riders should continue through the intersection just as the light goes red so that those making their late right turn can nail us...

If giving examples to support why someone is or isn't justified in getting ****ed at their fellow riders for defying arbitrary automobile rules applied to cyclists, is off topic, then everyone is off topic.

I didn't say foolhardy. I see it as safer to clear out of an intersection because it's statistically more dangerous to wait. Accidents like fenderbenders are so common in intersections that even serious ones don't make the news. Add the dorky cyclist in dorky neon green variable to the equation and you might catch the eye of the already distracted driver.

 

[Hugh Januss]

If giving examples to support why someone is or isn't justified in getting ****ed at their fellow riders for defying arbitrary automobile rules applied to cyclists, is off topic, then everyone is off topic.

I didn't say foolhardy. I see it as safer to clear out of an intersection because it's statistically more dangerous to wait. Accidents like fenderbenders are so common in intersections that even serious ones don't make the news. Add the dorky cyclist in dorky neon green variable to the equation and you might catch the eye of the already distracted driver.

So whether you are in a car or on a bike, the faster you are moving in an intersection, the less chance anyone has of hitting you?