... I'd pull over and let you pass.

That's just me.

Maybe he's deaf or handicapped in some other way?

Is he wearing headphones?

should pull over and let faster people pass. I even do that in my car if I get people behind me that are hell bent for somewhere.

We had to do that a lot when we were driving in Europe where the roads were really narrow. If we got a line going behind us we would just pull over and let everybody go on. Then we would start out again.

As far as I can tell, there is no obvious signs to suggest that, but that's kinda hard to determine in this situation.

The only place I have EVER seen legal posted minimum speeds is on controlled access highways.

Please do provide a link to proof that there are minimum speeds, especially for bikes, in any major city. Try Los Angeles for starters.

Speed limits refer to MAXIMUM speeds unless they explicitly state minimum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States ".......Occasionally, there are minimum speed limits........"

"....In addition to the legally defined maximum speed, minimum speed limits may be applicable. Occasionally, there are default minimum speed limits for certain types of roads, generally freeways.
"....Comparable to the common basic speed rule, most jurisdictions also have laws prohibiting speeds so low they are dangerous or impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic....."

A bicycle is not a vehicle. You don't drive a bicycle.

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc670.htm

Motorists must look carefully for bicyclists before turning left or right, merging into bicycle lanes, and opening doors next to moving traffic. Respect the right-of-way of bicyclists because they are entitled to share the road with you
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffdl37.htm

I would use a different street if it was dangerous but we don't know how much farther that would be for the bicyclist and if it bothers the OP maybe they can take a different way?

I think bicyclists should have to be licensed and to take a test to know the rules. I don't think bicycles belong on the sidewalks unless the riders are children.

The intent of this law is for traffic not to be /obstructed/backed up so I think the bicyclist should pull over and let traffic pass. Even if there were no law, it's simply common decency. Anyone who forces a car to travel however fast an average bike rider goes when the speed limit is 45 is either oblivious to their surroundings - in which case they are not riding safe and shouldn't be on a bike - or they are a self-absorbed asshole. Just mho.

And also, I was responding to the post that said there were no laws for this in existence and we were talking about.

You are not aware there is a law against impeding traffic?

city street speed limit here), and cars typically go 40 mph. Bicycles are explicitly permitted on our streets, PERIOD.

Fuck the bicycle haters. May they all die of heart attacks from sheer laziness.

If there are two lanes of travel in one direction and a cyclist is in the rightmost lane, it doesn't matter if they are going 1 mph. They are not "impeding traffic" and nobody can do a damned thing - other than growing up and calmly passing in the left lane.

selves and use the other lane, like NORMAL people do.

I am under no obligation to get out of your way just because you're in a hurry when you have a safe and legal way to get around me. I have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT TO USE THE ROAD AS CARS DO.

Get on the nearest freeway and see what happens to your precious rights.

They blow thru stop signs and red lights. They go on sidewalks where prohibited. They pass cars on the right where that is illegal. They know most cops don't give a shit about it so they do want they want.

are crazy. I value my life too much to risk riding my bike on some roads and am very careful of any pedestrians. I mainly stick to designated bike trails in my community though. Those gangs of bikers that take up nearly the whole lane to tend do tick me off.

or many of the others I ride with.

but when I did, I still came to complete stops at stop signs, rode without earbuds, and had all the safety gear on. Mirrors, too. Oh, and hand-signals as well.

One of the main reasons I've seen other cyclists give for blowing through stop signs is that they don't want to have to start up again from a stop. Unless you're going up a steep hill, I don't see why it's a problem. Wouldn't it amount to that much more exercise, or what we want?

I agree (as to it not being a problem). I have started riding recumbent because of vertigo - and stopping and starting is a much more significant (and potentially riskier) event, particularly on an incline of any kind.

I still stop at signs and lights, but I am much more conscious of trying to time lights so I don't have to stop and of avoiding streets with stops where there is any incline leading away from the stop. Depending on how much of an incline, how much traffic, and how confident I am that I can start without weaving, I sometimes walk my bike through the intersection after stopping - or on an adjacent sidewalk until I am past the incline.

They always looked so easy to ride! Other than being rather low and out of motorists' general view. I guess that's what flags or pole-type lights are for.

That's understandable about having places where walking the bike is safer. Some of the bridges over the bayous are like that here. While there is a "sidewalk", it's often so skinny that I know I'd get vertigo riding next to the drop off!

I'm impressed with your commute length, too. I had a friend that biked to work, but had read somewhere that the "reasonable" limit for most cyclists was 9-miles one way. Where we lived, he was just at that limit. I didn't have a bike back then, but we did often go out street skating. I kind of miss those days (and my body back then!)

Trikes are easier to start than road bikes (no concerns about balance); bikes are nearly impossible to start on a hill because you start from a semi-reclined position without the opportunity to push off - and nearly every one has a 20" front wheel on a longer than average steering mast (which makes it less stable).

I just started a new job where it is (barely) possible - so I'm hoping to commute at least once a week in good weather. I occasionally split a commute over 2 days at my previous job (27 hilly miles). I'd haul my bike on my car to work, ride home, and ride back the next day.

At my new job the commute is mostly flat because of the towpath, and I get 3 hours of exercise at a cost of 2 hours (and volunteer credit for my commute!) That was one of the exciting things about taking this job.

Thanks for educating me about recumbents, too. If I ever get another bike, though, I think I'd like one of these quadricycles. Certainly not as fast as a two-wheeled bike, but able to haul more, like groceries

I'd go with this one: http://www.organictransit.com/

But I wasn't thinking of the electric versions, only the pedal-powered. Plus, I'm wary of three-wheelers, even when the single wheel is in the back. Four is always more stable, especially if you're hauling contents you don't want to spill.

That has made a huge difference in riding for me, no worry about starting on hills and no crawling up hills in the lowest of 24 gears any more.

Just yesterday for instance I was stopped first in line at a light on a major intersection with an uphill slope and cars all around me (there was a right turn only lane and I was going straight), but I wasn't worried because I can clear the intersection when the light changes almost as fast as the cars, my acceleration up to about 15 mph is quite brisk and I don't need to shift down nearly as much for stops or hills.

The electric assist has at least doubled my effective riding range and makes even steepish climbs nearly vanish. On steeper downhills my bike is actually slower though since the motor starts to act as a brake after I exceed about 22 mph or so. Even when I put my trailer behind the bent it barely slows me down at all, I can't really tell I'm pulling it.

My bike particularly with the trailer is highly unusual around here, I've seen people video me several times lately as I ride around town and I get waves on the road and conversations about my bike just about everywhere I stop.

I'm using the sarcasm tag, and you should too.

cyclers in Charlotte NC-- my sister in law had one lean on her car to rest at a red light (you can't make this stuff up)

They use the same arguments you do. Years ago, my wife was a bartender in the 'hood, and they came in- she frankly told them "one of you is going to get killed acting that way--- it's one thing to be right, it's another to argue with a 3,000 lb. vehicle."

One did-- within a month. The driver wasn't charged. The cyclist just did what they all do-- and pull right in front of the car.

It's sad-- for the driver too-- how would you like to live with that because you weren't able to stop in time?

on streets I am legally allowed to travel - and, I might add, legally allowed to occupy the full lane, you want me to pull over for a few minutes to let you go by on your 20 minute commute (adding at least a minute every time I have to pull over to let you, and the next car, and the next car, etc. go by)?

My bike commute is 1.5 hours (17 miles), and when I drive it is 20 minutes so those are real numbers.

That said, I do try to choose roads which are less congested and wider, and my drive is only 12 miles because I go 5 miles out of my way to avoid the most congested area.

But - no, in those areas where I don't have any comparable alternate routes, it is not reasonable to expect me to pull over for you and every other car who might be annoyed by my perfectly legal use of the roads.

And of course you know that. But it is what I expect.

You have no idea what sacrifices, in terms of distance, that bicyclist has already made - or whether there was any other reasonable choice for that portion of the route. I described my commute - which is longer but not atypical of the kinds of choices bicyclists have to make. That route - already at a sacrifice of 42% more miles than riding straight up the route I take when I drive - could well have landed me on a congested street for a couple of miles. The first five miles are actually on a very heavily traveled road - but fortunately there is room to pass on most of it. If the road was narrower, cars might be following me at ~15 mph for a good portion of it.

The point is that bicyclists experience longer commutes (on average) than drivers. For the most part, we avoid congested narrow streets - often, as I described, going well out of our way to do so. But there are times when traveling on busy, narrow, streets are necessary because there is no reasonably accessible alternative.

So - what I described was the ride outside of the short distance the OP is aware of. You are asking me (or the bicyclist in the OP) to stop (repeatedly if it really is congested) to let cars go by, which would add significantly to my commute when I have already made every reasonable choice I can to avoid being on roads which are narrow and heavily traveled.

When I am stuck on those kinds of roads, generally for a minor portion of the journey, no - it is not reasonable to expect me to pull over and sacrifice more time during the portion of the commute when I can't avoid them.

Regardless of what the law says you can still be a fucking asshole and obeying the law.

I would move over and let the motorist pass, but I guess I am more considerate of my fellow man than some other people.

A speed limit is just that...a limit to the top speed permitted on a particular road. It does not mean one HAS to travel at that speed.

be 15mph below the posted limit. So, the cyclist would have to go at least 30mph to be within the law. If he doesn't, then he can legally be pulled over for going too slow, obstructing traffic, and so forth. It becomes a safety issue for everyone, especially the cyclist as going to slow often brings out the road rage in drivers.

In general, bicyclists are permitted to use the full lane of any roadway on which they are permitted (generally, any roadway other than a freeway). Aside from freeways, I am not aware of anywhere there is a minimum speed.

Sorry about that, and thanks for calling it out

Often cyclists are explicitly permitted to take the lane, even if it means slowing down traffic behind them, if there is a safety issue.

Some of the safety issues I encounter are:
- Glass and debris in bike lanes
- Storm and sewer grates and drains in "bike lanes" [which are really just gutters with bike symbols painted on]
- A "substandard width lane" under the Uniform Vehicle Code, which some states hover at 14' as "standard"
- On curves and turns where the ability to judge the right edge of a vehicle is significantly reduced

Olympia has a 25 MPH speed limit throughout the city, except for about 2 dozen explicitly named stretches of road, right in the code. If it's flat ground, I'm pretty close to the 25 MPH limit, so if someone thinks I'm impeding then they are likely exceeding the speed limit.

The cities are better at some things, though even Houston doesn't do as much as they could. Their idea of a "bike lane" is barely wide enough for one bike, and most drivers ignore the now fading stripes. At least Metro has bike racks on some of their buses, and after 9am you can take your bikes on the lightrail trains.

You're riding just fine, then a huge limb is right at your eye level. You kinda gotta move left to avoid getting nailed, doncha think?

As for the Op, look here: Even with some blind curves on a 2-lane road there's always an opportunity to pass a cyclist by moving into the ongoing lane when you can see there's no cross traffic. Yeah, it may take a few minutes of having to slow down behind us, but you won't be stuck at that speed for hours or anything! You can much more easily pass us than you can a slow driver in the same circumstance--a slow driver who has no excuse, whereas cyclists are using pedal and body power to get where they want to go.

Unless this guy is deliberately getting in your way when you want to pass, it sounds like he's not being an asshole. And as for moving over: when I was a young cyclist and the car behind me was honking and menacing me, I pulled over as far as I could go, hit a bump and went flying across pavement on abraded knees for about a block. The Dick Driver didn't even stop to help me, just drove around my bike and continued on. Really. A few more minutes behind someone trying to do good for himself and the environment isn't gonna kill any of us!

when there is a paved bike path 5 yards away on the north side of the road, the same side of the road the cyclist is on. I encountered this yesterday. If it were me, I'd be on the bike path for my own safety.

Yet, I'll still drive for the safety of both of us, and not treat them like an asshole. Plus, I do hope the drivers behind me treat them equally well, no matter whether the cyclist is absolutely in the wrong or not.

If that bike-safety site would format it in such a way as to make it easier to print out in pamphlet form, I'd keep a mess of them in my car and attempt to give them out to all those uninformed cyclists I see every day. Some of the worst are families riding down the middle of whole neighborhood streets, spread all the way across as if it's their own private (and ultra-wide) bike path. Too many people either were never taught basic cycling rules, or they ride like they drive, without a care in the world for the rules and laws of the land. To their detriment, and ours.

berth, but I'm baffled why he wasn't on the path.

especially when the path is in perfect condition, or relatively new.

I do a 17 mile commute to work occasionally.

It is 17 miles because I go 5 miles out of my way to ride about 10 miles on the towpath, rather than the roads. I could take a straight shot to a different towpath entrance on a heavily traveled road and cut the ride to 12 miles. Currently there is significant construction on the road forcing the heavy traffic on the road to a single lane with no curb. I don't travel that route. It would be neither courteous nor safe.

As to the route I do take, for a little over a mile of that route there is a chip and seal bike path 5-20 yards away and I ride on the road. To access it adds another mile to my travel, and a very significant hill. So I take the road rather than the adjacent path.

Here they have hike & bike paths along the bayous (which are mostly concrete ditches.) One idea I've suggested to Houston Parks is to use the rights-of-way for pipelines, power, and railroads. The reply I got alluded to them doing that, though it was more about the rails-to-trails work they've been doing instead.

The big advantage of ROWs is that they are often long, straight lines directly through neighborhoods and open country. While the railroads are quite protective of their ROWs, power and pipeline often allow all sorts of activity on their ROWs. If your local city or state isn't doing something with those ROWs, you might suggest it.

about 80 miles paved/chip & seal so far, with ~20 more to go (in addition to about 33 other paved bike and hike trails). I don't think the parks budget will stretch much farther - but they are very good about exploring new options with whatever money is available (I've been a citizen bike patrol volunteer with the county park system for more than a decade, so we hear all the early stages of the plans for new trails).

only to discover no one can afford them!

Citizen Bike Patrol is a good idea, too, and easy to implement. Do y'all also have police on bikes? I think Houston has expanded that service, and one of the benefits is it gets them out of their cars and personally into the neighborhoods and parks. It's usually a boost to trust between people and police.

I like that y'all have that extensive network like that, even on a limited budget. Well, when I get back on my bike again (I think I need to get the seat height and other things professionally adjusted) I'll be learning the trail system around here. And I'd much rather tele-commute to work than either drive or bike

(City, University, and Metroparks). I'm not sure about the county.

There are 3 bike patrols on the towpath - two county park systems, and the national park system. Generally we're trained in bike repair, first aid, and we carry basic repair, first aid, and police radios. Having a presence on the trails increases use of the trails because it makes people feel safer that there are eyes and ears around with access to the rangers.

I think I'll be looking up anything similar in Houston. And if they don't have it, I'll suggest it

(now I'm off to bed...)

I'm sure they exist in Copenhagen and Amsterdam where upwards of 60% of trips in the inner city are on a bike. Probably also exist in the Platinum rated cities of Portland, Davis, Boulder, and Fort Collins.

http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/lab.huang.radicaldesigns.org/files/Fall2013_BFCMasterList.pdf

Here in Silver rated Olympia, most of the bike lanes are gutters with bike symbols painted on the ground--along with storm and sewer grates and drains, where glass and road debris collects. If it's an actual bike lane, it's usually right in the middle of the "door zone" from parked cars.

If I lived in Lacey, I could take the Woodland Trail for a good bit of my commute.

When the infrastructure appears, I'll use it. Until then, I ride on the street and usually take the full lane. It's the safest thing to do.

but apparently bicycles are somehow toys or hobby objects that should stay off "busy roads."

No.

Bicycles are legitimate traffic.

Cars are one of the biggest disasters ever to happen to human civilization and this planet. All you four-wheel drivers are totally brainwashed. You think you're real, and the bikers are playing. Incredible statements being made on this thread.

Even the bike safety propaganda is brainwashed. "Avoid busy streets," my ass. Where are the non-busy streets, in northern Alaska?

Yeah, that guy should stop being an asshole and tether himself into one of your two-ton machines and pay thousands of dollars a year just for insurance and repair and gas and blah blah.

I quoted a website that is all about bike safety, specifically on instructing cyclists in how to not get killed. Did you look at the site? I suggest you do, as it's full of excellent tips. Although if you're calling it "propaganda" I guess there's no sense in attempting a discussion.

Oh yeah: ass.u.me.

Is obvious to you. Sort of how it works. Whether or not you figure it out, you have (through quoted matter) transported the assumption that busy roads can be avoided, without indicating awareness of the obvious fact that this is not usually possible--or the obvious privilege thus conceded to car drivers. How about the car drivers "avoid busy roads"? Then they might not be so busy.

Propaganda is literature designed explicitly to persuade or educate. It's not a value judgement. You quoted a bike safety propaganda site.

I see exactly what you quoted, and the "avoid busy roads" advice is an insult to anyone's intelligence. Basically, it amounts to saying bikes are not legitimate means of transport, and cars are.

You're a zealot. Most people don't like zealots, no matter what cause they represent. Again, you're assuming more about me than you could possibly know based solely on one website with which you disagree. Whereas I've come to the conclusion that you're a zealot by how you're replying to everyone on this thread, questioning their intelligence, making judgment calls, and so forth. In other words, being completely unreasonable when the rest of us have having a calm and peaceful discussion.


zealot (n.)
c.1300, "member of a militant 1st century Jewish sect which fiercely resisted the Romans in Palestine," from Late Latin Zelotes, from Greek zelotes "one who is a zealous follower," from zeloun "to be zealous," from zelos "zeal" (see zeal). Extended sense of "a fanatical enthusiast" first recorded 1630s.

a sophist. (I'm sure you're capable of looking that up yourself, so don't look for a link below.)

Most people don't like sophists, because they will say and believe any bullshit and change whatever they said for their own convenience. A sophist typically will resort to name-calling strategies. One common such strategy is to avoid anything an interlocutor actually said and instead accuse the interloctutor of actually believing something with a passion, as if this is necessarily a terrible thing. Such a strategy appeals to sophists because they so often are lame, unable to think critically, and tend to accept conventional wisdom no matter how stupid or murderous it is.

Now, back to the discussion:

I have assumed nothing about you. You have transported your own biases and assumptions, and I have pointed to these. I also do not "dislike" the website you presented, it means nothing to me. Rather: I disagreed with the absurd point of view you have promoted (whether or not through quoting that website) -- that bikers should make life easier for drivers of big metal boxes by using "less busy" roads, knowing full well that such roads do not exist, and will only exist when lanes are finally assigned to bikes everywhere, as they should be.

Thus in effect if not in intent (you know little about your own intents, that much is clear) you're saying that the bikers should just cease to exist from your view, so that you don't have to worry your beautiful mind about them.

LAB

http://www.bikeleague.org/ridesmart

BBITTL

https://www.facebook.com/BicyclistsBelongInTheTrafficLane

the other 5% were always rude and compete jerks to cars in downtown, bridges, etc.

There's a reason Portlandia makes fun of those types of warrior bikers.

You'd make a good, and safe, cyclist then

Where every busy road has a magic unknown parallel road that isn't busy.

All roads are appropriate to bike on! Bikes are means of transportation. They are not hobby objects. People have a right to get around on bike if they can and wish.

Cars are inappropriate. Automotive society is one of the biggest disasters ever to visit human culture, and has turned cities into crazy-making pestholes. Historically speaking, cars will be obsolete soon enough, and future people will laugh at this medieval fetish. Too bad it's unlikely any of us will live to see it.

Because you're making a good case for yourself.

Remember the old adage about "assume"...

I forget how it works.

Do you really think I care enough to TRY, as you put it?

I'm just astounded by the car-drivers' sense of privilege and world-ownership evidenced on this thread, in your posts as well.

In a college town I used to live in, there was not only a major river, but also an interstate highway that created bottlenecks between where I lived, and where I was commuting to by bicycle. The traffic on the road I traveled was awful, but that was the only road that I could take for nearly 2 miles.

And nearly everywhere there is TRAFFIC.

"Use a less busy road" would never, ever be given as cheerful, well-meaning advice to car drivers as the cure for congestion. Inconceivable. They have a god-given right to go the max speed at all times, and everything that hinders them is bad.

When I drive here in Japan, I tend to take the back roads because I hate all the stop lights and traffic. This adds about 2 miles to my road commute, but I reach my destination in about the same time, and it is much less stressful.

Sounds like this guy just likes to be an inconvenience to folks who don't have the luxury of commuting via bicycle,

Almost all adult cyclists are also drivers. Because of that, I believe the vast majority of cyclists are respectful of car drivers. But as with any group, there are assholes. You found one.

I did some bike racing. When we did training rides a group of us could often reach 25-30 mph for extended periods. Even so we would plan routes along little traveled roads or roads with wide shoulders.

Before declaring your rider an asshole, I would ask if this road is the only reasonable way from point A to B? He may ride the road of out necessity. Still if traffic builds up he should pull over and allow cars to pass.

Unless he/she is out there for fun, they, just like you, are trying to get somewhere, perhaps by the only means they have (other than walking)

Sometimes there are not choices on which road to go down to get where you need/want to go. Especially in big cities I find that the only roads/streets that go through are quite often disgustingly, dangerously busy.

are simply rude.

This has nothing to do with your situation, but since this is a biker thread, I just wanted to get that off my chest.

"Dude, where's my bike lane?"

When I commuted by bike, there was one particular stretch of road where this was an issue. When cars approached, I pulled over and waited for them to pass.

He's not just being an ass, he's a potential danger, both to himself and traffic.

If this is a regular occurrence, I'd either try to speak with him or alert law enforcement.

How dare he travel from point A to point B without doing it in a metal box!

I drive to work now, but I'm familiar with both sides of the issue. Someone going 15 in a 45 during heavy traffic is creating a hazard.

Like I said, in this situation, on a bike, I pull over. It's safer for me, it's safer for the driver. As a cyclist, I did that because I was aware that not all drivers are paying strict attention. Always assume someone's tired or distracted and react accordingly.

The fact the cyclist keeps doing this during heavy traffic signifies there's a problem that needs addressing.

I've had police pull me over on a bike and let me know I was doing something not so great. I don't see the problem.

How is the bike going to get back on the road after pulling over?

In the situation outlined by the OP there will never be a time when it's possible for the bicyclist to safely get back on the road, there will always be a car coming.

And then even if he does get back on the road he'll have to immediately pull off again because another driver is being impeded by his bike.

The obvious isn't going to be seen here. People are blinded to reality. Bikers can just "use a less busy road." Only cars are legit means of transport, bikes are a frivolity.

Too bad so many are blind.

How is he supposed to get back into the road if he stops?

I guess that works out.

Hell, I can easily run 15 mph.

Why, that's just keeping up the world record 5000m pace for 4000m instead of 5000m. We can all do that ... can't we?

We're not all Olympic athletes. Even on the internet.

That would be roughly 150 watts output for the rider on an average bike, which is on the upper end of the average human capability range for an hour's duration.

http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

33 yo man with real nice Orbea racing bike. Wind resistance is a real bitch. Unless you're in pretty good shape, I bet you couldn't ride 15mph for two miles straight.

Used to delve into minor competition stuff. 3M@24 can be a pain. and not everyday
My main concern for the guy on the bike is sooner or later, someone is going to hit him.
Riding a narrow road like that at a busy time of day is just foolish.
Too many careless humans are around. I damn sure would either find another way or change to a OTR bike.
I'm disturbed even reading about this guy riding ....

if you are the one doing the work.

...on the other hand, if you are in a car driving behind a guy riding at 15 or 17 mph, the difference is minuscule, and car spedometers aren't especially accurate at the slower speeds.

It's very possible that the rider who is being an "asshole" in the OP is really hoofing it along at 18 or 19, and doing his best to get past that busy stretch. It is also possible that there are no alternative routes or other ways to go, and that's why the road is busy. Sometimes people bicycle because they can't afford to drive and don't have any other options, as was the case when I started commuting by bike in 2008.

And, as far as everyone getting along in the same world, perhaps the drivers on that road will have to live with spending a couple of minutes extra here and there, like people do when they have to stop for pedestrians or any other traffic situation.

...he insists on tempting fate by driving slow on a very narrow hi-way.
I have no idea where this is at but here in St. Petersburg, he'd be truly putting his life in danger.

I used to race in minor comp but will I even do something like this guy is doing ?? Hell no. I'm scared...
Too many day-dreamers and text-fuckers out there. I don't bike to "try the odds"

...which wound up being one with little traffic, but more round-about. Its always hard to figure what someone else's situation is, but I know in mine I started going by the straightest line, as I thought the ride would be hard; then after awhile I wound up taking the nicest route, because it was easy. But then I'm in a pretty nice area for riding, some are lousy and there's no way around it.

My 12 mile straight shot is a 17 mile bike commute, because it is easiest, nicest, and safest.

Last edited Fri Oct 25, 2013, 08:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Not too many people can run at that pace. Even when I was in top condition in high school, the best I could do was run the 600-yard dash (1/3 mile) in slightly more than 2 minutes-- or one mile in 6 minutes, if I could have continued the pace.

And even dogs have trouble running 15mph. I know because whenever a dog chased me while I was riding a bicycle I was nearly always able to outrun it if I could get up to 15mph.

And it is NOT easy for most riders to maintain a speed of 15mph on a bicycle in city traffic, given all the traffic lights, stop signs and obstacles that they have to contend with, not to mention hills and headwinds.

and, having experienced quite uncomfortable situations there riding my bike, I have very little sympathy for your standpoint.

Here it is in Google street view:

http://goo.gl/maps/4gzQZ

In theory, bikers could use the pedestrian way to the right, or the designated bike lane (after the blue sign), but both of these are in very bad condition. I have a racing bike and prefer to avoid bad pavements and potholes. Therefore I usually stay on the road, despite the oncoming traffic and even though car drivers tend to speed here. I can see why they would feel impeded by bikers like me even if I am going 30-40 mph myself. But if they start honking they get the appropriate reaction. At one time, I hardly escaped a violent fight with two BMW drivers ready to beat me up with their baseball bats, no joke.

As you can see from the triangular sign warning of bikes, I am not the only one. Time to widen the road a bit, I'd say, or at least improve the pedestrian way and bike lane.

for both the bicycle and car there isn't much you can do but wait.

I commute to work on a bicycle and there is one block on the way to work where the road is like that for me. I would go another way if I could. But I can't. The safest thing for a bicyclist to do when a car and a bike cant safely share the same Lane is for the bicyclist to take the lane otherwise drivers try to squeeze past you.

bicyclists. Its like that cartoon the goofy cartoons where he is Mr Walker in radio cool nice then goofy gets behind the wheel becomes a maniac.

I do think it goes both ways about respecting each other though. In most situations, I wouldn't think anything of it if it was easy to just go around the bicyclist, but that's usually not possible at that time. I'm still not convinced that just because he is on a bike that he can slow people down when there are most likely other alternatives. He may have every legal right to go as slow as he wants, but that doesn't make it nice. If I had the legal right to drive a motorbike on a bike path, but doing so caused problems for the unpowered bicyclists, I wouldn't do it because that would make me a jerk. But as someone pointed out before, does 10 or 15 minutes delay really matter in grand scheme of things? Probably not, but I still think the guy is being a jerk (barring something that absolutely makes that only feasible path for him to go, but there is nothing that seems obvious to me based on what I've observed)

Although, I do have more of an understanding about why a cyclist might take up the entire road if it is too narrow for both of them.

If there was a road or roads to get the same place that had a lot less traffic you'd already be on that road or roads and clearly given what you've written in your OP you have not found such.

the impression that's not the polite thing to do. May I ask why you think I said there aren't other routes? That's actually why I was initially perplexed, because there seems to be better routes that I would personally take if I was on a bike (Although I'm fully willing to accept there may be circumstances I do not know about, in which I accept the whole thing as it is what it is... Actually, it is what it is either way... Someone made it clear to me on this thread that a 10 or 15 minute delay doesn't really matter anyway)

optimized for speed. 15mph by a everyday rider is not slow. Also, in a car, you have no idea of what the cyclist may be facing on the shoulder of the road. A small bump for your car could cause the cyclist to get thrown off the bike and under a car, in addition, road shoulders are notoriously uneven and that can be dangerous.

If the cyclist is riding WITH traffic, he is a legal vehicles and has the right of way over your car, which is behind him. The correct action is for you to wait until you can move your car over to the other lane, then quickly accelerate to get past the cyclist without endangering him.

in a thread that starts like that?

What we're dealing here is its an inextinguishable species of myopic privilege. I have metal box, world made for my metal box!

The only people to claim infallibility on the planet are popes and every damn car driver while behind the wheel.

I mean seriously, you think OP can't figure out the speed of a bike? It doesn't matter, the bike is some kind of nuisance or hobby. It's not a legit means of transport. Only metal boxes will do.

And that's cool about your training. Did you get to go?

ride a bike over them unless a gang of angry people were chasing me with bats.

(where all the bats live)

Nonetheless, that's quite an accomplishment and I'm glad you shared it with us. Good show!

Decelerating and accelerating is easy for a car. For a biker contending with weather and hills, momentum is important.

You having to wait an extra minute or two might be much less of an inconvenience than him pulling over and stopping, depending on road conditions.

Bikers are not legitimate participants in traffic. They are hobbyists who create a nuisance. Countries are bombed and peoples are murdered, forests are cleared and edens are paved, cities are choked in smoke and stress and a planet is burned so that drivers can have their precious metal boxes and the necessary fuel at an affordable cost.

After this greatest of all human achievements, now some do-gooders are seriously saying drivers should accept the humiliation of sharing roads with bikers who ride at only 15 mph at most. Many of these biking anarchists don't have the decency to make space by throwing themselves into a ditch every time a metal box appears behind them and wants to go through. Those people should use "less busy" roads, which is to say - roads that do not exist. Bikers should cease to exist!