Bikers on Roads

[4429 mcc]

Why are traffic lanes 10ft wide instead of 2 feet wide? I look out for cyclists, but its a two way street. I'll look out for you, but you gotta look out for yourself.

cyclist 2 wide on country roads is not a smart thing.

 

[jmb]

Why are traffic lanes 10ft wide instead of 2 feet wide?

ooh pick me! becuz that is all tax dollars will pay for.

 

[brianhos]

Yeah sure they are, it doesn't matter my 2000 lbs car or your 23 lbs bike. What is going to win. Think this all you want but get the hell over and ride single file.

I am going to go get an 18wheeler and smash the crap out of your car then because I feel you should be driving the shoulder because I have a bigger vehicle.

 

[alaskaguy]

cyclist 2 wide on country roads is not a smart thing.

Disagree completely. Riding two abreast can increase the safety factor and does not necessarily impede the flow of traffic.

 

[Ames]

Bikers should be allowed to ride on these country roads. But, they should use some common sense. If the road has hills and curves it's just not safe no matter how careful the motorists are.

Legally I'm allowed to be in a bad neighborhood in the middle of the night. But that doesn't mean I should be there or that I should expect a high level of safety.

Fair/legal and safe aren't the same thing.

 

[jmb]

Bikers should be allowed to ride on these country roads. But, they should use some common sense. If the road has hills and curves it's just not safe no matter how careful the motorists are.

Legally I'm allowed to be in a bad neighborhood in the middle of the night. But that doesn't mean I should be there or that I should expect a high level of safety.

Fair/legal and safe aren't the same thing.

i would guess that you are saying it isn't safe to be in that neighborhood due to potential violent crime etc. that you may be a victim of. i accept your analogy if you acknowledge that if a biker is injured then the driver of the car is a criminal.

 

[Incyte]

I am going to go get an 18wheeler and smash the crap out of your car then because I feel you should be driving the shoulder because I have a bigger vehicle.

At least that car would be driving within 40 miles of the speed limit . . .

 

[Incyte]

WRONG! Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Walkers and runners... not someone on wheels with the capability to go 20+ mph

Just like rural roads are for cars. You sort of made my point. Arguably the speed diferential on roads between cars and bikes is much much greater than that of bikes and pedestrians.

 

[Gink]

the analogy fits with jmb's addition.

i would guess that you are saying it isn't safe to be in that neighborhood due to potential violent crime etc. that you may be a victim of. i accept your analogy if you acknowledge that if a biker is injured then the driver of the car is a criminal.

 

[LindenCy]

I am surprised it took this long for the thread to get out of control, but it always does. If you ride a bike - obey the rules of the road. If you see a bike while driving - be careful. Both parties are responsible for safety. What ticks me off is that bikes don't often follow the rules of the road, in some cases because they probably don't know them. I think a driver brushing by a bike closely is also a jerk thing to do, and since you are in a car, you have a greater responsibility to avoid the bike.

 

[Ames]

i would guess that you are saying it isn't safe to be in that neighborhood due to potential violent crime etc. that you may be a victim of. i accept your analogy if you acknowledge that if a biker is injured then the driver of the car is a criminal.

Obviously that depends on the situation. The car driver could break a law, the bike rider could break a law, both, or neither. The biker has the legal right to be on the road and they are essentially acting as cars. So they have both an equal chance at being at fault.

 

[clones_jer]

Obviously that depends on the situation. The car driver could break a law, the bike rider could break a law, both, or neither. The biker has the legal right to be on the road and they are essentially acting as cars. So they have both an equal chance at being at fault.

yes, but there's a certain moral obligation to not try to injure your fellow human being.

 

[taco2000]

I am surprised it took this long for the thread to get out of control, but it always does. If you ride a bike - obey the rules of the road. If you see a bike while driving - be careful. Both parties are responsible for safety. What ticks me off is that bikes don't often follow the rules of the road, in some cases because they probably don't know them. I think a driver brushing by a bike closely is also a jerk thing to do, and since you are in a car, you have a greater responsibility to avoid the bike.

It's not a jerk thing to do. It's against the law in where you live.
Drivers break just as many laws as cyclists.

 

[DaddyMac]

Just like rural roads are for cars. You sort of made my point. Arguably the speed diferential on roads between cars and bikes is much much greater than that of bikes and pedestrians.

Next time I see a sidewalk on a county road, I'll consider that viewpoint....


BTW - my average speed to and from work is in the upper teens, lower 20's. Alot of pedestrians do that? Top speed limit of any street I take is 35. Much of it is 25-30. And I'm easily 10x more likely to get hit by a motorist if I ride sidewalks or trails that cross streets. That's a simple fact.

 

[jmb]

Obviously that depends on the situation. The car driver could break a law, the bike rider could break a law, both, or neither. The biker has the legal right to be on the road and they are essentially acting as cars. So they have both an equal chance at being at fault.

i agree your original analogy wasn't very good.

 

[LindenCy]

It's not a jerk thing to do. It's against the law in where you live.
Drivers break just as many laws as cyclists.

Wow, way to throw blame when I am trying to show there are 2 sides to it. It is also illegal to run stop signs, but I see almost every bike here in Chicago do it. When one of them gets hit, they will blame the car.

Cars should avoid bikes, no doubt, but at least in Chicago, I have very rarely seen a car do anything to a bike, but have seen many bikes break the law.

 

[Incyte]

Next time I see a sidewalk on a county highway, I'll consider this....



BTW - my average speed to and from work is in the upper teens, lower 20's. Alot of pedestrians do that? Top speed limit of any street I take is 35. Much of it is 25-30.

There really are two issues being debated here which is adding to the confustion: rights and responsibilities in urban settings and (2) rights and responsibilities in rural settings.

Regarding urban settings, IMHO, if you can maintain a decent speed and you aren't stacking up traffic behind you, go for it (I'll set the fact that bikers don't pay for use of the road and dont' have to be licensed aside for now). If not (such as a hill), please let trafffic kindly waiting for you for awhile go by by either getting off the road for a while or even stopping.

Regarding rural settings, IMHO our rural roads were not constructed for recreational activities. If your impeding traffic, stop and let people pass. I really dont' think recreational activities should be holding up commercial activity. I would suggest lobbying for rural back paths.

 

[DaddyMac]

Regarding rural settings, IMHO our rural roads were not constructed for recreational activities. If your impeding traffic, stop and let people pass. I really dont' think recreational activities should be holding up commercial activity. I would suggest lobbying for rural back paths.

I took out the first part as I don't really disagree a whole lot with what you said.

But this I do. Sorry - but alot of people don't consider biking merely a "recreational" activity. Many will use it as transportation when weather is nice.

But out of pure common consideration for others - I think it's incumbent on bikers who are near guaranteed to be slower (but you'd be surprised) to not impede traffic. Single file in traffic, stay to the right, pick safe routes. But drivers DO need to realize that isn't always practical.

And the feasiblilty of such a trail sytem throughout the rural areas is just not reasonable. It'd be great. But it isn't going to happen.

Problem is for every 1000 bikers, 10 will be jack-offs (and proly drunk or drinking) and act like imbiciles. And for every 1000 motorist who have to pass a group of bikers - about 10 will go into road-rage and mess with the bikers. Funny thing about those guys is they are so tough to dust the bikers on the shoulder, honk and flip 'em off - then jam on the gas and get out there like a bat outta hell.

 

[LindenCy]

I'd also like to throw this out there, since I have been complaining about bikes in the city and their respect for the rules of the road: on rural roads I actually think it is less of a problem, especially county roads. On county roads the traffic should be less and for vehicles that can't go on the interstates and US highways. That is why bikes, tractors, etc. should be able to ride on them more freely.

 

[Ames]

i agree your original analogy wasn't very good.

How about a new one from my past Sunday?

I was out for a Sunday drive. I like roads with hills and curves. A gravel road met the country road right in the turn and a lot of rocks were thrown on the road. I almost lost control of my car in turn because of that.

The people driving from the gravel road to the country road didn't intend to hurt cars. If I had lost control it wouldn't be my fault or the gravel road drivers. Just bad road conditions.

So now I have to decide if I still want to take my Sunday drives on those roads. They are not as safe.

For the record I actually used to ride bikes on country roads. It's not safe. I don't do it anymore. I don't like trails so I just don't ride.

I'd also love to ride a street bike, as in motorcycle, I don't own one because it's just not safe; that's the only reason.