You’re right, it’s not commonplace here. I’ve seen it less than twenty times in thirteen years of driving that road.
It’s a lot like the way you understood the scenario. You’ve got a road where the speed limit is 50 mph, and in reality people are usually driving somewhere between 50 and 60. Some of the curves have lower posted speed limits, and some don’t, so depending upon how sharp the curve is and whether or not there’s a speed limit change, you’re going around those anywhere from 35 - 50 mph. I tend to take some of the curves at less than 50 mph because of how sharp they are and how limited the sight distance is because deer will often exit the woods on either side and cross the road, although having lived here all my life, I’ve also gotten used to the seasons and times of day when it’s more likely I will see a deer on the road (during rut - Nov - Jan and at sunrise and sunset) and adjust my driving according to that. I have never hit a deer with the car on that road or any other (knock on wood), but I have had instances where I easily could have hit one, because even as I slowed from 50 to 40 mph to take a curve, I still couldn’t see the deer standing in the lane until I was very close to them. Sometimes they run, sometimes they freeze in the headlights. Hitting a deer is a shitty thing, because the deer is probably going to die and my car will be all fucked up, but the insurance company will pay for the repairs.
I don’t want to have that happen with a bicycle, and quite frankly for people who live here and see the mangled deer carcasses along the road, I do not know why those few crazies ride their bikes there. I have a bicycle. I ride it on the road. I have even ridden it on other sections of that road (sections that have better visibility and lower speed limits), but that twelve mile section is just flat too dangerous, IMO, to ride a bike on, hence my opinion that although it is legal, it is a bad idea and should be avoided.
Most bikes are designed for road use, not for hopping up a 4-inch curb. And even if you are riding a MTB, it takes a fair amount of experience to hop up a curb at a shallow angle.
Then wait until the curb is closer to being level with the pavement.
Like not being aware of one’s surroundings, such as a fence that blocks the view of drivers emerging from a busy gas station. I don’t ride in that area these days but when I did I made sure to stop at the end of the fence and check for traffic.
Some rants should just be numbered, so when an OP comes in we can all just post #47 and go about our business. I don’t know off the top of my head just how often we have done the bicycles on the road rant, but it has been a bunch.
Here are a couple of things to considered. The average road lane is 12 feet wide. My bicycle with me on it is less than two feet wide. When I ride, I ride as far to the right side of the lane as is practical, on top of the white line if I can. Now if there is broken glass (from some asshole in a car throwing a bottle), rocks, or a storm drain grate, I will have to move to the left for a few feet to avoid these obstacles. This is allowed by the California vehicle code. But anyway back to my point. A 12 foot lane less the two feet I occupy leaves about ten feet in which the driver has to put a six foot wide (more or less, depends on the vehicle) though. If you can’t drive a six foot vehicle though a 10 foot wide gap at speed, perhaps you should consider another mode of transport. I come on, if you put your left wheels on the double yellow line you have 4 feet between me and my bike. Even if I were to have to move left a foot or so due to a storm drain grate, there is still plenty of room. This is not brain surgery, this is basic car control.
Next let’s talk stopping distances. At 50 mph you are going 73 feet per second. My car will stop from 60 in 114 feet cite So just to make the math easy lets use 114 feet as the stopping distance from 50 for your car. Average reaction time is about 0.3 seconds. That adds about 22 feet to your stopping distance. So from the time the threat is observed to when you are stopped is 114 + 22 = 136 feet. I submit that if you cannot see at least 136 feet in front of your car, you should not be driving 50 mph.
Why is that relevant? Should a driver be excused from being prepared to deal with whatever conditions might be present because a particular condition is rare? We rarely have hailstorms where I live, but on the 2 times in the last 5 years that we did, I still knew how to react.
We’re just going in circles on this. If you don’t allow yourself enough time to slow down to avoid an obstacle, you’re driving too fast. What if there was a landslide, or something fell off a truck and was lying in the road? Or an animal was in the road? Or a stalled car? Or just plain backed up traffic? Do you mean to say that every time you’ve come around a blind corner and encountered an obstacle, you’ve hit it? Are you in the habit of flying around blind corners and just hoping nothing’s in the way on the other side?
I disagree. Dealing with bicycles is not difficult at all. If you are not mentally equipped to deal with them, you shouldn’t be driving. If there is a road you feel you cannot navigate in your car, under the conditions present on that road, without danger, you should not drive on that road.
I can only conclude at this point that you haven’t read the thread at all. Again, the assertion that it is somehow necessary to drive 50 mph was catsix’s. I disagree with that assertion. You have it exactly backwards. Please try to keep up.
I think this is an excellent indication of the weakness of your position. Even in the face of documented evidence posted by two of us now, you still want to cling to your wrong assertion. You look at the evidence and simply say: “Oh, well it disagrees with me so there must be something wrong with it.” :rolleyes:
If that is the case, then the data shows that cyclists on sidewalks are less likely to pay attention to one’s surroundings. It still leads to the conclusion that sidewalks are unsafe.
No, it leads to the conculsion that people who ride on sidewalks tend to be more lax about their riding. If the problem was sidewalks themselves, we wouldn’t have sidewalk bike trails around here.
Being able to see that far does not necessarily mean I will be able to safely stop the car in that distance, or that I’ll never have an accident. It’s easy to claim that unless you can drive perfectly safely, you shouldn’t drive, and it’s easy to say that if you do drive safely you’ll never have an accident, but it’s not true.
You and lowbrass have fixated the 50 mph as if there is no fluctuation in speed, but RTFirefly has it right, there are constant adjustments in speed going on when you drive these hilly, twisting rural roads.
As Lute Skywatcher pointed out, this is a road that you would avoid riding your bicycle on, as would RTFirefly, who cites his experience with similar roads and forty years of bicycling experience.
What the hell do you want? It’s legal for you to ride there. I do watch the road for hazards and have not in more than ten years had an accident that was my fault (that accident was very minor and resulted in a scratched bumper). I have (knock on wood) never had a single speeding ticket in 13 years of driving. I’ve been riding bicycles for over twenty years, and I would never ever ride that stretch of road because it is too dangerous.
Next you’ll be defending the kid who decided to do a 90 degree turn off the right shoulder and cross four lanes of traffic yesterday afternoon without ever looking over his shoulder or making any effort to signal his intent at all. I had enough time to slow down and stop without hitting him, though it was the afternoon rush, and I couldn’t help looking in the rearview to see if I was going to get slammed by the guy behind me.
Whoever it was that said they would automatically think it’s the car driver’s fault in any accident involving a car and a bicycle is fucking deluded.