The state has the option of making it a limited access road, or constructing additional lanes. Obviously they didn’t think either was necessary.
OK, I admit I don’t know how this applies to bicycles. Can you quote or link to the relevant state law? Does it effectively ban vehicles that are incapable of travelling at the flow of traffic? I’ve never heard it interpreted that way, but I could be wrong.
I admire your ability to respond to only a portion of my messages to avoid facing your continued hypocrisy.
I’m sorry, but this is a bullshit response. You may NEVER drive so fast that you do not allow yourself time to react to hazards in the road. You don’t blow through a blind curve too fast because “that’s the speed limit”. Where’d you learn to drive, the back of a matchbook?
So then you take your thumb out of your mouth and safely pass them on the left like a big boy. Jesus Christ, it’s not rocket science.
It’s reasonable to assume that bicyclists will go as fast as they are capable. If it’s a steep hill, they aren’t going to be able to do 50 mph. Do the “tri-axle trucks carrying stone or coal” always go 50 up the hill? Do you think they should be disallowed from driving on the road?
What state are you in? I’ll look up your vehicle code. In my state, bicycles are simply required to ride as far to the right as practicable. Motorists are able to pass them on the left with very little whining and complaining.
What is it you would like me to respond to?
There’s a difference between a legal ban on cyclists on a particular road, and a commonsense choice not to bicycle on that road because it’s freakin’ dangerous.
catsix is talking about the latter; you’re conflating it into the former, AFAICT.
I used to live in Bristol VA/TN. There were lots of winding roads outside of town that resembled catsix’ description. I didn’t go cycling on those roads because, helmet schmelmet, I’d have needed full body armor to feel safe cycling there. And as catsix suggested, I’d have also felt like I was endangering any car that was courteous enough to wait behind me until it was safe to pass.
It was perectly legal to bicycle on those roads; it was just a damnfool thing to do.
Actually I checked, no whining is required before passing in California.
I find it very curious that the only people who advocate the latter are drivers. If it’s really unsafe, you’d think the cyclists would be more vocal about it. Hmm, could it be that the real issue is drivers’ convenience, not safety?
Well, obviously cyclists never drive cars themselves, and so they have no idea what it’s like to be a motorist behind a bicycle. We are completely, blissfully unaware of what it’s like to be five minutes late for work already and find you can’t go faster than 20 for a full quarter minute. We’ve never observed a cyclist making an bad decision or just being thoughtless or stupid. And that’s so important, because drivers are never thoughtless or stupid in the way they drive.
From post #5 in this thread:
Now that we’ve cleared that up, what was there to be vocal about? Demanding money from the county to straighten out or add paved shoulders to some of those 1-3/4 lane country roads? It wasn’t a particularly prosperous area, and anti-tax fever was as high in central Appalachia as pretty much anywhere else in the mid-1990s. I suppose we could have advocated that the roads be closed to motorized traffic and be maintained as bikepaths…:rolleyes:
Thank you, I stand corrected.
If you’re going to stick by that, then nobody in Pennsylvania should ever drive more than about 25 mph. After all, you should never drive so fast that you do not allow yourself time to react to hazards in the road, like deer that jump the guide rail 20 feet in front of your car while you’re on the interstate highway.
I’m driving that road at a speed that coincides with the flow of traffic so that I don’t get hammered by a tri-axle stone cowboy from the back end and because, get this, the state driver’s manual actually says that’s what you’re supposed to do.
Either keep up with traffic or move off the road and let it pass.
You want me to cross double yellow lines to pass them on the left in oncoming traffic because they’re riding on a section of road that’s too dangerous for a bicycle to be on?
They’re usually hitting the bottom of the hill at 65 mph so they’ve got the momentum to carry themselves up the hill at speed. Some of them are moving slower than that, if they’ve pulled onto the road from somewhere after the bottom of that particular hill. They are, however, a lot easier to see from distance on the curves because they’re a good deal larger than some spandex clad biker.
I’m in Pennsylvania. The state manual provided by the DOT for driver training says that if you are traveling significantly slower than the flow of traffic on a two-lane road, you should pull over as soon as it is practical and safe and let traffic pass.
Yes, exactly. If you can’t keep up with traffic and run a good chance of being turned into road pizza, why would you want to ride your bike there?
These bicycle riders have every legal right to ride along that road. However, sometimes ‘legally in the right’ is also ‘stupidly suicidal’.
The fact of the matter is, it’s dangerous whether or not they have the legal right to be there. It’s not all that common to see bicycles on that section of road, but there are a few who seem unable to resist it. They absolutely must assert their right to be on that road no matter how foolishly unsafe it is for them. And when one of them gets hit by a car, or worse, one of those big trucks with a 20 ton load, the rest will put on their best indignant tone and decry the car or truck that did nothing wrong because apparently being right is more important than being safe.
It’s always the driver of the car who’s wrong, eh?
Well, except for the fact that, y’know, it does. Your silly attempt at a word problem notwithstanding.
Oh settle the fuck down. Then, after you’ve done that, go back and read what I wrote. At no point in time did I claim that a higher percentage of motorists run stop signs than cyclists. Dipshit.
And there is no hand waving involved, despite your vain attempts to claim as much. The fact that there are more motorists on the road than cyclists demonstrates rather handily that I’m right. Just because you decided to claim otherwise has, as you so aptly said, fuck shit to do with anything.
NO, this is not a fact. Assuming we are still talking about relative safety of sidewalks vs. roadways, this study showed that “[t]he average cyclist in this study incurs a risk on the sidewalk 1.8 times as great as on the roadway, and the result is statistically significant (p<0.01).”
Your exaggerated example aside, the vehicle code is quite clear:
I doubt the driver’s manual says that.
Wrong. Here’s the relevant statute:
I don’t see “move off the road” there. Do you?
I want you to follow the law and not make up your own laws. I said SAFELY pass on the left. If you can’t safely pass on the left at any particular instant, then you just have to wait until you can do so. I’m sorry if you feel it ruins your life to have to wait 10 seconds in order to be safe and courteous, but you’re just gonna have to suck it up.
So now the argument has changed to one of visibility. How convenient for you. I trust you will now be able to cite a vehicle code section banning bicycles from the roadway because they’re not as visible as trucks? Oh, you can’t? I didn’t think so.
I quoted the actual vehicle code. Vehicle code trumps driver training pamphlets.
(bolding mine)
Not always. If you’re on a two-lane, winding rural road, especially one with a decent bit of traffic on it, you may well not be able to pass. If there’s a car coming the other way, you’re stuck behind the bike because trying to pass means running head-on into another vehicle. And I can’t speak for where catsix is, but where I’m from there are a lot of places I don’t feel comfortable passing anything because of all the twists, turns and hills. I don’t exactly relish the thought of trying to pass a biker and having a car show up in the other direction going 80km/h, and often I can’t see far enough up the road to see if it’s safe to pass.
Just to reiterate:
The main thing catsix seems to be citing is the real-life condition of many rural roads, and the real-life behavior of many who drive them.
No, I’m talking about a fucking windy two-lane highway with no sidewalk.
Pay attention.
Go get a copy. They’re free.
OOoh look at you, pasting one whole sub-section from a website. Unfortunately for you, this is the relevant section
And as I recall you bicycle fans pointing out, bicycles have all the rights and responsibilities of motor vehicles when operating on the street.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania made up that law as a part of the Vehicle Code in 1995.
So apparently you have poor reading comprehension in addition to being a raging dickhead. As RTFirefly was capable of understanding, I am not talking about there being a legal ban on bicycles on particular roadways. I am saying that despite the fact that it is legal to ride one there, it is too fucking dangerous to do so.
You should’ve kept reading for a few more paragraphs.
Ah, so you’re just talking about the absolute danger level. How do you measure it, and what is the threshold for being too dangerous to ride?
Well I would agree that if a reasonable alternative exists, that it’s better to choose the safer of two roads. For example, I will choose a more residential street as opposed to biking down the main boulevard if I can.
But the sidewalk is not a reasonable alternative. And it doesn’t sound like catsix’s road even has a sidewalk anyway. Catsix made the contention that bicycles DON’T BELONG on a particular road, because they don’t keep up with traffic and are hard to see:
"Those on bicycles may legally have the right to bicycle that road, but I’d still consider that road a place that bicycles don’t belong. A vehicle that doesn’t keep anywhere close to the speed of traffic will be, on most parts of that road, hard to see in time to avoid, and in some places nearly impossible. "
THAT’S what I disagree with. In fact, at least two people have made the contention that bicycles don’t belong on the road because, among other reasons, they are slower than cars. This is just plain ignorance.
Fuck you. You need to provide cites. I did. It’s not difficult.