We have the same issue here, but with car drivers. They will stop at an intersection, even if it’s only a 2-way stop, and wave at you to go through. No, dummy, I have a stop sign and you don’t. All I ask of drivers is to not do the unexpected: stop when you’re supposed to, go when you have the ROW. Anything else leads to ambiguity and accidents.
Where did I say anything about putting blame on all bike riders?
I stopped riding to commute because I took a much better job outside my range and the local buses were not yet equipped with racks. Been working from home for the past five years and only recently got my old bike into working condition.
You plan to stop painting me as a motorist any time soon?
This is a real problem in Indianapolis. I used to live in a college town, which had a bike for like, every two cars. And they always rode with traffic. In Indy, half the bikers ride with traffic, and half against. I looked up the law, and they are supposed to ride with traffic. I wish cops would stop bikes riding the wrong way, because they are going to get themselves killed.
Also, I have it from a guy who honks at bicycles, that “You hafta let them know you’re there, so they’ll pull over.” I tried to assure him that someone on a bicycle can hear a car pull up behind them, but he was insistent that honking was necessary. He even thought it might be in the driver’s handbook. I took the first right out of that conversation. The guy was missing a couple of teeth, and I think more than a couple of brain cells. So I have decided that he probably is representative of most people who honk at cyclists not actually doing anything wrong. 
The only set of wheels I own is my bicycle. You’re more of a motorist than I am, rat. I suggest redirecting that hostility toward those who are more deserving; anyone responsible for bad bike route planning, for example.
In general, giving the wrong person the right of way drives me nuts for all kinds of reasons. But what you described can, and does, cause plenty of (often fatal) car v pedestrian accidents. Around here they’ve been cracking down on having cars stop any time a pedestrian attempts to cross the street (in a crosswalk). What happens is that two cars are driving in the same lane, the first car sees someone walking across the street and takes their foot off the gas or hits the brakes. The rear car, not knowing what or why we’re slowing down will change lanes and go around them only to find a person in front of their car and very little time to slow down.
Yes, I know it’s a bit different, but it’s still the same idea. Imagine in your scenario, the driver with no stop sign, stopping to let you through only to have another person come up behind thinking ‘what’s this bozo doing stopped in the middle of the road’ and gun it as he goes around. It’s not going to end well for anyone.
And while we’re at it…if you’re making a left turn from a main road to a side road, please, pull up all the way. This way when I’m making a left from that side road onto the main road, we aren’t trying to go around each other. Also, if I decide to go through a small brake in traffic and you don’t, you’re not in the way (and then you’re waiving me to go in front of you and it’s a whole thing).
Here in the UK we take pedestrian crossings very seriously and it is illegal, within a marked zone before such a crossing, to overtake the vehicle closest to that crossing. Seems like you need a similar law in your neck of he woods.
Are you saying the car in the main road should pull up far enough that a car from the side road can pass behind the other car and turn left onto the main road? I don’t see how that is possible, unless it’s an unusually wide side road.
Tru dat. If you’re pedaling along at 15 mph on the same road as a car going 45 mph, you’re converging at 30 mph if he’s overtaking you while you’re going with traffic, but you’re converging at 60 mph if you’re going against traffic.
Not always, I found out recently when I had a knapsack on my back that was getting in the way of my rearview mirror. A lot of cars these days are quiet enough that you can’t pick the noise of the individual car’s approach out of the general din. (In this case, there were a bunch of cars going the other direction on the same road, as well as cars coming from behind me. I was trying to find a safe spot to merge at a point where the shoulder I’d been riding on went away, and I finally had to stop so I could see what was coming from behind me.)
But honking is just going to startle the cyclist, and shouldn’t be done unless the cyclist is riding erratically to begin with. If a car overtaking me blasted its horn (whether or not I was aware of the car first), chances are I’d briefly wobble a bit from that nice straight imaginary line that my wheels had been rolling along.
Not really. In the jurisdictions I’ve lived in, the cyclist is expected to ride as close to the right side of the lane as is safe. And on a winding road (which is mostly what I ride on, where I am), it’s the car driver’s judgment on whether it’s safe to pass.
When I’m ahead of a car that is overtaking me on a winding road, I can often see a bit more of the road ahead, given that I’m a bit ahead of the motorist. If I can see an oncoming car that maybe the motorist can’t, or if the road’s clear for a decent distance ahead, I’ll wave in an appropriate manner to the driver behind me. If the overtaking motorist can see what I can see, it’s up to the driver to make the call.
Now this is certainly true: it’s hard to pass large groups of cyclists on narrow roads. When I’m driving, I don’t mind passing individual cyclists or small groups on local roads. But if there’s five or six (or more) riding together and there’s no shoulder, IMHO breaking the large group up into smaller groups is the safe (and courteous!) thing to do.
On roads where the lane is not wide enough to share, that does not apply. At least in nmost jurisdictions.
Its a common misunderstanding, as modern bike laws were written backwards with the intent of getting bikes off the road but with having to add enough exceptions to not flat-out be saying “Get off our road, pedalboy!”
That’s exactly what I’m saying and I see it all the time. I’m guessing you’ve encountered it and you’re just not picturing it. This actually didn’t take me too long to find.* It’s an intersection that I use on a regular basis. As you can see, there’s room for quite a few other cars to get wedged in there. It’s annoying to begin with when you make it to the middle and another car shows up along side and you can’t see you. However, what we’re talking about is if imagine a car had been waiting to make a left turn but didn’t pull all the way forward. When there’s a break in traffic, they have to go around each other instead of each doing their own thing. Further, you’re really forced to wait for the car in front of you to go instead of darting across traffic and hoping they stay put so you can go in front of them or hoping they go as well so can go behind you…it gets dicey. IOW, just pull all the way forward, there’s no reason not to, but people, I think, seem to think they’re being polite if they don’t.
Also, if you don’t pull forward, others making left turns get back up into the road instead of being able to stack up into the left turn lane.
*I mean, it didn’t take me too long to find an example that made it easy to show, most intersections I see are plenty big enough to work like this.
Yes, it most certainly does.
The reason is that if you’re a foot or two from the right edge of the lane, the car passing you only has to go a couple feet into the other lane, rather than all the way into the other lane as if it was passing another car. This means the passing car spends a lot less time and space in the other lane, and can pass you nearly anywhere, rather than having to wait for a place where there’s a dotted line.
As a frequent cyclist, I strongly believe in not being an asshole towards motorists. I do the vast majority of my biking on two-lane roads with no shoulder. There’s not room for a car and a bike to safely be next to each other in the lane at the same time, which I presume is what you mean by ‘not wide enough to share.’
If I’m as far right as I can reasonably manage, they can pass me fairly quickly and get on their way, which is a win for them (obviously) and a win for me, because they’re no longer riding my tail.
But if I’m in the middle of the lane, that means it’s harder for them to pass, it takes a longer stretch of clear road to do so safely, they get steamed up because they’re stuck behind this motherfucking shithead of a cyclist who’s taking up the whole damn lane for no reason, and the next time they’re in the vicinity of a cyclist, they’ll quite possibly go out of their way to be a jerk to that cyclist.
There was plenty of room for them to ride single file down the right side, and then I could have passed comfortably without needing to veer all the way into the oncoming traffic lane.
They may be legally entitled to the lane, but blocking traffic with your slow bike when you don’t need to is still an asshole maneuver.
Pedestrians legally have the right of way when crossing the street too, but if they take their sweet time and strut around back and forth, blocking traffic purposely, they’re being assholes too.
Utter nonsense. What it means is that if you stay close to the edge of the lane cars will be more tempted to pass less safely - they will try to remain in their lane, squeezing out the cylist. Much better to make the car make a full and proper lane change. If that manuever requires too much time then conditions simply are not safe for passing.
Yes.
Sorry, I’ve seen too many cars in conditions like this pass poorly because they felt the right-riding cyclist was an open invitation to pass as they want. I’ve seen too many dangerous situations and outright accidents happen when cars try to do that.
THen they need to calm the fuck down. A cyclist not endangering themselves for the selfishness of a driver is no reason to be a jerk.