Cycling + Stupidity + Traffic = Potential Darwin Award Nomination

The BBQ Pit
41

This only works if the outside lane is much wider than other lanes. And unfortunately this is not the case for most roads in the US. Usually all the lanes are the same width, just enough room for a car and not enough for a car + bike.

On roads like that, riding close to the curb is extremely dangerous. I explained this already. It just encourage stupid drivers to try to squeeze past the bicyclist. The only safe way to pass the cyclist is to change lanes anyway, so there is no advantage to staying close to the curb.

I already explained this too. All traffic laws tell you to stay as close to the curb as practicable. If the lane is too narrow to share with a car, then it’s not practicable to ride close to the curb; the only safe place to ride is the center of the lane.

42

[QUOTE=scr4]
This only works if the outside lane is much wider than other lanes. And unfortunately this is not the case for most roads in the US. Usually all the lanes are the same width, just enough room for a car and not enough for a car + bike.

On roads like that, riding close to the curb is extremely dangerous. I explained this already. It just encourage stupid drivers to try to squeeze past the bicyclist. The only safe way to pass the cyclist is to change lanes anyway, so there is no advantage to staying close to the curb.

You explained it already!? Gosh, I’m sorry I wasn’t paying attention to your uncited interpretation of Illinois law; I was too busy actually biking in Illinois and being familiar with Waukegan Road! So, according to you, the “bike as close to the shoulder as practicable” is meaningless, because it’s not practicable unless it’s so wide that there’s really a bike lane. Man, we pass dumb laws here. I wonder why the law exists if it doesn’t apply to any real world situations?

43

Exactly.

The law applies to the few roads with outside lanes that are wide enough to share with a car. There just aren’t many of them.

44

By the way, the second half of this page describes a case where an argument similar to mine stood up in court (bolding mine):

45

As a bicyclist, I’m just going to go out on a limb and state that it seems that you are looking for a reason to be an asshole, scr4. I could see being in the middle of a lane for short periods where cars are parked on the side of the road with people getting in and out, construction or some other activity on the shoulder, or just a shitty shoulder/no shoulder. But when there is a shoulder, I’m pretty damn happy, and I use it. When I do have to venture out into the road, blood pressure is raised all around. The drivers, for me slowing them down for thirty seconds, god forbid they miss that first few seconds of Wheel Of Fortune when they park their asses on the couch. And me, who recieves the occasional close brush from the W.O.F. deprived livid drivers. Why the fuck would you want to subjugate yourself to that?

The “reasonal discretion to determine what was a safe distance” line for using the middle of a lane wouldn’t really apply to these butt nuggets. In the case you stated, the bicyclist was moving to the center of the lane in the area of a curve. In that case, it would make sense, and is completely defensable. It sounds like these guys were nothing close to the same situation.

I understand why you would come to the defense of a cyclist, because it certainly does seem at times that people are out to kill us. But these guys make cyclists look bad, and lower the opinion of drivers to the average bicyclist, who sometimes need to go into the lane. There’s no need to piss people off more. Stop defending them.

46

Hey, this is the Pit, isn’t it?

Of course if there is a paved level shoulder, I use it. If there’s a bike lane I use it. If there’s a wide outside lane I’m more than glad to use it. In some occasions I’d even ride on a packed gravel shoulder.

However I have also seen “shoulders” which some people consider adequate for bicycles, but I do not. I have no way of knowing if the road mentioned in the OP is like that or not.

47

Yeah, I can’t even get into this unless I actually saw the shoulder.

I, and all the bicyclists I know, use and prefer a wide clean shoulder.

However, we prefer the LANE when the shoulder has sticks, trash, pot holes, the possibility of getting “doored”, grates that face the wrong way, pavement edges, irregular curb shapes. Those things aren’t the cyclists’ fault. If that’s the case, don’t honk at the cyclists. Go to city hall and tell them to keep the shoulders ride-able.

I find it really hard to believe that these cyclists had a wide, smooth shoulder and they were just choosing to take a normal car lane.

48

I’ll borrow my wife’s digital camera and take pictures sometime this week. Right now I’ve been biking to work, actually, so I’ve been taking Shermer (and the sidewalk next to it) rather than Waukegan.

49

I find it really hard to believe that there are people who don’t even live in the area who are still arguing their point after three testimonials in this thread which testify to the fact that the road in question has gravel shoulders which they’ve personally biked upon. I’m looking forward to bup’s pics … though something tells me that the same people will probably say that because the shoulders have gravel on them, that makes them even more treacherous than riding in the street. My bike has road tires (not meant for all-terrain grip) and it doesn’t pose a problem for me, but I guess I don’t fit the clique of snooty North Shore riders who can’t ride on anything but glass-smooth pavement at the traffic’s expense. Some riders have special needs, I guess. “Oh noes! Gravel on the shoulder! Let’s cry foul to city hall by riding in the streets!” :rolleyes:

The whole attitude in question here is the type that’ll provoke a situation no matter the circumstance. Even if this road had smoothly paved bike lanes, they’d probably just complain that sewer grates required for drainage were a biking hazard instead. Certain people just can’t be satisfied no matter how much you accomodate their “special needs”. It’s not like they were riding to work, either. They were riding recreationally. My position is that if you’re that incapable of riding a bicycle without posing a risk to yourself and to traffic on very fast and busy roads, then maybe you shouldn’t be riding a bicycle.

50

Any evidence for this? After all, it was rush hour, and they might have changed from cycling clothes into work clothes after arriving at work.

51

Yeah, there’s evidence for it. It was the afternoon rush hour, they were not riding alone, and they were carrying no change of clothes with them. Rather than continue to offer conjecture for conjecture’s sake (“well maybe they had their change of clothes at work”), why not just assume that my story is what it is? Not only is conjecture besides the point, but it adds nothing to the discussion. It’s usually pretty obvious when someone is biking to work or biking for recreation with somebody else, and all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, but I see people will continue to hypothesize simply for argument’s sake …

52

The area I live in skirts the edge of the city and is a little more “out in the country” than the usual suburbs, though it won’t be for long. For several years we have had an “infestation” of cyclists that often risk their lives and ours to ride on our streets. I do not begrudge the cyclists their right to the road, and although many of them ride like complete idiots, I realize that it is always the few idiots who stand out from all the more sensible and courtious riders.

What I pit is their commonly poor judgement on where they choose to ride.

A great many of these cyclists come here from other parts of the city, their bikes mounted on the back or roof of their car, and often meet here to ride together. Now, there are several public parks and suitable roads close to where they live, but they choose to come here, specifically two particular stretches of road.

One of these stretches is the access road (frontage road) of Interstate 10. This is a favorite route for the bikers and you will often see them in groups of ten to twenty. The other popular route is a road that comes off of this frontage road and goes off to several residential subdivisions.

These are terrible places to ride a bicycle, IMHO. Both roads have heavy traffic on them and speed limits of 50mph and 45mph respectively, though I can safely say after driving on these roads for several years, that few people drive that slow on them. There is no bike lane and, in most places, no shoulder to ride on. They are both 2-lane, 2-way roads, so any time a car wants to pass the slower cyclists, it has to according to the flow of oncoming traffic. The roads are flat, offering little scenery, the air filled with noise from all the traffic of the highway and filled with exhaust fumes. They are constantly being passed by cars and construction trucks, at fairly high speed and under dangerous conditions. I can’t understand why they would drive in to do their biking in such an unappealing place and under such risky circumstances.

Just a mile or two away are nice country roads with little traffic, wonderful scenery, little noise and clean air, and a few hills thrown in to make the ride a good workout. There are a few cyclists here, but very few.

Of course, I have to yield to them, because after all, I am operating a heavy and powerful vehicle and they are extremely vunerable on a bicycle. But not everyone does yield safely and many drivers get frustrated and do not drive with the proper care around the bikers.
And the bikers know this and are subjected to it every time they ride out here.

I have come to the conclusion that the cyclists are using roads that are flat and unchallenging, that they are there less for the exercise than they are to be seen and noticed. Does one really need an expensive bike and hundreds of dollars worth or multi-colored fluorescent spandex costumes to ride a bike on a flat, straight surface? Is riding slowly on the highway in groups of ten or more really important to the exercise or sport of cycling?

Yes, we have all the other cyclist problems that everyone else has; running stop lights/signs, unannounced turns, driving after dark without lights, but also motorists driving carelessly around bikes and putting themselves and other in danger. However, most of these problems could be avoided if the stupid cyclists would just find a more suitable place to ride. If you are going to drive to a place to ride from, for heavens sake, find a safer more interesting place to do so.

And please don’t drive in a 50mph zone full of speeding dump trucks, constant tire and exhaust noise, car/diesel fumes, dust in the air and loose gravel on the road, all with your baby strapped to the back of your bike. Doesn’t that scare you?
It does me.

53

I didn’t realise the shoulders were gravel. In that case I fully support the cyclists being in the lane, though I don’t support them riding abreast.

Riding on gravel is a judgement call. I am happy to ride on a gravel path with no traffic, but I’m not happy to ride on a gravel shoulder (and I ride a mountain bike.) On gravel I don’t have the grip required to make evasive manoeuvres.

Just because you ride on the gravel shoulder doesn’t mean that it is the right thing to do at all. It doesn’t mean that they have “special needs”, it just means they are more conservative riders.

54

Well, here’s the picture I took (took a few, only one really came out):

Waukegan Road, north of Willow, with a shoulder so well-packed it looks like asphalt, and, more importantly, a great sidewalk. Also some of the hood of my 1992 chick-magnet.

I don’t see a compelling reason to be in the road on a bike.

55

I only wish the shoulder on my commute were that wide! Look! They could even ride abreast without a problem!

The vote is in ladies and gentlemen. These two were assholes.

56

Did anyone happen to notice that shoulder COMPLETELY disappears after the intersection, and that if the cyclists were going straight through that intersection, it would have been dangerous and stupid to travel in the shoulder and then try to merge back into traffic?

Now, I don’t know that that exact location is where the cyclists were. But if they were, or another part of the road had a similar construction, I don’t blame them at all.

57

Funny. I’m seeing a right-turn-only lane. I’m assuming that’s the lane they were in? If they rode straight through that intersection, they were indeed in the wrong place. As bicycles are expected to follow the rules of the road the same as automobiles, that means, legally, they needed to be over in the middle lane …

On the other hand, if they were indeed turning right … well, it’s kind of hard to make out in that picture, but there looks to be loose gravel in that shoulder. Ask me about how much fun it is to ride a bike through loose gravel.

However, regardless of all of the above, yes, they should have been riding single file. If turning right, they should have been as close to the right curb as was safe, depending on conditions in that shoulder. If going straight, they should have been in that middle lane, as far to the right side of that lane as possible. I could certainly see myself riding along that road during the time of day pictured.

58

Actually, if they’re going straight, they should be in that middle lane as you said, but should be about where the right hand tire track of a car would be. That’s probably about 18 inches from the white line.

59

Not in Ohio.

Interesting to note that in that case, a bicycle can’t obstruct traffic because the bicycle itself is traffic. Similar idea in the case concerning the farm combine in Georgia (noted near the very end of the column).

60

Bup … that’s a perfect picture you took! This is exactly where it happened. BTW, this road is directly adjacent to the Kraft Foods National Headquarters in Northfield, so it’s not like some kind of abandoned backwoods road. As a frame of reference, the cyclists were in the exact position of the silver car going through right lane of the intersection. As an added measure, this picture also shows the prisitine sidewalk available for those who can’t handle the oh-so-treacherous packed gravel shoulder that it turns into after this intersection. I have also ridden on this sidewalk when circumstances dictated that I’d probably be better off. These cyclists couldn’t be bothered, though.

Trunk … the shoulder does not completely disappear, only the turn lane … the shoulder simply goes from paved asphalt to packed gravel. The exact location of the cyclists was the entire stretch of road pictured. They were getting honked at and passed both before and after the intersection, which they also stopped in the middle of because they were obviously motor vehicles too. Did I mention that there’s a paved sidewalk off to the right?

Ponder … loose gravel is one thing, but what you see there is just loose bits of asphalt which can be dangerous if you’re going way too fast while turning. Not only weren’t they turning, they weren’t anywhere near the loose gravel to begin with. See how the asphalt on the road is not as dark as the asphalt in the turn lane and shoulder? No gravel there. I have rode upon the packed gravel shoulder after the intersection with road tires and had no problems, and if I were too much of a pantywaste to handle packed gravel, then I’d get on the sidewalk, not the street.

If there are no shoulders, sidewalks, or bike paths (as in Dag Otto’s cite about the state highway case that went to trial) then I don’t go there on my bike. Pretty simple concept, I think. This wasn’t a state highway as it was in that Ohio case. The defendant in the case claims to have been trying to stay to the right while going up an incline. The two geniuses from my story were practically going downhill and making no attempts to stay to the right whatsoever. The language of that Ohio code is still essentially the same as Illinois or any other state (“as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable”). The case, regardless of its outcome, is still just a bunch of legal maneuvering that attempts to take advantage of a law which is in place to ensure the safety of traffic and cyclists … not for cyclists to intentionally provoke it and punch holes in the legal interpretations of what is “reasonable”, “practicable”, or “appropriate”.