Cycling + Stupidity + Traffic = Potential Darwin Award Nomination

The BBQ Pit
61

I pulled off in the turn bay 9and, in fact, the turn bay’s shoulder) to take the picture safely. I never claimed they were riding in the turn lane; how would I know? amanmenomencentesis (sp?) confirms they were in the right of the two “straight” lanes.

In case it’s not clear, that’s not Waukegan and Willow - it’s just north of there, and the intersection could more accurately be called a turnoff into Kraft Foods.

I don’t get why they weren’t on the sidewalk.

I also think it bears mentioning that the intersection of Waukegan and Willow has lots of construction going on, and lots of people coming north out of that intersection are thrilled to be out of bumper-to-bumper, and were probably all the more frustrated that two self-righteous cyclists were now holding them up. Not saying it makes the motorists right, I’m saying it was stupid and selfish of the cyclists to needlessly cause a backup.

62

Because they’re governed by the laws that govern moving vehicles. In most places it’s illegal to ride on the sidewalk.

Even if it’s not, it’s a terrible place to ride a bike. Sorry, but you’re just going to have to get to work 20 seconds later. Hope you can explain that to your boss.

I don’t see any shoulder whatsoever past that intersection, so I still can’t comment. Besides, a gravel shoulder is not a friendly surface for a road bike.

From the looks of things, the cyclists had every right to be doing what they’re doing. . .riding in the thru lane and continuing in the thru lane, and not being forced onto a dangerous shoulder.

You have shown NOTHING to indicate these cyclists were in the wrong.

If this pisses you off, bring up the law change with your congressman. Don’t take it out on the cyclists. They’re not doing anything wrong.

63

No, in most places it’s not illegal. But why argue? It’s legal where we’re talking about.

No it’s not. Just consider yourself as a pedestrian at intersections.

I think I said as much - they had the right. People have the right to do lots of obnoxious, self-important things.

You bring up legality when it’s convenient to you. It’s legal for them to be on the sidewalk. If you don’t like that, bring it up with your - well, not congressman - try your town council, or maybe state senator.

64

Yeah, maybe so, Trunk … but by that logic, you’ve shown nothing to indicate they weren’t self-righteous assholes, either.

If blaring my horn at them (something I’ve never done to a cyclist because, again, I am one myself) is “taking it out on them”, I guess that’s good enough for me. If that’s what they wanna do, then that’s the kind of treatment they’ll get from 99% of the motoring traffic. I consider that a real-world example of majority rule, but I guess you think everyone out there is suffering from road rage because they have small genitalia and big engines, right?

I know I prefer not to be honked at every five seconds when I ride, which is why I, y’know … stay out of the places the fucking cars go … but as long as the cyclists are okay with being honked at constantly, and everyone’s more than happy to honk at them, then I guess everything’s cool, right? :rolleyes:

The anti-establishment defense attorney-types in this thread are funny … maneuvering around what is right or wrong as defined by a simple law which assumes citizens have at least half a brain, some semblance of common courtesy, and perhaps a scant amount of basic survival instinct. Can I ask why those of you who think the cyclists did nothing wrong continue to repeatedly ignore the clause in most bicycle code which clearly states this behavior to be permissible so long as it does not impede the flow of traffic? According to the logic you use to defend their actions, we should all just start biking out in the middle of the streets because we wouldn’t be breaking any law. This is exactly the kind of attitude I’m talking about. As bup just said, you’re legally entitled to do a lot of stupid shit. What defines you as a decent person (or at least as someone who isn’t an attention-seeking, self-entitled jackass) is your ability not to.

65

Yeah, it is. And, I’m not a pedestrian. I’m a cyclist. You’re in a car. . .why do you just consider yourself a cyclist and ride in that gravel shoulder your self?

A sidewalk is a shitty place to ride a bike. Not only (in most places) are there seams every few feet, but there is foot traffic, curbs, uneven paving, roots. They’re narrow.

Sure, if you’re out lolly gagging to the supermarket on your bike, a sidewalk is probably all right.

From the description of these guys, they were out for a serious ride. And that means getting their heart rates up, keeping them up, enjoying a long unobstructed road – something they have every right to do. I put 6000 miles on my bike last year, and I’m on pace for a similar number this year, and I’m a member of a team with 100 cyclists on it. NO cyclist rides on a sidewalk.

And even if riding on the sidewalk is legal, that doesn’t make riding in the road illegal.

Further, gravel shoulders are not for bicycles.

What a cyclist wants is a shoulder like the one in the foreground of the picture. I GUARANTEE you that if that whole road had a shoulder like that, those guys would have been riding in it. A shoulder like that is a cyclist’s wet dream. It’s wide, paved, and away from traffic. It’s EXACTLY what most of us want.

However, in that picture, it runs out at that intersection and after that intersection, it’s gravel.

You all claim to be bike riders. I don’t know what kind of riding you’re talking about but if it was any sort of serious cycling at all, you’d have shut up about this long ago, and you would *never * have posted that picture which blows what the OP said out of the water.

66

Anyone else getting the sneaking suspicion Trunk was biking northbound on Waukegan Road the other day?

67

bup: :smiley:

I love how I talk about self-entitlement right before Trunk launches into an elitist lecture about how nothing less than a perfectly paved “wet dream” shoulder is such an inconvenience for him, yet all the other self-proclaimed, uninformed, lesser cyclists seem to manage with sidewalks and/or gravel just fine. Sorry we’re not as cool as you, Trunk … being able to ride on gravel or sidewalks without complaining about it clearly makes us all amateurs, unlike you. Save us from our own stupidity, we all want to be self-entitled rush hour road cyclists just like you.

And once again, thanks for continuing to ignore my question about why you dismiss the general clause in the bike code stating that this behavior is illegal if it impedes the flow of traffic …

68

Yes, it is. When I get on my bicycle to ride, I ride. I’m not talking going a quarter of a mile to get to the grocery store or whatever, I am going to ride anywhere from twenty to sixty miles. I am not going to ride on the goddamned side walk where I ride a few feet and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop … Fuck that.

Because by your definition, all bicycles would be “impeding traffic” any time they’re on the road and you get delayed on your way by twenty seconds.

Look, if these two guys were just lolly-gagging side-by-side in the middle of the road, you’ve got a point. Sure, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here, because there are unfortunately a lot of bicyclists out there with a “fuck the cars” attitude that bother me, too. Guys that do that sort of thing get motorists all worked up and I sure as hell don’t want to be the cyclist that pays the price when someone decides he’s had enough of all these cyclists and decides to sideswipe the next one he sees.

On the flip side, I am going to ride on the road. It’s simply not practical to ride anywhere else. And the simple fact that I am on the road does not mean I am deliberately impeding traffic or trying to provoke motorists.

69

Yes, it is. When I get on my bicycle to ride, I ride. I’m not talking going a quarter of a mile to get to the grocery store or whatever, I am going to ride anywhere from twenty to sixty miles. I am not going to ride on the goddamned side walk where I ride a few feet and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop and ride and stop … Fuck that.

Because by your definition, all bicycles would be “impeding traffic” any time they’re on the road and you get delayed on your way by twenty seconds.

Look, if these two guys were just lolly-gagging side-by-side in the middle of the road, you’ve got a point. Sure, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here, because there are unfortunately a lot of bicyclists out there with a “fuck the cars” attitude that bother me, too. Guys that do that sort of thing get motorists all worked up and I sure as hell don’t want to be the cyclist that pays the price when someone decides he’s had enough of all these cyclists and decides to sideswipe the next one he sees.

On the flip side, I am going to ride on the road. It’s simply not practical to ride anywhere else. And the simple fact that I am on the road does not mean I am deliberately impeding traffic or trying to provoke motorists.

Look, guys, I don’t want to come off as combative here, I just want to have a nice peaceful ride. And btw bup, thanks for the pic. It really helps the discussion and you’re a great guy to go out of your way and post it.

70

How is it possible for them to be blocking traffic when thier both in the right lane?
Surely anyone with more than a few functioning brain cells, and even the most basic understanding of driving protocols understands the concept of using the left hand lane to overtake slower traffic in the right hand lane.

Why would anyone who is not an idiot honk at slower traffic occupying the right lane?

How are these cyclists respsponsible for motorist’s failure to look far enough ahead to anticipate the need to utilize the passing lane to overtake slower traffic,
and how are the responsible for motorist’s unwillingness to obey the posted speed limit?

71

It’s not like that. If you’re out for a long ride, there are tons of good bike trails in the area, and tons (because of a new part of town called “The Glen”) of roads that go for long stretches with very little traffic/intersections/whatever.

When I’m out for a ride just to ride, I go on the North Shore Trail mostly, which is 40 miles long or so, and attaches at the Wisconsin border to a trail and goes a few more miles. I don’t go down Waukegan Road during rush hour.

72

Well, see, the problem here is I’m too fast for the so-called hike-and-bike trails. And I’m not even remotely a fast cyclist. Let me tell you a story …

I live near White Rock Lake in Dallas, Texas. This is a fairly large lake for being in the middle of a city, and there is a trail around it that’s about ten miles around. Additionally there is a trail that leads out from the lake and ends in a small park about seven and half miles north. So out-and-back and once around the lake is twenty-five miles. Back in the day when I first moved to Dallas that was pretty much my route, and at the time it seemed quite long, but pleasant.

Over the years, however, the trails have gotten more and more crowded. Particularly and weeknights and weekends they tend to be crowded with pedestrians, children, and dogs. You have to go slowly and be very alert, which, let me tell you, is not fun at all.

About ten years back I decided to try riding in the early morning to avoid all that. So I take off at 6 am and it was great. Hardly anyone. But now the problem of trail design comes in. They simply are not designed for a bicycle going over 12 miles an hour, let alone the 18-20 I was doing. You’re always slowing down for some curve or other. So anyway, I’m going along and have slowed down to maybe 14 to go around a blind curve, and another cyclist – who HASN’T slowed down – comes at me from the other direction. She was going too fast and couldn’t hold her lane and came into my lane. I tried to jump off the trail but there simply wasn’t enough time, and we collided. Let me tell you, that’s not fun in the least.

That was the last time I rode the trails on a regular basis. From then on I’ve hit the road. It’s safer.

That having been said, I avoid busy roads all I can. I sure as hell don’t want to tempt fate the way the aforementioned rides in the OP did. Most of the time I load up my bike, drive to the edge of town, and ride in the country. Even so, there are a few stretches out there that go through areas of new development where I do see traffic on occasion. I endeavor to always hug the ride side of the road, but there are three intersections I go through that have right-turn-only lanes. For those intersections I carefully look behind me and edge over when it’s safe. From time to time this inconveniences someone in a motor vehicle. Sorry.

73

Thanks for the photo.

I mostly agree with Trunk. It would be extremely dangerous for a cyclist to stay on the shoulder all the way to (and through) the intersection. The cyclist would block cars trying to turn right, or get hit by them. Also the cyclist would have to enter the intersection from an unexpected position (i.e. where no car would come), so there’s a huge chance he/she won’t get noticed by car drivers.

If there are very few intersections on this road (like one every mile), I think cyclists should ride on the shoulder most of the time, but enter the straight-through lane as they approach each intersection. Then get back to the shoulder after getting through the intersection, if the shoulder is smooth and clean enough. I just don’t see any other way to safely and legally cross this intersection.

And if this road has lots of intersections, it may be safer to stay on the lane rather than having to get in and out of the shoulder frequently. It looks like a 2-lane road (each way, not counting the right-turn lane) so it’s not like the cyclist is blocking the entire road.

What the city should have done is to provide a bike lane between the right-turn lane and the straight-through lane. Even if the bike lane only exists near intersections, it’s a huge help. I’ve seen this (and used it) in Hawaii but sadly nowhere else.

74

From Illinois’ Bicycle Rules of the Road: (bottom of page 7:)

In essence, the interpretation here (as far as I can see) is if the speed of the bicyclists is such that traffic flow is hindered, then there’s a problem.

Just my two bits.

75

As do I. Many is the time I’ve been told something like this is ‘perfectly adequete’ for cyclists, when it was anything but.

Its especially fun when all the glass and car parts from auto accidents end up in the bike lane and should. Thanks guys.

76

I prefer to get to where I am going, which is why I, y’know, go where the roads are.

Drivers are fond of honking at lots of things besides bicyclists. I rarely get honked at, quite frankly, and my style of riding is vehicular. Those who do honk are impatient, want to do something illegal, or want me to do something illegal. Do you want to know how often cars honk at me for not running a red light (so they can turn right on it)?

Survival is not a matter of being meek and hiding from the big bad cars. In cycling, the best protection is to act as a vehicle, despite the pressures to do otherwise.

Becuase you are not reading the code properly. To impede traffic the cyclists would need to 1) Block both lanes, and 2) not be going as fast as they could.

Disagree? Too bad, most court decisions have determined the above to be the interpetation of the law. Look up Steve Selz sometime.

You seem to feel, like far too many selfish drivers, that anything that makes you take your foot off the accelerator constitutes the legal definition of ‘impeding traffic’. This is not the case.

When no decent alternative exists, I will be in the streets, and I will be in the middle of the lane since few lanes around here are large enough to support car and bike together.

I am entitled to transport my person by the means at my disposal. I do so legally, and doing so neither makes me attention seeking or a jackass.

77

Somehow I missed the final page of this thread and all the replies therin.

Agreed. Cyclists in this shoulder are asking to be right hooked and will be forced to merge after the intersection.

Case not proven.

78

Alright well, I’ll continue to ride on the terrible shoulder full of glass, branches, and car parts (and all that other stuff that isn’t actually there) without a problem as I always have. FWIW to all the people afraid of being near gravel, curbs, and um, those awful sidewalk cracks … the only time I’ve ever fallen on gravel was because I was taking a turn faster than I should’ve been on road tires, but it was on a path which was nowhere near a road. I’ve never been hit by a car on my bicycle while on a gravel shoulder because I’m not near the cars. Stupid logic, I know, and yet it seems to keep me alive and out of bad situations. I guess my 25mph cycling pace will have to wait for the bike trails. Oh, and to Ponder Stibbons – I’ve crashed into people on trails by accident a number of times. Nine times out of ten, it’s the fault of both parties, not just one. Each situation is a little different, but guess what? I’m still alive instead of being dragged under a car that didn’t see me, and I still keep riding trails, and I’m a better cyclist for it because I’ve learned from such mistakes instead of avoiding them completely. What did I learn? Well, for one, to not be such a speed freak and to slow down when I go into a blind curve rather than assume no one will be coming the opposite direction. For all the peacemongering that cyclists do, they sure are confrontational when asked to slow down a little. I don’t see how this kind of behavior is any different than the “fast and the furious” street racer types who like to play Race To The Red Light.

Not that any of the cyclist rights advocates here would be interested, but I spoke directly with one of the police sergeants in Northfield about this and he told me that they’ve had no shortage of incidents involving cyclists who do this, wherein the police will come up behind them and request via the squadcar loudpseaker that they move to the right of the lane, particularly in heavy traffic, reiterating my point: just because you have the right to do something doesn’t always make it a good idea, and this is an example of it taken to an extreme. Just thought I’d throw that out there, even though nobody’s listening. But I guess the cops are wrong for doing that too, and so am I and anyone else who rides on gravel shoulders full of cracks, and rocks, and broken glass, and oil pans, and medical needles, and radioactive waste, and lions and tigers and bears, and ravenous meat-eating circus midgets …

79

Gee, cops that are ignorant of bicycling laws and enforce their own arbitary ideas. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

Yes, they are. If they are insisting that someone take action that is basicly more dangerous then they are very wrong.

80

Stupid logic indeed. The truth is that you’ve never been hit because you’ve been lucky so far. I know of several cases where a cyclist on the shoulder got hit from behind - sometimes because the driver was distracted, sometimes because a car swerved to avoid an oncoming car that was passing another car. Many of these cases were fatal accidents.

Not that riding on the road makes one automatically safer. But in certain situations, riding on the road is safer than the shoulder because you are more visible and more predictable (assuming you are obeying all traffic rules). And in my judgement, the intersection in bup’s photograph is definitely one of those situations.

That doesn’t change the fact that one has the right to do it. Whether it’s a good idea is a subjective matter, and not something you or the cops have the authority to decide.