Near my house there is a 2-3 mile long road going to a highway. It’s a single lane in each direction, no shoulder at all, very twisty with thick trees and such on the sides obscuring the view around corners, and the speed limit is still 45mph. It also has a fairly high amount of traffic.
Why in the hell would you want to cycle on that road? And it’s not the only way to get to the highway, there are multiple roads to the highway! One is a mile out of the way, and is a wide, new road with bicycle lanes as well as 2 lanes for cars in each direction. And I know it’s not far out of the way because when I bike to the highway, that’s the route I take.
I was on the first road yesterday and it was only because I was going rather slow that I saw the bicyclist in the middle of the lane before I was on top of them. Aaaarg don’t ride there you’re going to get yourself killed!!!
I don’t mind sharing the road… but bicycles are not cars. They are not as visible, as fast nor as safe as cars. Pick a safer route!
If it’s legal for bikes to ride on the road, and they keep to the rules, it’s YOUR responsibility as a car driver not to just drive straight over them. Just assuming there isn’t any traffic other than cars is stupid and dangerous.
I’m sorry your roads suck.
edit: what if it was a tractor? would it have been any less dangerous?
There was a cyclist killed last year on a road near me. I know the road and the circumstances were
Very busy during the morning rush, 2) Not lighted, 3) Has a canopy of trees over it, 4) Narrow one way each direction, 5) No shoulder, 6) He was riding before the sun came up.
He did have every right to be there and it was sad that he died but I still think anyone riding that particular road during that time of day was really taking their life into their own hands.
A tractor is much, much more visible than a bicycle. Also tends to have lights attached. And finally, a person hitting a tractor at speeds consistent with the situation… banged up car. Hitting a bike… dead person.
I get what you’re saying. I certainly wouldn’t drive on such a road under bad conditions - i.e. dark and very busy. The risk would be too great.
On the other hand, judging from the threads on bicycles in the pit right now, there are way too many car drivers who just don’t think about bikes at all, and apparently feel that because roads can be dangerous to bikes they shouldn’t be on them at all. We should all drive a car, and everything will be fine. I find that offensive.
For the record, I’m Dutch. Bikes are everywhere here, and while towns have fairly good bike lanes, there are plenty of roads that have minimal to no extra space for bikes, but are still open to them. Car drivers here usually manage to avoid hitting them, probably because they understand that there may be bikes.
I am trying to remain neutral and would like to ask about driving with cyclists. I understand that cyclists should act like vehicles in terms of following the rules of the road, and car should treat them like vehicles. Please correct me on this.
But in this situation, where the speed limit is 45 and there’s no shoulder, and cars are coming in both directions most of the time, can a cyclist act like a car and go fast enough? And if not, and they can’t pull over into a separate bike lane or shoulder, aren’t they making themselves a hazard or impediment?
ETA: It’s not as much of an issue here because traffic isn’t usually very heavy and there’s opportunity to go around a bike (or tractor, for that matter), but I wonder about busier areas?
A cyclist cannot get up to 45 miles an hour unless he’s going down hill and it’s suicidal to go that fast (esp in traffic). I can only answer about the rules in the Netherlands, but if you cannot pass the bike safely, and they can’t move out of the way, you’re supposed to wait behind it until you can, just like with any other vehicle.
Why on earth would that make a difference? Pitting a single individual who does something the OP deems pit-worthy is that much better than pitting the subset of the larger bike-riding population who acts in that manner?
Judging by your description it actually sounds like a really nice road to ride on (aside from the traffic.) Perhaps that’s why they ride on it, because they like it.
Also, I know people tend not to do this, but the only safe way to DRIVE on a twisty road with blind corners is to always be at a speed such that you can stop within half the distance visible ahead of you. This will allow you to avoid a head-on with someone coming the other way if they’ve crossed the centreline and will take care of pretty much any other situation as well. Remember, a speed limit is a limit, not a target.
Having said all that, I get nervous riding on busy roads with no escape route for me as a cyclist and tend to avoid them, so I see where you’re coming from.
I make a point to share the road and am very conscientious around cyclists. But as a good friend of mine said (who is actually a professional biathloner), people who ride on roads like this are joining the food chain.
Because when you pit the population it is easy to generalize to the population of cyclists as a whole. Bike threads in the pit usually follow this pattern:
Someone suggests or states outright that cyclists should not be on the roads at all, at which point
The usual suspects (which I acknowledge I am one of) pile in to clarify and debate their experiences, understandings and intentions, and ultimately
Everyone comes to a consensus that cyclists should follow the rules of the road, and if they don’t, they’re assholes.
I think this could be somewhat averted if it was unmistakeably clear from the outset that the ire is directed towards a person and not a population. I would rather see a person being pitted, than a population of which I am a member.
I’m interested in why the OP thinks the cyclist was going to get on the the highway. Generally speaking, a highway is not a good place for a cyclist either. Maybe it was just a fun ride and there would be a turnaround and ride back, rather than getting on the highway. Or maybe the twisty road goes on past the highway?
Oh, yeah, and if you’re plotting a route that you’re not familiar with, you pick small roads and keep off the major ones. The cyclist might not have any idea about the traffic volume to expect.
Oh, because this particular highway has a very wide shoulder and is very popular with cyclists. Additionally, the road they were on doesn’t go anywhere but this highway.
Rewrite your question, and sub in the words farm tractor or construction equipment for bicycle, and I think you will have the answer to your question. Many of those won’t go 45 either.
You need to slow down, and the rider / driver should pull to the right when it is safe to allow you to pass. At least that is the way the law reads in California.
The responsibility for the safe pass lies with the driver doing the passing, not the rider being passed. The law is very clear on that.
Sorry for the scare you had, but yes, you do have the responsibility to drive slowly enough so that you can avoid an accident if you suddenly encounter a slower vehicle ahead of you. And that includes bicycles, tractors, and construction equipment as well as cars moving at or about the speed limit. If a driver fatally injures a legally-riding cyclist, the cyclist didn’t “get themselves killed”: the driver killed them.
By the way, I note that if the “twisty” road in question is 3 miles long and has a 45 mph speed limit, the shortest time it could take you to (legally) drive from one end of it to the other is 4 minutes. If you were driving 30 mph instead, covering that 3 miles would take you 6 minutes. Is this saving of 2 minutes—120 seconds—really such a big deal to you?
Consider also that if the cyclist is going 15mph, going “a mile out of the way” to cover a 3-mile distance means that the cyclist’s trip takes 16 minutes instead of 12. If it’s reasonable to expect them to lose 4 minutes in order to ride on a safer road, why isn’t it reasonable to expect you to lose 2 minutes in order to comply with the law about safely sharing the road with slower vehicles?
I do think there’s a case to be made for restricting bicycle access to certain roads, and I don’t object if drivers vote for keeping bicycles off certain roads where they feel that the road just can’t be safely shared. (That doesn’t mean I won’t vote against them, but I think they have a right to vote for what they want.) But as long as it’s legal for cyclists to ride on a particular road, then as long as they’re following the law, you need to suck it up and drive safely, rather than blaming the cyclists because their presence annoys you.
I’ll add my voice to the chorus saying that this probably won’t go well.
Every time I’ve complained (not on this board that I recall, but myriad times elsewhere) about cyclists riding on exactly this sort of road – and we have a billion of 'em around here – I’ve gotten bitched out by an endless stream of people telling me they have a right to the road, and that it’s MY responsibility to drive safely around them. And you know what? They’re absolutely right.
The point that never seems to get across is that being right doesn’t count for a whole hell of a lot when two tons of speeding steel comes into contact with 150 pounds of flesh, bone and a teensy piece of aluminum…because while I may drive safely (and I do), not everyone makes the same considerations. If you don’t believe that, just check the numerous cyclist rants about crazy-ass drivers on this very board. Do I really have to argue that a non-insignificant number of drivers have as much concern for the safety of cyclists as they do for the average windshield-bound locust swarm?
But no, they’ll tell me; I have no concern for anyone else’s wellbeing, only my own convenience. If I don’t want cyclists to ride on these roads, it must be because I’m a card-carrying member of the Cult of the Driver, and certainly not because I’d rather they didn’t get turned into human purée by some dipshit in a spray-painted Honda hatchback. Cyclists have the RIGHT to the road, and it’s drivers’ RESPONSIBILITY to share it respectfully! Well, so it is, and so be it. Maybe a few Dopers will be willing to listen, or offer rational argument, instead of disingenuously questioning my motivations and/or blathering about the rules of the road. If not, I’m done arguing the fucking point, and may right and responsibility protect you when Drunken Fuckstick #4,056,237 comes barreling down the way at sixty.
Two tons of speeding steel can easily kill a car driver too. But why is it that we hardly ever hear complaints about car drivers on narrow roads? Or maybe you’re an exception, and tell car drivers they don’t belong on certain roads because they are not safe?