Slow Bikes Keep Right

On Sep 8, 11:00*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> Scott in SoCal wrote:
> > Would you still insist on taking the lane even though you're
> > struggling to maintain 3 MPH?
>
> I don't know about Brent, but I can maintain 8 to 10 mph up those types
> of grades (and that's if I don't have the benefit of previous momentum).
> * I do tend to keep a bit further to the right when going slow, but I'm
> not going to ride less than 2 feet from the edge of the road regardless.
>
> Drivers need to learn how to time their passes such that they don't try
> to force the cyclist off the road while trying to pass at the same time
> a car is coming from the opposite direction.

It's a rare hill that I can't maintain at least 10 MPH up, but then
again, where I live is not exactly mountain territory. So there are
few grades that are both steep and long enough to really kick your
ass.

Of course, if I've already logged a few miles, I may choose to just
put it in the small/big combo, kick back, and crank on up rather than
exert myself. I don't often choose to do that though, I hate going
slow :P

nate

nate

> "Brent" > wrote
>
> No, cars do not have the right of way 'whenever possible'. They have the
> right of way when they have it under the rules of the road.

Sure, but from a moral point of view bicyclists can't claim equality with
cars on the road:

1) The roads were built for cars. If no one biked, we'd have pretty much the
same roads; if everyone biked, we'd have only bike paths.

2) Bikes often force cars to slow way down. Cars don't force bikes to slow
down.

3) The vast majority of cyclists are on the road for recreation. The
majority of drivers are not.

4) Drivers are generally pretty scrupulous about obeying traffic laws,
except for stretching speed limits. Cyclists understandably often blow
through stop signs and even red lights if they can see no one's coming.

By the way, why do you all wear so much advertising on your Spandex?

--

Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto

On Sep 8, 11:54*am, Jim Yanik > wrote:
> Arif Khokar > wrote :
>
> > Scott in SoCal wrote:
>
> >> Would you still insist on taking the lane even though you're
> >> struggling to maintain 3 MPH?
>
> > I don't know about Brent, but I can maintain 8 to 10 mph up those types
> > of grades (and that's if I don't have the benefit of previous momentum)..
> > * I do tend to keep a bit further to the right when going slow, but I'm
> > not going to ride less than 2 feet from the edge of the road regardless..
>
> what's so bad about that 2 feet? I generally ride WITHIN that 2 ft.
> Of course,I stay OFF roads if practical.

Depends on how clean/well paved that rightmost 2 feet of pavement is.
Sometimes it's OK. Sometimes it's a wasteland of potholes and beer
bottles.

nate

"Paul D. DeRocco" > wrote in
:

>> "Brent" > wrote
>>
>> No, cars do not have the right of way 'whenever possible'. They have
>> the right of way when they have it under the rules of the road.
>
> Sure, but from a moral point of view bicyclists can't claim equality
> with cars on the road:
>
> 1) The roads were built for cars.

minor correction; roads -ARE- built for cars.

> If no one biked, we'd have pretty
> much the same roads; if everyone biked, we'd have only bike paths.
>
> 2) Bikes often force cars to slow way down. Cars don't force bikes to
> slow down.
>
> 3) The vast majority of cyclists are on the road for recreation. The
> majority of drivers are not.
>
> 4) Drivers are generally pretty scrupulous about obeying traffic laws,
> except for stretching speed limits. Cyclists understandably often blow
> through stop signs and even red lights if they can see no one's
> coming.
>
> By the way, why do you all wear so much advertising on your Spandex?
>

You're going to give Brent apoplexy. ;-)

One important,unavoidable fact is that autos weigh FAR more than
bicycles,and have FAR more kinetic energy.
Bikes (and their riders) always lose out to autos in collisions.

that's why it's nuts to mix slow bikes with faster auto traffic.

BTW,I put in 5 miles per day on my bike,mostly on sidewalks. It's safer.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Sep 8, 2:25*pm, Jim Yanik > wrote:

> BTW,I put in 5 miles per day on my bike,mostly on sidewalks. It's safer.

*facepalm*

On Sep 8, 1:01*pm, "Paul D. DeRocco" > wrote:
> > "Brent" > wrote
>
> > No, cars do not have the right of way 'whenever possible'. They have the
> > right of way when they have it under the rules of the road.
>
> Sure, but from a moral point of view bicyclists can't claim equality with
> cars on the road:
>
> 1) The roads were built for cars. If no one biked, we'd have pretty much the
> same roads; if everyone biked, we'd have only bike paths.

No, roads were built for multi-modal transport. Cars did not exist in
the 1700s and 1800s.

> 3) The vast majority of cyclists are on the road for recreation. The
> majority of drivers are not.

Nonsense. Up to 20% of Portland, Oregon's commuters are cyclists.
There is traffic congestion on several crossings because there are so
many cyclists. I bike to work almost daily, and I'm in the league with
quite a few other cyclists -- and I get pure bliss out of it because
there are some very steep hills on my commute that adds some fun and
workout

> By the way, why do you all wear so much advertising on your Spandex?

> Ciao, * * * * * * * Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul * * * * * * * *mailto

Since you are being completely obtuse and are completely ignorant of
cyclists, I won't even answer the last statement.

Sherman

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Arif Khokar > wrote in
> :

>> I don't know about Brent, but I can maintain 8 to 10 mph up those types
>> of grades (and that's if I don't have the benefit of previous momentum).
>> I do tend to keep a bit further to the right when going slow, but I'm
>> not going to ride less than 2 feet from the edge of the road regardless.

> what's so bad about that 2 feet? I generally ride WITHIN that 2 ft.

Have fun when you make a slight mistake and your tire goes off the edge
of the road and you fall. Happened to me 15 years ago resulting in a
crushed elbow and requiring surgery the same night. I learned my
lesson, though it took me 10 years before I started riding again.

Arif Khokar > wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Arif Khokar > wrote in
>> :
>
>>> I don't know about Brent, but I can maintain 8 to 10 mph up those
>>> types of grades (and that's if I don't have the benefit of previous
>>> momentum).
>>> I do tend to keep a bit further to the right when going slow, but
>>> I'm
>>> not going to ride less than 2 feet from the edge of the road
>>> regardless.
>
>> what's so bad about that 2 feet? I generally ride WITHIN that 2 ft.
>
> Have fun when you make a slight mistake and your tire goes off the
> edge of the road and you fall. Happened to me 15 years ago resulting
> in a crushed elbow and requiring surgery the same night. I learned my
> lesson, though it took me 10 years before I started riding again.
>

Uh,the roads here (Orlando)generally have a curb,or the grass is -higher-
than the road itself.
Plus,I ride a mountain bike with fat knobby tires that easily go over
grass.

Also,with 2 feet of space,it's not hard to keep within that.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Sherman L. Cahal" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 7, 10:00 pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2009-09-07, Steve A > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 5:20 pm, "D. Stussy" > wrote:
> >> "larry_scholnick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > This sign was on a reasonably steep uphill grade along Palos Verdes
> >> > Drive East, on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, southwest of Los Angeles.
>
> >> > My question: What does it mean?
>
> >> > Does it mean: Bikes that are going slower than the average bike
> >> > should
> >> > keep right?
>
> >> > Or does it mean: Bikes that are going slower than the average car
> >> > (Speed Limit 35) should keep right?
>
> >> > If it had been on a downhill section, I know that some bikes would be
> >> > doing the same speed as the cars, but on a steep uphill section bike
> >> > riders struggle to keep moving at all.
>
> >> I'm guessing that these slow uphill riders have been coming out into
> >> the
> >> lane and impeding cars.
>
> > Some bicyclists are entirely too arrogant. I had one shout at me for
> > passing him on a wide, unstriped town street. When I pulled up to the
> > light, he pulled up next to me to lecture me about passing him. My
> > response: If you have a wide roadway, keep to the right; I'm a
> > bicyclist myself and the idea is to share the road, meaning let cars
> > have the right of way whenever possible. I mention this because it is
> > highly likely these arrogant riders will think "I'm not a SLOW bike"
> > and continue to hog the whole lane. Well, if they get passed/cut off
> > (but I certainly _don't_ mean forcing a crash), they get what they
> > deserve for being so arrogant.
>
> No, cars do not have the right of way 'whenever possible'. They have the
> right of way when they have it under the rules of the road.
>
> I bike a good number of roads with 25 and 30mph posted speed limits. The
> vast majority of them are correctly posted because they are residential
> roads. I can do the posted limit on many of them much of the time. When
> I drive them, I obey that speed limit. It is EXTREMELY rare, to the
> point of never happening that anyone even attempts to pass me. Also, I
> am usually going 2mph under the limit (driving) because the speedometer
> reads 2mph high.
>
> Bicycling these roads I am often at the speed limit (speedo is
> accurate). I will move towards the center of the lane when going that
> fast because that's where the better pavement is, and at that speed, am
> no longer legally required to be on the far right edge. Drivers of
> course think they *MUST* pass and then try to do so, very often coming
> way to close to me in the process. What bothers me the most is they do
> it for no gain. I immediately catch up to them in a hundred feet or
> three where there is a stop sign or traffic light. They will risk
> killing me to wait at a stop.
>
> And yes, I will occasionally end up giving some of these drivers a
> lecture if they say even one word to me. These drivers won't dare try
> that crap when I'm driving those roads at 25mph, so they shouldn't do it
> when I'm bicycling them. They don't get to shove me off the road or over
> to the side just because their vehicle is bigger. Those who think they
> should, should have someone in a gravel truck do them what they do to
> bicyclists.
>
> Given your description of the road type, you're probably passing
> bicyclists whom if they were driving the same speed you'd have no
> problem staying behind. It's only because they are on bicycles that it
> becomes an issue for you.
>
> Today a driver of a pickup was behind me. it was a difficult spot to
> pass so I sprinted up to 29.5 mph in a 30mph zone. The only reason I did
> was because he was back there, it consumed limited energy for me. He
> held back. When it got easier to pass I slowed and moved to the edge and
> he passed. No problems. he was even a little close, but he was acting
> right before that so I just let it go. That's the way it should be, but
> often isn't. I've even had drivers intentionally run me off the road
> when I've moved over to let them pass. One of the reasons I only do it
> in circumstances where I am 98% sure of the driver is reasonable and I
> have a safe exit.

Exactly. Those who rarely ride, hold a belief that cyclists belong on
sidewalks and on paths, and who never ride, will often post knee-jerk
comments such as what Steve stated above. Traffic lanes are not
reserved for the express use by automobiles only, unless designated as
such (e.g. limited-access highways). You MUST share the lane with
other cyclists, even if they are using more of the lane than you would
prefer.

* Partly incorrect. Yes, the road signs read "Share The Road" , but if a
clear opportunity exists for the bicyclist to ride as far to the right as
possbile, they MUST do so.

For instance, I typically ride in the right tire-track so as to avoid
debris, glass and the like in the areas near to the curb. It also
allows me to remain more visible to the motorist, to assert my right
to the lane, and to avoid hidding people opening their car doors (it
happens more often than you'd think).

* But in the clear absence of any debris, you are in violation of the
vehicle code pertaining to bicycles every time you fail to keep as far right
as possible.

[snip...]

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>
>> Would you still insist on taking the lane even though you're struggling
>> to maintain 3 MPH?
>
> I don't know about Brent, but I can maintain 8 to 10 mph up those types of
> grades (and that's if I don't have the benefit of previous momentum). I do
> tend to keep a bit further to the right when going slow, but I'm not going
> to ride less than 2 feet from the edge of the road regardless.
>
> Drivers need to learn how to time their passes such that they don't try to
> force the cyclist off the road while trying to pass at the same time a car
> is coming from the opposite direction.

Alternatively, a case can be made--like the slower motor vehicle that needs
to turn out to let slower traffic pass--that if the motor vehicle has to
cross over either a lane marker or the center divider to pass a bicyclist,
than the bicyclist is not riding far enough to the right. If the bicyclist
cannot ride any further to the right, common sense states they should turn
out (but here is where they bicyclist has an advantage--they can still walk
the bike after turning out!) and let the passing traffic through.