Printable View
Sunday afternoon and you’re in a hurry, who cares about the safety of some cyclists, amirite?
If I’m approaching a blind roller with a double yellow I’m taking the lane single file or not. Drivers are too impatient and selfish to care about my safety.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
If everybody put in a little effort it would be easy.
I've found it's absolutely impossible to make blanket statements about this stuff. Different roads, shoulder width, traffic and bike speeds, populations, etc. all demand different techniques in dealing with traffic.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reverend Floater
But in the photo OP took: dan_pdx is 100% right. There's no sight line and visible oncoming traffic. Even solo I'm taking the full lane right there to discouarge a pass. Of course, I'll move right as soon as it's safe to be passed and try to smile and wave my left hand at the driver who was stuck behind me.
Read the OPs post.Quote:
Originally Posted by kathleenturneroverdrive
Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk
This is America. We all have rights. None of us has obligations.Quote:
Originally Posted by halliday
Boomers and farm children may not have been taught to separate hazards, but it's been part of driver's ed in Washington state for >35 years. Driving defensively means not passing an obstacle on the right while also passing one on the left.
Whether either obstacle is a cyclist, pedestrian, dog, car or garbage can, safely passing anything on the right means moving left when line of sight is clear and there is no oncoming traffic or other obstacle on the left. Timing that correctly means a little farther left or not is immaterial.
Cooperation, then, means helping with the timing, not making half a space to encourage a clueless driver to go 3-wide regardless of lane width, as is often suggested: drivers understand any move to the right as a signal to pass and too many of them don't even bother to look further up the road. Cyclists moving right when it's not safe to pass is a classic nice-hole move that puts everyone at risk.
The fact that any driver feels irrationally safer moving only partway into the oncoming lane or hugging the centerline to thread the needle with his mirrors is a symptom of letting the cage insulate him (or, rarely, her) from the world outside. It dovetails with the projection needed to imagine the evil thoughts of the spandex-clad, though: commitments to one's emotional reasoning.
So far I think we've only lost one participant. It seems like he tried to be nice. No good deed goes unpunished.
RIPQuote:
Originally Posted by skiing-in-jackson
Not obligations, but we do have responsibilities. We, as a society, just shirk them, and the entire concept of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
But they are in a hurry and losing three seconds of their day to slow down and move over is just too much. Plus, cyclist don’t pay road taxes. Duh! Stupid fucking liberal cyclists. [diesel blast]Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
I try to give cyclists as much room as possible when passing. If they are taking the full lane 2-wide, and i pass in the oncoming lane then they are only getting a few feet of clearance. If they rode single file in the right 1/3rd of the lane, then when i overtake i can give them 8'-10'of clearance making the passing process much safer.Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
The fact that cyclists would intentionally lessen the passing clearance of automobiles is mind boggling to me. But then again, its also mind boggling to me that a group ride would choose a well trafficked 55mph 2-lane highway with no shoulder as their preferred route... yet i see that happen all the time.
This was pretty cut and dry folks. There were plenty of opportunities for these guys to shift over a bit. They just had zero inclination to recognize there were other people on the road. I was going to have to cross the line no matter what, but as was said, there would have been more distance between me and them and more distance between me and any oncoming car if they had an ounce of courtesy.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Because it forces auto drivers to move over into oncoming lane and not buzz cyclist. It sort of enforces respect for the cyclist. (But not in reality)Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
I wish cyclists weren’t such elitist pricks as well, but it’s hard not to be a defensive prick when 5,000lb plus vehicles are flying by with no respect for human life.
In short: humans are selfish pricks regardless of how they get from point A to B.
Well put Jono. And I didn't know that about Skiing-inJackson, RIP.Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
enforces respect? bullshit....
fact.
that framing of the issue is an interesting one given the remaining space is an entire drive laneQuote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
do you have trouble navigating a complete lane?
"courtesy" isn't the issue here; stop taking offense where none exists
pass them when it's safe, as you would when it happens to be an overburdened truck or farm vehicle
^ it’s a double yellow in the pic which would indicate it’s not safe to pass there usually
It is cut and dried, but not in the way you want to think: the distance you need between you and an oncoming car is distance in the direction of travel, not left to right. Shortening the length of the group increases that distance. If it's safe to pass with you in the oncoming lane, there will be plenty of room left to right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Shirk
Conversely, a cyclist moving right encourages you to pass, safe or not. Anyone who's ridden on the road even briefly has experienced that: at least 10% of drivers interpret moving right as "go on around, I'll just hit the ditch if it turns out the oncoming car is too close." But of course the cyclist has no way to know how close is too close for you or when you're going to decide to lurch right. So using a move to the right to mean "I see you, pass when safe" is just a good way to get killed.
Give a little thought to what level of rage it takes to get you to engage in distracted driving just so you can try to get your feelings validated. It's not a matter of life and death until you make it one.
In the picture that you posted the cyclists had plenty of room if you passed in the oncoming lane like your legally required to do, but you couldn’t pass safely anyway because of the no passing zone. Your statement makes no sense, you know that you had to pass in the oncoming lane so what difference would it make if they moved over a bit. I don’t know where this occurred but if you were in WA the cyclists would have to pull over if they’re holding up five or more vehicles. That’s the law but cars never obey that either. I’m having a hard time understanding your beef without more information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Shirk
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
The passing space is a full lane, correct, and i have no problem with that. But if the cyclists are 2wide (each in the lane's wheel path) then when i pass ont he left in the oncoming lane it results in about the same clearance as me passing a cyclist who is in a standard non-separated bike lane- too close for comfort for many. If the cyclists were single file in the lane's right wheelpath, then i could pass in the oncoming lane leaving a nice healthy clearance distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
I am one of those people that will drift left out of my lane (when safe) to pass a cyclist in a bike lane on the right... because it should be common courtesy to give them as much space as is reasonable.
Similarly, When ever i am chugging up an incline in my older SUV and know that someone is going to pass me on the left i hug the fogline to give as much room as safely possible between our two vehicles. Seems like common sense.
You've done a tolerance stack up at some point in your career, right? You know that above some minimum clearance there's always a dramatic point of diminishing returns where probability of interference is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
That's the situation with taking the lane, just add one human factor: if a cyclist hugs the right side a lot of drivers see the centerline as a barrier they'd rather not cross and attempt to squeeze between it and the cyclist. Whereas if a rider is in the left wheel track (see best practice for motorcycles) the driver is encouraged to use the whole oncoming lane (and the rider is free to move a little bit right as the pass occurs).
The latter scenario provides more room than the former and if the latter exceeds the diminishing returns on clearance and the former does not, then it's safer to use the latter approach even if only 10% of drivers are needle threaders.
True. It’s a fallacy but it feels like it forces the driver to not buzz you. Doesn’t always work.Quote:
Originally Posted by m2711c
Ultimately 100 pages and it boils down to “don’t be a dick” for either user group.
To me it's more about "risk" than "respect." In that, if you want to pass me in a dangerous spot with no visibility to oncoming traffic, you can totally go for it, but I'm gonna take the lane so you need to assume the risk of fully going into the oncoming lane.
But anways. Say those cyclists were moving at a pretty average 15mph, and they held up OP for a half mile, as stated. That means they impeded his day for a whopping 2:00 of time. 20 seconds of which was probably spent taking his photo of a spot where it wouldn't have even been possible to pass them safely.
So really, hats off to Art Shirk. In order to make a point about someone wasting 1:40 of his time, he managed to waste at least a collective hour or so between everyone replying to him.
Appreciated Jono’s insights here especially. It makes some sense to me that lining up means more passing time. I also appreciate the psychology of making a car take the full lane rather than trying to squeeze between the bikers and the lane. I could see how lining up could prompt that behavior. Gave me something to think about.
We all make assumptions about what is going on in people’s heads, including the very fervent bike contingency in these recent replies. I live in a rural community and was driving an old slow truck - I’m not trying to be speed racer here. I made assumptions about these guys that they simply didn’t give a shit that there were other people around them. But maybe their perceived indifference or “inaction” was an act of self preservation in and of itself. Or maybe they just had a sense of entitlement/disregard but the result was the same.
It’s not unfair for us gas guzzlers to assume bad intent, at least where I live. There are no passing lanes and these groups will routinely ride in the entire lane with cars backed up behind them and when there is a solid turn out area, they keep right on at 10 mph blowing through stop signs along the way. A little courtesy on both sides is needed.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Wow. I'm impressed by the civility here, and especially by Art's recognition of the valid points above.
The problem with riding on the road is that if one makes available the option to squeeze between the yellow and one's shoulder, there are plenty of drivers who will choose it. Yes, by taking the lane we're probably pissing some people off, but at least they aren't hitting us. Art's acknowledgement above is such an outlier because most people who squeeze cyclists are a lost cause anyway, so offering any "courtesy" to them at the expense of our own safety isn't going to make them appreciate cyclists.
My own experience over the past few years of riding on the road and consistently taking the lane vs riding on the same roads before is that there are fewer negative interactions with drivers. The scary close passes that used to happen multiple times in an average 50mi ride have decreased to one every few rides. Maybe a few more people yell at me, but if they're doing that they have seen me and despite having seen it happen, I think that the likelihood of a driver intentionally hitting someone is pretty low.
Safe riding, everyone! (And safe driving, especially when near more vulnerable road users!)
The premise that the slowpoke should somehow cede their right to use the road in the manner that they are able is entirely in the mind of the irritated follower & not part of any social responsibility or legal framework.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Look, I get it...I get annoyed too at inordinately slow things in front of me on the road. Like you, I will go wide where I am able to pass & will also max the space for safety. And when I'm the slow one, I also try to cede the lane if there's somewhere for me to do it, but not at my own expense for safety or for getting where I'm going.
There is a legal system prescribed for passing "slow vehicles", whether it's some grandma going to church who probably should have surrendered her license by now, a harvester moving to another field, a heavy truck laboring up a grade, or cyclists. Even when ceding the lane is mandated by state law, the slow vehicle has a carve out for doing it in a safe place (and that determination is up to the slowpoke). And there is no requirement to just let any faster vehicle pass at the expense of the slowpoke's right to proceed at the safe speed they can handle. This issue of "courtesy" is not relevant. If it were, the roads would be a mess of niceholes ceding the road in unexpected ways and at unexpected times.
Are there ways to be courteous on the road? Sure
Is there any social contract or legal reason to be "courteous"? No, and it shouldn't be taken as an offense by other road users, even tho these conflicts by different users can be irritating.
"If the cyclists were single file in the lane's right wheelpath, then i could pass in the oncoming lane leaving a nice healthy clearance distance."
And if all the commute traffic would just line up in the lane that is convenient for me to get by, I could get to my work that isn't at the busy exit that happens to be before mine.
Sometimes when I haven't had enough of NextDoors anti-bicycle rants -- this is a nice place to get my fill.