6 ms·

Yeah, it's kind of unreasonable to expect to get away with biking on a two lane highway with no shoulder, someone will get hurt doing that.

• freehunter 8y ago
  Why is it that "someone will get hurt doing that" is acceptable when discussing a bicycle on the road doing 20mph, but no one ever seems to accidentally run into farm implements or construction equipment traveling on the road at 5mph?
  • ddingus 8y ago
    Size and norms. Big, slow things are not the same as smaller slow things. Farming vehicles are purpose built and we have a long running understanding about farmers using roads. These new vehicles present new problems, and or people are still thinking about it all. We have not settled into any solid norms yet.
    • Phrodo_00 8y ago
      > new vehicles > bicycles
      • jessaustin 8y ago
        I thought perhaps the username was just really literal.
      • ddingus 8y ago
        Scooters, bikes, are "new" in the sense of traffic norms, unlike the tractor. They are going from marginal / casual use to daily use. Some regions are there. Many are not.
        • Phrodo_00 8y ago
          > bikes, are "new" in the sense of traffic norms Bikes where there before paved roads existed. Cyclists where the reason we started building them in the same place.
          • ddingus 8y ago
            Yes they were. They are, despite that, "new" in the sense I put above. Apparently, I need to expand on "norms" The thought did not come across. Next time.
  • jahewson 8y ago
    1) Construction/farm equipment goes much faster than 5mph. 2) There’s very little of it, and it’s pretty much impossible to miss because it’s so big. 3) It’s usually professionally driven (YMMV).
    • lostapathy 8y ago
      Heavy equipment is heavy and poses a lot more risk to a car than a bicycle, so cars just plain give them more space. You can’t bully a tractor off the road with a Honda Civic like you can do to a cyclist.
• u801e 8y ago
  Getting hit from behind is the least common type of collision for a cyclist. They're much more at risk of collision at intersections because of the misguided keep as far right as practicable law that's in effect in most states.
  • kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    "as far right as practicable" means you can take the lane when necessary.
    • u801e 8y ago
      Most states model their traffic laws after the UVC (Uniform Vehicle Code). For the keep as far right as practicable law when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic, the UVC lists several exceptions to that requirement. One is the substandard width lane which is defined as a lane that's too narrow for a cyclist and motor vehicle to safely pass side-by-side within the lane [1]. Given that most surface street lane widths range from 10 to 12 feet, they're not wide enough for a motor vehicle to pass a cyclist safely while remaining in the lane. That means that, for all practical purposes, the keep as far right as practicable requirement is an exception rather than a rule. [1] http://iamtraffic.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/UVC2000.pdf http://iamtraffic.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/UVC2000.pdf (page 168 § 11-1205-Position on roadway subsection 3)
• jessaustin 8y ago
  I can tell that you are a bad driver. Lots of the biking I do now is in the situation you describe, and it's no problem at all for 90% of drivers. They learned to pass slower vehicles safely. You didn't, but it's not too late!
  • swiley 8y ago
    I don't think you live here then? Naer the mountains it's dangerous to take your hands off the steering wheel because there are so many curves, passing is an extremely dangerous thing to do no matter how slow the biker is going. I'm not against biking (I say get rid of the cars and figure something else out together) but the fact is some rural areas lack the infrastructure to make it safe for bikes and cars to coexist.
    • jessaustin 8y ago
      I've lived in the mountains before; actually I've lived above 10,000 ft. I get your meaning on taking one's hands off the steering wheel, although I reckon lots of people would say that's always somewhat dangerous. On mountain roads, where there aren't dedicated passing lanes, generous shoulders, and long straight sections between switchbacks there are often occasional pull-offs for slower traffic. Cyclists use those, and often get off the road to let others pass even without those. Certainly that's the case everywhere I've seen in the mountains. Although perhaps you're not really talking about mountains? Elsewhere in this thread you seem to be talking about narrow defiles through hills and curves in some impossibly remote location. If we are to take you at your word, the roads you're driving aren't actually suited to automobile travel, and certainly not to 60mph highway-attitude automobile travel. Cars only coexist with themselves because most drivers have safe habits. Those same safe habits allow car drivers not to kill cyclists.
• TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  It is not at all unreasonable. Roads do not belong solely to cars. If you can't pass a cyclist safely, you don't pass at all.
  • swiley 8y ago
    Right and an unplanned hour long delay is reasonable?
    • TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      What the hell kind of road are you on that is only two lanes but also is busy enough that you can't safely pass for an entire hour?
      • swiley 8y ago
        The kind that you shouldn’t bike on: two lane highways with lots of curves and hills and absolutely no shoulder.