3 ms·

> They want to feign anger and offense when motorists complain when they take their bikes onto roadways that were not intended or engineered for them and they b

> They want to feign anger and offense when motorists complain when they take their bikes onto roadways that were not intended or engineered for them and they block traffic and cause safety issues. The part I take issue with is "were not intended" because the laws are very clear on what rights and responsibilities cyclists have when using the roads. The law gives them a right to be there. The majority of states laws on the matter say that you have to ride as close as is practicable to the edge of the road and that cars are required to give you a three foot space when passing or overtaking or whatever you'd like to call it. And then many go on to state that when the lane is narrow enough that cars can't give you the three feet and still pass safely, you get the whole lane. In Texas and Florida if the lane is less than 14 feet wide there is no adjacent, designated bicycle lane (not the shoulder, but a designated lane) then the cyclist has the right to the whole lane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law_in_the_United_States#Remaining_on_the_edge_of_the_roadway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law_in_the_United_State... In many states you're legally allowed to ride two abreast provided that it doesn't impede traffic so in cases with wide enough bike lanes this is OK and it's also allowed on roads where the lane is less than 14 feet wide and there is no bike lane. http://www.biketexas.org/en/infrastructure/texas-bicycle-laws http://www.biketexas.org/en/infrastructure/texas-bicycle-law... A lot of states also have laws that specify that cyclists must pull over and let cars pass if more than say 5 of them are piled up behind a cyclist, unable to pass. That's definitely a legitimate grievance for cars as they have the right to demand the cyclist let them pass but few know about the law much less follow it. In the first picture you linked the lane looks to be of questionable width (probably less than 14 feet) in which case what the riders are doing is not only legal but also for their own safety. Once more than 5 cars are behind them though, they all need to pull off and let everyone pass. I suspect that most of the cyclists you encounter conveniently "forget" about that part of the law, aggravating drivers. The "take the lane" laws are on the books so that cyclists can prevent cars from passing on roads that aren't wide enough to safely permit passing. It's infuriating at times when it's a single lane road and cyclists are poking along at 20mph instead of 50mph but the law enshrines this right. I can understand the frustration you feel when cyclists follow the law and take up a whole lane, and further when they break the law and don't allow passing. But that's what the law says so I have to respectfully disagree about the use of the word "intended"

bane 12y ago
So two things. By "intended" I specifically mean the semantics of the travelway. Roads are specifically engineered for cars, full stop. Everything from angle to speed surveys are done specifically for the automobile. Is that a great injustice to other forms of transportation? Perhaps, but that's the way it is. It's changing, and roads are more commonly being designed and engineered to support other transport options, but there's still a long way to go with that. Second, there's a very big difference between things being legally allowed and them being wise to do. It is perfectly legal for me to walk in the road along a road with no available sidewalk. Is it wise? Probably not. So the problem I have is that bikes are allowed on roads, but I don't think they should be. The cry then is "well where will they go?" and I strongly propose that purpose built bike lines be built to accommodate cyclists. I recognize that it won't happen overnight, but it is happening. > It's infuriating at times when it's a single lane road and cyclists are poking along at 20mph instead of 50mph but the law enshrines this right. The law in most states also specifically forbids impeding traffic (hence the 5 car law you pointed out in some jurisdictions). In others "impeding" is left open to interpretation by an officer of the law. But 20 in a 50 is impeding and I'd argue that it's not only not safe for everybody on the road, but faster vehicles (mopeds and scooters) are not even allowed on such roads (at least in my jurisdiction), which I think it a clear oversight in the law. But bikes get an unbelievable amount of leeway. In situations where other vehicles are prohibited, or pedestrians aren't allowed, bikes get a free pass. I've never even heard of a cyclist in my area getting a ticket for anything. But I can sit out on my front porch and watch cyclists run the stop sign in front of my house all day. I think that's wrong and I think the right way to deal with it is not to ban bikes, but to give them a better place to go and start enforcing cyclist's responsibilities.
- msandford 12y ago
  > Roads are specifically engineered for cars, full stop. I understand where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. Perhaps where you live they are, but there are many places where they are not. I agree that getting cyclists off the car traffic lanes and into designated cycling lanes is the best solution to these issues. Does the fact that some cyclists get away with running stop signs (which many cars also run, or merely slow down rather than "full and complete stop" at) somehow offset the fact that when cyclists die at the hands of a driver little to nothing happens to said driver? Personally I think that cyclist deaths and the lack of consequence for drivers is a problem. And I'm all for ticketing cyclists who blatantly run stop signs; less so of ticketing cyclists who slowly roll through stop signs the same way many drivers do. What's fair is fair and if cars can get away with it then cyclists should too. If cars can't, cyclists shouldn't either.

bane 12y ago

So two things. By "intended" I specifically mean the semantics of the travelway. Roads are specifically engineered for cars, full stop. Everything from angle to speed surveys are done specifically for the automobile. Is that a great injustice to other forms of transportation? Perhaps, but that's the way it is. It's changing, and roads are more commonly being designed and engineered to support other transport options, but there's still a long way to go with that. Second, there's a very big difference between things being legally allowed and them being wise to do. It is perfectly legal for me to walk in the road along a road with no available sidewalk. Is it wise? Probably not. So the problem I have is that bikes are allowed on roads, but I don't think they should be. The cry then is "well where will they go?" and I strongly propose that purpose built bike lines be built to accommodate cyclists. I recognize that it won't happen overnight, but it is happening. > It's infuriating at times when it's a single lane road and cyclists are poking along at 20mph instead of 50mph but the law enshrines this right. The law in most states also specifically forbids impeding traffic (hence the 5 car law you pointed out in some jurisdictions). In others "impeding" is left open to interpretation by an officer of the law. But 20 in a 50 is impeding and I'd argue that it's not only not safe for everybody on the road, but faster vehicles (mopeds and scooters) are not even allowed on such roads (at least in my jurisdiction), which I think it a clear oversight in the law. But bikes get an unbelievable amount of leeway. In situations where other vehicles are prohibited, or pedestrians aren't allowed, bikes get a free pass. I've never even heard of a cyclist in my area getting a ticket for anything. But I can sit out on my front porch and watch cyclists run the stop sign in front of my house all day. I think that's wrong and I think the right way to deal with it is not to ban bikes, but to give them a better place to go and start enforcing cyclist's responsibilities.

msandford 12y ago
> Roads are specifically engineered for cars, full stop. I understand where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. Perhaps where you live they are, but there are many places where they are not. I agree that getting cyclists off the car traffic lanes and into designated cycling lanes is the best solution to these issues. Does the fact that some cyclists get away with running stop signs (which many cars also run, or merely slow down rather than "full and complete stop" at) somehow offset the fact that when cyclists die at the hands of a driver little to nothing happens to said driver? Personally I think that cyclist deaths and the lack of consequence for drivers is a problem. And I'm all for ticketing cyclists who blatantly run stop signs; less so of ticketing cyclists who slowly roll through stop signs the same way many drivers do. What's fair is fair and if cars can get away with it then cyclists should too. If cars can't, cyclists shouldn't either.