Bikes & kids on Tucker Carlson last night

The Wogster wrote:


A little kid, on a sidewalk bike, isn't going to be going at a speed,
where it makes much difference, probably around 10km/h. It also depends
on the road, if the road sees little traffic (like my street), and the
speed limits are low (40km/h), then there probably is little difference
in safety, for child or adult rider.


Higher speed roads



Suppose you live at a major intersection, where there is 3 lanes of
traffic each way, a centre turn lane, and turn outs on both sides, a
little kid on a kiddie bike, isn't going to survive a crossing, without
supervision.

So you are saying a child should negotiate such an intersection on
bicycle on the the sidewalk?




Bike lanes

are cheap to add as well.


They are only economically cheap if the wide space already exists such
that the only monetary cost is paint. However, this again presupposes
that the bike lane makes it safer for bicyclists, and I've never found
that to be true. Further, I think the less tangible "costs" to
bicyclists of bike lanes far outweigh any alleged advantages.


Bike lanes can go either way, depending on how wide they are, and what
street side parking, if any is in existance. It also depends on how
other traffic sees the bike lane.

This makes no sense. How do other vehicle operators view different bike
lanes differently, and how are we supposed to know that they do this.
And what are bicyclists supposed to do about some alleged different
interpretation of bike lanes?


Cagers are not properly trained to
drive, let alone deal with bikes, in a bike lane or not.

As a motorist I've never had any special training in how to deal with
bikes, yet I am able to do it just fine.


Here is an example, I am driving, there is a truck in the right lane,
going about 40km/h. In the left lane, stuck right behind and to the
left of the trucks left rear wheel is a driver training car (DTC), going
40km/h. The speed limit in the area is 60km/h, and traffic is backing
up.... Fortunately the truck turned off, and DTC, stays going 40km/h,
and stays in the left lane doing so, forcing everyone to pass on the right!

Sad thing about all this, if the truck had been required to do an
emergency lane change, say to avoid a collision, DTC would have gone
right underneath. If new drivers are not taught to drive properly, with
big trucks, how can they be expected to deal with smaller road users.


It's called common sense and courtesy. There is no magic talisman. Most
motorists do just fine around bicyclists, proving that is the norm.
Those that don't are purposefully are hostile, or may have an acute bout
of misjudgement. The only special training of use would be strong
wording saying that bicycle drivers have equal rights. Sadly, there is
little of this. Moreover, bicyclists don't really want equal rights,
they increasing demand super equality in the form of special segregated
bike lanes. This leads to a caste system where the remainder of the road
then becomes the motor vehicle lanes.

Wayne

Wayne Pein wrote:

Most motorists do just fine around bicyclists, proving that is the norm. Those that don't are purposefully are hostile, or may have an acute bout of misjudgement. The only special training of use would be strong wording saying that bicycle drivers have equal rights. Sadly, there is little of this.

I agree. In particular motorists don't understand that there are
instances when a cyclist is permitted to take the lane (e.g., narrow
lane, hazards in the road, etc.). On the other hand, groups of cyclists
often hog the road riding two or more abreast, oblivious or unconcerned
about what's going on behind them.

Around here, certain roads are designated bike routes and have signs
(with an image of a bike) proclaiming "Share the road." That's fine I
suppose, but some motorists seem to think that they only have to share
the road where those signs are displayed.

Art Harris

Art Harris wrote:
Wayne Pein wrote:

Most motorists do just fine around bicyclists, proving that is the norm. Those that don't are purposefully are hostile, or may have an acute bout of misjudgement. The only special training of use would be strong wording saying that bicycle drivers have equal rights. Sadly, there is little of this.

I agree. In particular motorists don't understand that there are
instances when a cyclist is permitted to take the lane (e.g., narrow
lane, hazards in the road, etc.). On the other hand, groups of cyclists
often hog the road riding two or more abreast, oblivious or unconcerned
about what's going on behind them.

In some cases, I think it's fine to ride two abreast when a motorist is
behind. Specifically, if the lane's too narrow to safely share, a
bicyclist should take the lane to prevent the driver trying to squeeze
through. If one cyclist is taking a narrow lane anyway, I see no
_practical_ detriment to having two cyclists side by side taking that
same lane.

The main detriment, I think, is a public-relations one. There may be
some motorists who would understand one cyclist taking a lane for
safety, but who would think two cyclists doing the same are just
"hogging the road."

(In most states, cyclists are permitted to ride two abreast... even
though this is in apparent conflict with most states' "as far right as
practicable" law!)



Around here, certain roads are designated bike routes and have signs
(with an image of a bike) proclaiming "Share the road." That's fine I
suppose, but some motorists seem to think that they only have to share
the road where those signs are displayed.

Yep. For that reason, things like driver educational public service
announcements may cause less problems than the signs. Unless the signs
say "Share _all_ roads," or something similar.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:



In some cases, I think it's fine to ride two abreast when a motorist is
behind. Specifically, if the lane's too narrow to safely share, a
bicyclist should take the lane to prevent the driver trying to squeeze
through. If one cyclist is taking a narrow lane anyway, I see no
_practical_ detriment to having two cyclists side by side taking that
same lane.


I fully agree. If a motorist cannot safely pass two bicyclists abreast,
then he/she cannot safely pass a single bicyclist. Thus, issue of
abreast cycling is irrelevant.


The main detriment, I think, is a public-relations one. There may be
some motorists who would understand one cyclist taking a lane for
safety, but who would think two cyclists doing the same are just
"hogging the road."

Indeed. "Hogging the road" is code for "You aren't entitled to use a
full lane."


(In most states, cyclists are permitted to ride two abreast... even
though this is in apparent conflict with most states' "as far right as
practicable" law!)

My guess is that most states' "as far right as practicable law" is
poorly worded and misinterpreted.

Here in NC, ours says,

§20-146. Drive on right side of highway; exceptions.
Part (a) directs vehicles to be driven on the right half of the road (in
England it’s on the left). Part (b) is a refinement of Part (a) and is
intended to facilitate orderly overtaking. But the statute is unclearly
written, and often misinterpreted. It says,

“Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the legal maximum
speed limit shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for
thru traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge
of the highway..."

§20-146(a), (c), and (d) have explicit wording regarding marked lanes.
The conjunction “or”in §20-146(b) indicates two possibilities. Since
§20-146(b) first implicitly discusses marked lanes, saying “...shall be
driven in the right-hand lane then available...,” it ought to also say,
“...or when upon an unmarked roadway...” to account for the other
possibility of un-marked roads. There is no indication for a vehicle
driver to drive as far right as practicable within a marked lane.

To further demonstrate the unclear wording of §20-146(b), §20-4.01(13)
defines the highway as including the full right-of-way, whereas the
roadway is “that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily
used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the shoulder. §20-4.01(38).
§20-146(b) ought to say, “... as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway ...” rather than highway.



Yep. For that reason, things like driver educational public service
announcements may cause less problems than the signs. Unless the signs
say "Share _all_ roads," or something similar.

- Frank Krygowski


I believe the "Share the Road" placard causes more trouble than it is
worth. Here's my discussion of that sign:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...Share_Road.pdf


Wayne

Wayne Pein wrote:

If a motorist cannot safely pass two bicyclists abreast, then he/she cannot safely pass a single bicyclist. Thus, issue of abreast cycling is irrelevant.

That's crazy! Most roads I ride on have enough room for a car to pass a
single cyclist safely, but not two cyclists riding side by side.
Besides that, my state's traffic code requires cyclists to ride single
file when being passed.

Indeed. "Hogging the road" is code for "You aren't entitled to use a full lane."

You _aren't_ "entitled" to use the full lane except in specific
instances (e.g., road too narrow for passing). Unfortunately, I see all
too many cyclists hogging the road, especially in organized events.
During one recent event, I saw cyclists riding 5-6 abreast (across the
entire lane) while a motorist waited in vain for them to single up.
There is no excuse for that.

Sorry if I shatter the illusion that all cyclists are angels, but
they're not.

Art Harris

At 7 Jul 2005 11:57:52 -0700, message
.com was posted by
"Art Harris" , including some, all or none of the
following:

You _aren't_ "entitled" to use the full lane except in specific
instances

Makes me glad I live in a country where you are.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On 7 Jul 2005 11:57:52 -0700, "Art Harris" wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:

If a motorist cannot safely pass two bicyclists abreast, then he/she cannot safely pass a single bicyclist. Thus, issue of abreast cycling is irrelevant.

That's crazy! Most roads I ride on have enough room for a car to pass a
single cyclist safely, but not two cyclists riding side by side.
Besides that, my state's traffic code requires cyclists to ride single
file when being passed.

Art you usually post very thoughtfully, but think about what you're saying!

A road that doesn't have enough room for a car to pass two cyclists riding
side-by-side? How the heck do motorists ever pass a small truck or even a
normal car on such roads?

Many drivers just don't have the skills to judge speeds of traffic and pass
safely, though they think possessing that little bit of paper from the DMV
gives them such skills automatically. Many collisions occur when someone
pulls out to pass without sufficient room or visual confirmation - many
cars are run off the road when panicked drivers pull back into the lane
once they realize they're about to be struck by opposing traffic.

Also, no matter what the traffic code requires, it still takes a moment for
a pair of cyclists to single up, and the car MUST wait until it's safe to
pass, no matter how long it takes to find safe conditions. A huge majority
of the problem is, imo, a fault of impatient drivers. I've been guilty of
impatience myself. We must constantly remind ourselves 'when driving,
remain calm, beware that (seemingly) natural driver's aggressiveness!'. ;-)


Indeed. "Hogging the road" is code for "You aren't entitled to use a full lane."

You _aren't_ "entitled" to use the full lane except in specific
instances (e.g., road too narrow for passing). Unfortunately, I see all

For motorists, driving is a privilege. For cyclists, riding the roads is a
right. No driver has the right or duty to punish, threaten or be incautious
around cyclists. Imagine that cyclist is your child and act accordingly.

too many cyclists hogging the road, especially in organized events.
During one recent event, I saw cyclists riding 5-6 abreast (across the
entire lane) while a motorist waited in vain for them to single up.
There is no excuse for that.

Sorry if I shatter the illusion that all cyclists are angels, but
they're not.

Of course they're not angels, but too often drivers try to hurry that
process, lol.

jj


Art Harris

Art Harris wrote:
Wayne Pein wrote:


If a motorist cannot safely pass two bicyclists abreast, then he/she cannot safely pass a single bicyclist. Thus, issue of abreast cycling is irrelevant.


That's crazy! Most roads I ride on have enough room for a car to pass a
single cyclist safely, but not two cyclists riding side by side.


Please describe the road, the bicyclist's position, and the specifics of
the pass. Apparently you don't believe motorists should/could change
lanes to pass.


Besides that, my state's traffic code requires cyclists to ride single
file when being passed.


Yes, many states discriminate against bicycle drivers. I'd fight that if
I were you.




Indeed. "Hogging the road" is code for "You aren't entitled to use a full lane."


You _aren't_ "entitled" to use the full lane except in specific
instances (e.g., road too narrow for passing). Unfortunately, I see all
too many cyclists hogging the road, especially in organized events.
During one recent event, I saw cyclists riding 5-6 abreast (across the
entire lane) while a motorist waited in vain for them to single up.
There is no excuse for that.

Yes, it seems as if your state discriminates against bicyclists to the
fullest. The comfort and safety of the bicycle drivers is more important
than the passing convenience of motorists, yet many states try to reject
that.

The large group sets the safe speed. Singling up so the motorist can
pass within the lane just exposes more bicyclists to hazard. The
motorist should wait to pass when he/she can change lanes.


Sorry if I shatter the illusion that all cyclists are angels, but
they're not.


I never claimed that. But I think that bicyclists using the full lane
are not doing anything they aren't entitled to, discriminatory laws
notwithstanding.

Bicyclists ought to fight the vilification of slow speed, demand equal
rights, and work to get rid of discriminatory laws.

Wayne

jj wrote:

Art you usually post very thoughtfully, but think about what you're saying!

A road that doesn't have enough room for a car to pass two cyclists riding side-by-side? How the heck do motorists ever pass a small truck or even a normal car on such roads?

What am I missing here? At first, I thought Wayne may have typed the
sentence backwards, since it was in reference to a car passing on a
road that is too narrow. The point that "frkry" was making was: If the
road is too narrow for passing, and a cyclist "takes the lane," then
why not have two cyclists riding abreast since you don't want the
motorist to try to squeeze by anyway. I can sort of see that argument.

But then Wayne wrote:

If a motorist cannot safely pass two bicyclists abreast, then he/she cannot safely pass a single bicyclist.

That's just not logical. On many of the roads I ride on (one lane in
each direction), the lane is wide enough for a car to safely pass one
cyclist (or a single file line of cyclists) without having to cross
into the oncoming lane. But the lane is not wide enough for a car to
pass two cyclists riding side by side without crossing into the
oncoming lane.

A road that doesn't have enough room for a car to pass two cyclists riding side-by-side? How the heck do motorists ever pass a small truck or even a normal car on such roads?

They don't. Again, I'm picturing a twisting 2-lane secondary road with
some blind curves and a double yellow centerline. If a motorist gets
stuck behind a truck, he has to be patient. This happens to me often
when driving.

Also, no matter what the traffic code requires, it still takes a moment for a pair of cyclists to single up, and the car MUST wait until it's safe to pass, no matter how long it takes to find safe conditions.

I agree. That's not what I'm referring to when I talk about blatant
road hogging. But if you're riding on a busy road where cars are
passing every few seconds, I think you're better off riding single file
than constantly singling up.

A huge majority of the problem is, imo, a fault of impatient drivers.

No question. Also, inattention (talking on cell phones,
eating/drinking, fiddling with the radio...). Motorists aren't angels
either. But it seems whenever someone dares to mention _any_ wrongdoing
by cyclists in this group, they get jumped on. I see plenty of rude and
dangerous behavior by cyclists, particularly on large group rides.

Art Harris

Peter Cole wrote:
The Wogster wrote:

What is also funny, is back before 1970, you need milk, you put a sign
on your window that read "milk", and the milkman would come by, take
the now empty bottles and leave full ones, along with a bill, they
also delivered eggs, and someone else delivered baked goods. Now you
get in the car, drive 20 miles, walk another 3 from the only parking
spot at the mall, buy your bottle of milk, along with $47.50 worth of
stuff you really didn't need. This is progress?????


Is that what you do? We order our groceries on the net and a truck
delivers them -- now that's progress!


There is a company that does that, problem is that you need to pay by
credit card, there is a minimum order size, and a hefty delivery fee.
It's also connected to one of the more expensive grocery chains, so
prices are not cheap..... That's why I have not seen one of their
trucks in ages......


Of course once a week, you might go to the farmers market, and buy
whatever was available....


You don't have farmer's markets any more? We have several, on different
days of the week, one a short walk away, the others an easy bike ride.

We have markets, we actually go to a very big one, on occassion, you
need to drive there, with an extra arm and leg for the parking people,
good for downtowners though...... There are some smaller ones, one
being a short ride away.

W