Bikers: Please Obey Traffic Laws

[EngagedToFIRE]

I'm curious as to why it would be more dangerous to ride on the sidewalk the wrong way.  Surely it's more dangerous in the street, but on the sidewalk I would think it would be safer.  You can see the vehicles right in front of you, which would eliminate entering an intersection and missing a car turning right and smacking in to you.  Is there any explanation for why it's more dangerous to ride against the flow of traffic on a sidewalk?   I often ride on the sidewalk against traffic on purpose.  Because I don't have to turn my head around to look behind me for cars that may be turning when I enter the intersection.  This keeps me from having to turn my head around and lose focus on what's in front of me, and keeps potential dangerous car maneuvers in front of me, and not behind me - so it's much easier to see it coming and react.

Motorists look for vehicles on the right hand side of the road when turning via shoulder check.  If you're on the sidewalk on the right hand side of the road, you're more likely to be seen by a motorist.  Typically motorists do not scan the left hand side of the road because there shouldn't be any vehicles there, and pedestrians are too slow to cause a problem.

There's also the issue of closing speed when making a right hand turn:

Let's say you're cycling along at a moderate 25 kph and a guy is driving at 60 kph.  Both going the same side of the road means that there's only 35 kph (21 mph) difference between the two of you . . . which means that the driver closes the distance more slowly, and has more time to both see you and react.  You as a cyclist have more time to hear the motorist, and more safe time after a shoulder check.

Now take the same speeds but going opposite directions.  Now there's an 85 kph (52 mph) speed differential.  You have less time to react when the car swerves to make an unsignalled fast right hand turn.  The motorist has less time to see you (and as we've already established . . . they're not looking up the sidewalk for you).

The evidence pretty clearly shows that the benefit of a greater ability to see vehicles making right hand turns ahead is not enough to negate  the significant increased danger incurred by riding on the sidewalk the wrong way.

Saw a guy on a bike cruise through a red light at 34th and Spruce last night in Philadelphia. That's pretty unremarkable, happens all the time. What made this different was he had a child strapped on the back of the bike. That's nut and that guy needs to be slapped with a ticket.

And less you think I'm some anti-bike maniac. I ride my bike more miles than I drive.

I ride my bike regularly, and am also disturbed when I see a cyclist flagrantly breaking the law in a dangerous way . . . in fact, I don't think anyone in this thread has argued otherwise.

Appreciate the explanation.  I don't care if vehicles see me, it's not relevant.  As another poster wrote, I ride like I'm invisible. So it seems in MY personal scenario, I'm probably better off doing exactly what I'm doing.  I cross like a pedestrian.  So unless it's unsafe for a pedestrian to cross, then I'm not worried.  It seems all of the sidewalk dangers result from reckless bicycles crossing intersections at high rates of speed.  That's fucking dumb.  I'm not surprised it's dangerous as hell.  But I'm quite paranoid when riding and crossing, I'm convinced every car is out to kill me, and I cross intersections with that in mind.

[EngagedToFIRE]

Yes, I do not understand the hostility. It seems people's civility disappears once they are encased in 2 tons of steel. Not just to cyclists but to other drivers as well.

The main thing that engaged to fire misses, is that with a few exceptions (apparently where engaged to fire lives, and of course on controlled highways) bikers have the right to the road. They are considered a vehicle just like any other vehicle. There are many many places (including my state) where there is either no place to ride (no bike lanes, or dedicated bike paths, poor shoulder condition) or no consistent place to ride (bike paths appear and then disappear so you are dumped in and out of traffic), making taking the "road" the only safe option over the course of the ride.

It is everyone's responsibility to yield to prevent traffic accidents. Cars can do so much more damage than bikes for failing to yield. It's a human being, someone's father, son, mother, daughter. If you are late going somewhere because of a bike, you would have been just as late if you happen to get behind a stopping school bus, tractor, person going slow pulling a trailer, etc. And you anger is much more deadlier. No one on this thread is saying it's OK for cyclists break the rules. But a cyclist riding in the road, "taking" the road is not against the law it is legal and in fact often the only safe option. Only pass when safe for all vehicles on the road.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/braving-the-deep-deadly-south-on-a-bicycle/284293/

I'm not missing anything!  If my only option was to ride in the road with cars doing 45+ mph, then I'm not riding, period.  It's not surprising at all that cyclists enrage drivers.  Cyclists tend to be assholes.  They have a chip on their shoulder and act like it at all times.  So why would it be surprising at all with the constant state of hate between the two?  And again, just because cyclists have a right to the road doesn't mean they are disrupting others.  Slow drives piss people off, too.  Road rage is a big deal.  Now put a cyclist going even slower and you don't think people are going to rage and be annoyed?  Cyclists often break the laws, run lights, in and out of traffic, get nasty with car drivers, etc.  Honestly, nothing is going to change.  The solution is to simply get cyclists off the road in most instances (with proper infrastructure for cycles), and get cars out of the roads where possible (like Oslo centrum).  Bicycles and cars will never coexist in an area where the speed of the two vehicles is so far apart.  It's silly to think otherwise.  I can't stand the road cyclists either.  I'm more able to control my rage being that I cycle a lot, but they drive me fucking mad like most other people when they UNNECESSARILY block traffic.

Heck, are you familiar with Critical Mass?  Cyclists literally ILLEGALLY take over the streets, they "cork" the green lights, block traffic, piss off everyone, and go full blown lawless.  And they do it to bring attention to cycling or something. Remind drivers to share the road, as the cyclists take over the road (not sharing) and piss off the drivers.  Seriously, have you ever seen anything so fucking stupid?

[Davnasty]

have you ever seen anything so fucking stupid?

^
This post.

[EngagedToFIRE]

Second, I don't believe the claim that bikers don't break the law more. Or rather, I don't believe that bikers don't break _serious_ laws/safety rules more often. I have never seen a motorist intentionally driving down the street the wrong way; I see bikers do it pretty regularly (even more so if they are on a sidewalk). Do you think I just haven't noticed someone driving down the road the wrong way because there's lots of drivers and not a lot of bikers?

Third, where have I said anything negative about people just going about their biking in a legal manner?

Finally, the claim that such an individual as I talk about in the OP is only endangering themselves is completely false. Riding the wrong way down the street is extraordinarily dangerous to everyone sharing the road: pedestrians, bikers, and yes even motorists.

Speed is the biggest factor involved in fatalities involving automobiles, and is a contributing factor in more than 1/4 of all fatalities involving a car.  It is so common for motorists to break speed laws, that I'm surprised when I come across someone who is driving at the posted limit.  Given that you've already indicated that breaking the speed limit is legal in your state as long as other motorists are doing it, I suspect that you regularly (dangerously) break this law when driving your own automobile.

Don't get me wrong.  Cycling down the wrong way of a street is idiotic and dumb.  It is dangerous to the cyclist, and you could certainly make the argument that it's dangerous to a motorist unable to keep control of his/her car in an effort to avoid the cyclist (something that is more likely due to speeding  :P  ).

Speed limits are oftentimes totally arbitrary and can actually be unsafe.  There is a lot of study in to this and it turns out drivers tend to simply drive a safe speed based on conditions, almost ignoring the actual posted limits.  It's not actually the speed that is the contributing factor, it's the DIFFERENCE in speed.  85% of drivers tend to drive about the same speed, and often over the limit.  This is uneventful.  It's the 15% driving too fast or too slow that is highly dangerous.  Care to guess where cyclists fit in with this?

This reminds me of a video from a few years ago from a fellow Canadian that does a great job addressing it:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKdbxX1pDw

[robartsd]

Critical Mass is a form of protest. Protest always has to try to balance between not being annoying enough to get attention and being so annoying that you fail to gain sympathy. I imagine that the freeway incident mentioned earlier was a Gritical Mass ride.

Speed limits are oftentimes totallyseamingly arbitrary and can actually be unsafe.  There is a lot of study in to this and it turns out drivers tend to simply drive a safe speed that feels safe based on conditions, almost ignoring the actual posted limits.

If there's not a safe place for slower moving vehicles than it's not really safe. Some areas have had great success designing so that the road doesn't feel as safe causing drivers to slow down. You are right that simply posting lower limits does little (without constant enforcement of those limits) to slow down traffic or improve safety.

[EngagedToFIRE]

By the way, not only is there is bicycle lane on the side (which is still really fucking stupid to use) but there is also a perfectly good, safe sidewalk about 30 feet off the road.  I use the sidewalk....

...

Here is where this one happened, if you are curious:  https://www.google.com/maps/@26.1180785,-80.3365083,3a,75y,97.28h,85.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stwvLBeNnlvFIp8tNzE_hgA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I don't see a bike lane; I do see a wide shoulder that might be reasonably used as a bike lane.

Generally cyclists going faster than a slow jog should not use the sidewalk - nobody expects traffic going that fast on the sidewalk. All operators should be prepared for and react safely to vehicles traveling slower than expected, but vehicles traveling faster than expected are generally considered at fault.

Here is another example of a popular spot where these bicyclists ride in the middle of the road:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0636926,-80.335041,3a,60y,89.81h,87.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx5-1ulh6mEjHsi8y0H9shw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Notice the huge sidewalk on the left.  Notice the great bike path on the right.... Nope, they ride in the middle of the street, cars do about 50 - 55mph on this stretch and have to swerve in to oncoming traffic to pass the bicyclists.

Also notice how at every intersection, the sidewalk and trail are treated as second class infrastructure. There is absolutely no crosswalk or other infrastructure to cross between the sidewalk and the trail. Not sure if the trail has a speed limit on it (many are 15 mph, many cyclists travel faster). Give bikes the same right of way at the intersections that they can claim in the road and they will use the separate infrastructure. I'd say if you really want to accommodate bikes on this particular road, pave it 12 feet wider (3 feet for a bike lane and 3 feet for a buffer between the bike lane and the auto lane on each side).

Trail ends abruptly here (I didn't look much further in this direction):
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0635471,-80.3462486,3a,75y,240h,80.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2A_yHD0sqoL9YTOoHUMPrQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Not even a painted crosswalk acknowledging the trail here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0635245,-80.3423328,3a,75y,102.96h,79.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sne9k7f51udJZtrXh-6vy2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

See how well the sidewalk doesn't actually run parallel here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0636611,-80.3381667,3a,75y,28.37h,89.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfy-lN0xnZUE518pG4sBqRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
And yet there's no crossing to the trail:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0636565,-80.3384344,3a,75y,93.85h,89.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-2YISojzE-gbn_bKYjOM-w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This intersection treats the sidewalk a bit better, but still no access to the trail:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0637711,-80.3294332,3a,75y,53.69h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR8kxGD61rfJlgbVbiwL9Ww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

How many cars treat this crosswalk (which was unpainted in 2015, so at least there's some improvement) as an intersection where the cross traffic might be going 20 mph and give them a right of way?
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0639859,-80.3197165,3a,75y,52.03h,95.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZKk41KmZmUOBWLBgx2RbXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Again, no access to the trail:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0639859,-80.3197165,3a,75y,169.76h,81.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZKk41KmZmUOBWLBgx2RbXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Another intersection where the sidewalk turns out into the main street:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0640839,-80.3179164,3a,75y,304.18h,84.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sycbSLrTkBwsNolN5ad424A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
And no trail access:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0640839,-80.3179164,3a,75y,204.01h,85.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sycbSLrTkBwsNolN5ad424A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This trail crossing is almost tolerable, but notice the motorist infringing on the crosswalk while waiting for cross traffic:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0640522,-80.3174329,3a,75y,128.45h,92.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS7W82-xbF4E9xgKwhrmhZg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
And again no access across the road:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0640522,-80.3174329,3a,75y,29.48h,92.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS7W82-xbF4E9xgKwhrmhZg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It's fun talking about this stuff, as this is exactly where I ride several times per week! 

Typically you would already be on the trail and it hasn't really occurred to me the lack of access.  Everyone kind of just rides over the grass, but that's pretty infrequent as there just aren't that many people on this part of the trail (as you noticed, it dead ends).. it's the end of the trail.  Most would be on further East.

There is access at the major roads:  https://www.google.com/maps/@26.064246,-80.3136728,3a,75y,284.92h,71.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj8IxzCLV1HFZpjIMCY80uQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And most of that trail there is no sidewalk on the opposite side.  So you wouldn't be crossing over.  Where you are looking at is a lot of brand new development that built wide multi use paths, they clearly haven't done a good job connecting them to the existing and older trail. But again, why would you cross over at this point when there is a nice path you are already on?  If you are on that side of the road, you would almost certainly stay on that side, as it's a multi-use path and no need to cross over to the trail.  You would cross over at the major intersection (Flamingo Road).  That trail has it's own separate street light and cross walk at that intersection, actually!

Where the trail ends, you would have already crossed over as the trail/sidewalk continues on the other side of the road.  They SHOULD have a proper crossing at Boyscout and Orange, though, fully agree with you there!  And they should have better painted cross walks, too.

But none of your comments justify the need to ride in the street here.  If you ride in the street, you aren't worried about a cross walk anyways.  That's a pretty awesome trail as it has very few intersections and goes for miles and miles.  On the weekends, it's common to see horses (they don't walk on the paved trail) and lots of people out fishing.

[EngagedToFIRE]

Critical Mass is a form of protest. Protest always has to try to balance between not being annoying enough to get attention and being so annoying that you fail to gain sympathy. I imagine that the freeway incident mentioned earlier was a Gritical Mass ride.

Speed limits are oftentimes totallyseamingly arbitrary and can actually be unsafe.  There is a lot of study in to this and it turns out drivers tend to simply drive a safe speed that feels safe based on conditions, almost ignoring the actual posted limits.

If there's not a safe place for slower moving vehicles than it's not really safe. Some areas have had great success designing so that the road doesn't feel as safe causing drivers to slow down. You are right that simply posting lower limits does little (without constant enforcement of those limits) to slow down traffic or improve safety.

From the organizers page:  "Miami Critical Mass is not an "us vs. them" ride, it is not anti-car, and it is not necessarily a protest ride."

Maybe it started as a protest?  I doubt it.  I think sometimes "protest" is just used to flaunt the law because it's fun to do.  Google "Bikes up, guns down" for an example of this. 

[EngagedToFIRE]

Even the city addresses it:  https://www.westonfl.org/residents/bicycle-traffic-safety/biking-in-weston

Bicyclists are allowed to take command of the lane if the lane is blocked or too narrow to safely share with a vehicle

This clearly applies to your previous example where I pointed out the inadequacy of the sidewalk and bike lane alternatives. On that road, cyclists are allowed to take command (ride in the middle of) the lane because it is too narrow to safely share. Doesn't matter how many motorists they slow down. Motorists want more ability to pass, lobby for infrastructure improvement.

Here is an example:  https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0734475,-80.3873384,3a,75y,123.06h,84.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seVYmzni2ITDTNeHeEteb2A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Groups of 30 bicycles will ride 4 - 6 abreast in the lane.  It's in a no passing zone.  And yet a perfectly nice bike lane is there, and laws that state they must be in the bike lane.  Should drivers not have the right to be upset at bicyclists who think they own the road, when they are breaking the law and causing traffic to backup?

That is a bike lane and cyclists should use it rather than obstructing traffic.

Lobby for infrastructure improvement?  The entire post (previous one) was concerning a beautiful BIKE path that runs the length of that road.  The infrastructure is there!  And as I mentioned in my previous comment, you are suggesting lack of crossing infrastructure to GET to the path, and using that as a justification to ride in the street?  If you are riding in the street, then crosswalks are irrelevant to gain access to the path...  Just cross over to the path.  How can you suggest there is a lack of bike lane alternatives where there is a beautiful bike path 20 feet off the road that keeps cyclists safely away from cars?

[MilesTeg]

Speed is the biggest factor involved in fatalities involving automobiles, and is a contributing factor in more than 1/4 of all fatalities involving a car.  It is so common for motorists to break speed laws, that I'm surprised when I come across someone who is driving at the posted limit.  Given that you've already indicated that breaking the speed limit is legal in your state as long as other motorists are doing it, I suspect that you regularly (dangerously) break this law when driving your own automobile.

That speeding is the most common contributing factor to fatalities does not mean:

(a) that all speeding creates the same amount of danger
(b) that speeding that leads to a fatality was also the _cause_ of a crash.

Don't get me wrong.  Cycling down the wrong way of a street is idiotic and dumb.  It is dangerous to the cyclist, and you could certainly make the argument that it's dangerous to a motorist unable to keep control of his/her car in an effort to avoid the cyclist (something that is more likely due to speeding  :P  ).

I know you think you are being cute here, but in reality there are a lot of ways that safe, legal driving can lead to very bad outcomes for a driver or other bystanders in this scenario of a biker going the wrong way. For example, having to stop to not hit a biker coming from an unexpected/illegal direction while making a left, leaving your vehicle at a dead stop (and likely the driver in a state of shock) in a lane with oncoming traffic. Or swerving instead and hitting pedestrians waiting at the corner to cross, etc. These are not crazy corner cases, that's probably the two most likely ways an aberrant person would deal with such an encounter, and neither require the driver doing anything illegal or dangerous.

[TomTX]

Second, I don't believe the claim that bikers don't break the law more.

Really? I bet more than half the vehicles here spend more than half of their time driving breaking the law while speeding.

[robartsd]

From the organizers page:  "Miami Critical Mass is not an "us vs. them" ride, it is not anti-car, and it is not necessarily a protest ride."

Maybe it started as a protest?  I doubt it.  I think sometimes "protest" is just used to flaunt the law because it's fun to do.  Google "Bikes up, guns down" for an example of this.

Protest doesn't have to be "us vs. them". It sounds like the drivers are actually taking it that way (even if the organizers say they don't mean it that way).

Lobby for infrastructure improvement?  The entire post (previous one) was concerning a beautiful BIKE path that runs the length of that road.  The infrastructure is there!  And as I mentioned in my previous comment, you are suggesting lack of crossing infrastructure to GET to the path, and using that as a justification to ride in the street?  If you are riding in the street, then crosswalks are irrelevant to gain access to the path...  Just cross over to the path.  How can you suggest there is a lack of bike lane alternatives where there is a beautiful bike path 20 feet off the road that keeps cyclists safely away from cars?

I followed Orange Dr. from the end of the trail to Flamingo Rd. A cyclist on Orange Dr. can ride uninterrupted for 3.1 miles between SW 36th and Flamingo Rd. if they take the lane. The sidewalk has six (mostly poorly designed) intersections with roads in that same distance (as well as intersections with other paths, and places where the path goes around lamp posts). Most beginner cyclists would choose the sidewalk, but cyclists who average over 15 mph on unassisted bikes will generally find the road to be better infrastructure for them. I wonder how much you've ridden an unassisted bike. On an assisted bike, stopping is not a big deal; however, unassisted cyclists value being able to maintain momentum quite a bit. Sure they shouldn't do stupid stuff (ride on the wrong side of the road, ignore traffic controls) to do so, but they shouldn't be expected to use second class infrastructure (more stops) simply because they aren't using a 60+ mph gas powered wheelchair. A proper bike lane (preferably buffered) giving cyclists a similar uninterrupted path as the traffic lane would eliminate transportation cyclists from regularly taking the lane (not sure about your mass ride culture, that's really a different issue). The linear park is a destination, not transpiration infrastructure.

BTW, I am impressed with how little debris I see on the shoulders of the roads in your area (based on street view, the group cycling video, etc.)

[MilesTeg]

Second, I don't believe the claim that bikers don't break the law more.

Really? I bet more than half the vehicles here spend more than half of their time driving breaking the law while speeding.

Read my entire comment on that.

[GuitarStv]

I took this picture today, I thought it was interesting.  It goes back to my comments on one of the first pages where I said there was a perfectly good sidewalk yet a group of cyclists decided to ride in the street and got killed.  Someone responded back with some nasty comments about how useless the sidewalks and everything are around here, whatever.  But this was literally the spot I was discussing.

You can see a couple people cycling WAY off the road, safe from cars.  And in the foreground?  The memorial to the cyclists who died when a distracted driver plowed through their group ride last year right smack in the middle of the street.

I just really don't understand why people ride in the street when there is a perfectly nice, safe place off the street to ride.  Why would anyone want to count on brain dead texting clowns in SUV's to not run them over?

We see ghost bikes around here too.   It's hard to be sure in your picture, but that bike lane by the wall is *paved* correct?   So it's not like you'd have to ride on an un-paved surface?

GuitarStv?    Why ride on the road when there's a good bike path?    Is it because the group wants to stay together?   Or speed restrictions on the path?

No idea.  I use bike lanes around here whenever they're available (rarely) when riding solo - and solo riding is most of my cycling.  Generally the on-road bike lanes are OK and designed safely where I ride, but in 100 km I might only see 2 km of bike lane.  I do leave the bike lane and enter the road for a few seconds to pass slower moving cyclists, as there's no way to safely pass otherwise. Doing this would apparently get me ticketed where EngagedToFIRE lives - as outlined in one of the news articles he posted.

Bike paths are more problematic for me.  I ride pretty fast (average 32 kph for 3+ hour rides).  Most of the bike paths I've seen are filled with joggers, dog walkers, slow moving cyclists, and usually don't have great visibility due to trees and corners.  I tend to avoid them, because I can't ride at speed safely.

Group rides are a bit different than solo rides/commuting though.  Typically I'll average 38 kph on a fast group ride . . . this is done by forming a double paceline and regularly rotating through the riders at the front (which is not typically possible in a bike lane due to narrowness).

It almost seems like where EngagedToFIRE lives, bike lanes are being built specifically in order to take away the rights of cyclists to ride in groups on the road.  Kinda like building a highway and then saying that since the highway exists, automobiles can only drive there - making it illegal to drive on any road parallel to the highway or face being ticketed.  I wonder how drivers would react to that kind of ridiculous rule when applied to their chosen mode of transport?

The law states that you can leave the bike lane to pass slower cyclists.

Since I ride an ebike, I actually often ride even faster than you, 45kph. And I'm on paths and sidewalks.  Of course, that's on areas with great visibility and we have tons of really long stretches of wide paths and sidewalks with no intersections.  On the sidewalks with bushes and trees and limited visibility, I typically turn the pedal assist completely off and have to ride quite slow... 8 - 10 mph maybe, at most.  I think this is where road cyclists get too frustrated and prefer to just go faster in the street.  I am patient :)

I think a big difference between where I live and you live, is that our paths rarely have anyone on them.  In Weston, where it's far more dense, I may come across a few people on a ride, but when I hit up the trails in Davie, like the other day, I did 22 miles and didn't have to pass one single person.  Not one.  On a weekend, it's a little more congested for sure but hardly a nuisance.

I was going from the police harassment detailed in the article you posted earlier:

An older story but nothing has changed:  https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2012-05-14-fl-bike-wars-weston-20120513-story.html

"They are just looking to give us a hard time," said Molli Serrano, a Plantation triathlete who rides about 50 miles a day with the Weston Flyers cycling club.

Serrano, 38, was riding through Weston on a Tuesday morning in March when her group came up on two slower riders. To pass, they veered outside the bike lane. Soon after, Serrano said a deputy cut off the entire group of 30 cyclists, pointed to her and told everyone else to take off while he wrote her a ticket.

When Serrano asked why he chose her, she said the deputy told her it was because she stood out in her purple outfit. Serrano was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer last June and wears purple to bring awareness to the disease.

"The deputy told me they are under a lot of pressure to start ticketing us because the residents are complaining," Serrano said. "What's going on is Weston residents are sick of us riding there."

[EngagedToFIRE]

From the organizers page:  "Miami Critical Mass is not an "us vs. them" ride, it is not anti-car, and it is not necessarily a protest ride."

Maybe it started as a protest?  I doubt it.  I think sometimes "protest" is just used to flaunt the law because it's fun to do.  Google "Bikes up, guns down" for an example of this.

Protest doesn't have to be "us vs. them". It sounds like the drivers are actually taking it that way (even if the organizers say they don't mean it that way).

Lobby for infrastructure improvement?  The entire post (previous one) was concerning a beautiful BIKE path that runs the length of that road.  The infrastructure is there!  And as I mentioned in my previous comment, you are suggesting lack of crossing infrastructure to GET to the path, and using that as a justification to ride in the street?  If you are riding in the street, then crosswalks are irrelevant to gain access to the path...  Just cross over to the path.  How can you suggest there is a lack of bike lane alternatives where there is a beautiful bike path 20 feet off the road that keeps cyclists safely away from cars?

I followed Orange Dr. from the end of the trail to Flamingo Rd. A cyclist on Orange Dr. can ride uninterrupted for 3.1 miles between SW 36th and Flamingo Rd. if they take the lane. The sidewalk has six (mostly poorly designed) intersections with roads in that same distance (as well as intersections with other paths, and places where the path goes around lamp posts). Most beginner cyclists would choose the sidewalk, but cyclists who average over 15 mph on unassisted bikes will generally find the road to be better infrastructure for them. I wonder how much you've ridden an unassisted bike. On an assisted bike, stopping is not a big deal; however, unassisted cyclists value being able to maintain momentum quite a bit. Sure they shouldn't do stupid stuff (ride on the wrong side of the road, ignore traffic controls) to do so, but they shouldn't be expected to use second class infrastructure (more stops) simply because they aren't using a 60+ mph gas powered wheelchair. A proper bike lane (preferably buffered) giving cyclists a similar uninterrupted path as the traffic lane would eliminate transportation cyclists from regularly taking the lane (not sure about your mass ride culture, that's really a different issue). The linear park is a destination, not transpiration infrastructure.

BTW, I am impressed with how little debris I see on the shoulders of the roads in your area (based on street view, the group cycling video, etc.)

I see LOTS of cyclists doing 20+ mph on the trail.  I personally only ride unassisted on the mountain bike trails and the levy trail.  Thank you for noticing our clean streets.  It's very rare to see trash on the streets or sides of roads here.  They do an outstanding job all over this county of keeping everything clean and maintained.

I do understand why road cyclists prefer the road, I've said that quite a bit on this thread.  What I have also said, however, is that I don't think the desire to ride 25mph on the road is probably all that smart when you can ride on our paths, maybe a tad slower, but be safe.  Please also note that there is VERY few people road cycling to work around here.  Almost none.  I'm sure there are some, but none that I've seen or been aware of.  The people cycling to work are exclusively riding slow on the sidewalks and paths.  I see them every day.  There aren't many road cyclists out during rush hour, which suggests they just aren't riding to work.  It's for exercise.  And exercising in the road, when we have so many other options, isn't a great idea.

I'll just have to disagree about the trail not being adequate.  I ride it all the time and plenty of 20mph+ cyclists use it.  There is very few intersections for LONG stretches and lots of other trails you wouldn't be able to find (I could show you if you cared...) that create miles and miles of safe places to cycle.

We do agree that there is a difference between commuters and pleasure.  And if you live in an area with lots of bicycle commuters, it may be hard to imagine an area like this with virtually none.

[EngagedToFIRE]

I took this picture today, I thought it was interesting.  It goes back to my comments on one of the first pages where I said there was a perfectly good sidewalk yet a group of cyclists decided to ride in the street and got killed.  Someone responded back with some nasty comments about how useless the sidewalks and everything are around here, whatever.  But this was literally the spot I was discussing.

You can see a couple people cycling WAY off the road, safe from cars.  And in the foreground?  The memorial to the cyclists who died when a distracted driver plowed through their group ride last year right smack in the middle of the street.

I just really don't understand why people ride in the street when there is a perfectly nice, safe place off the street to ride.  Why would anyone want to count on brain dead texting clowns in SUV's to not run them over?

We see ghost bikes around here too.   It's hard to be sure in your picture, but that bike lane by the wall is *paved* correct?   So it's not like you'd have to ride on an un-paved surface?

GuitarStv?    Why ride on the road when there's a good bike path?    Is it because the group wants to stay together?   Or speed restrictions on the path?

No idea.  I use bike lanes around here whenever they're available (rarely) when riding solo - and solo riding is most of my cycling.  Generally the on-road bike lanes are OK and designed safely where I ride, but in 100 km I might only see 2 km of bike lane.  I do leave the bike lane and enter the road for a few seconds to pass slower moving cyclists, as there's no way to safely pass otherwise. Doing this would apparently get me ticketed where EngagedToFIRE lives - as outlined in one of the news articles he posted.

Bike paths are more problematic for me.  I ride pretty fast (average 32 kph for 3+ hour rides).  Most of the bike paths I've seen are filled with joggers, dog walkers, slow moving cyclists, and usually don't have great visibility due to trees and corners.  I tend to avoid them, because I can't ride at speed safely.

Group rides are a bit different than solo rides/commuting though.  Typically I'll average 38 kph on a fast group ride . . . this is done by forming a double paceline and regularly rotating through the riders at the front (which is not typically possible in a bike lane due to narrowness).

It almost seems like where EngagedToFIRE lives, bike lanes are being built specifically in order to take away the rights of cyclists to ride in groups on the road.  Kinda like building a highway and then saying that since the highway exists, automobiles can only drive there - making it illegal to drive on any road parallel to the highway or face being ticketed.  I wonder how drivers would react to that kind of ridiculous rule when applied to their chosen mode of transport?

The law states that you can leave the bike lane to pass slower cyclists.

Since I ride an ebike, I actually often ride even faster than you, 45kph. And I'm on paths and sidewalks.  Of course, that's on areas with great visibility and we have tons of really long stretches of wide paths and sidewalks with no intersections.  On the sidewalks with bushes and trees and limited visibility, I typically turn the pedal assist completely off and have to ride quite slow... 8 - 10 mph maybe, at most.  I think this is where road cyclists get too frustrated and prefer to just go faster in the street.  I am patient :)

I think a big difference between where I live and you live, is that our paths rarely have anyone on them.  In Weston, where it's far more dense, I may come across a few people on a ride, but when I hit up the trails in Davie, like the other day, I did 22 miles and didn't have to pass one single person.  Not one.  On a weekend, it's a little more congested for sure but hardly a nuisance.

I was going from the police harassment detailed in the article you posted earlier:

An older story but nothing has changed:  https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2012-05-14-fl-bike-wars-weston-20120513-story.html

"They are just looking to give us a hard time," said Molli Serrano, a Plantation triathlete who rides about 50 miles a day with the Weston Flyers cycling club.

Serrano, 38, was riding through Weston on a Tuesday morning in March when her group came up on two slower riders. To pass, they veered outside the bike lane. Soon after, Serrano said a deputy cut off the entire group of 30 cyclists, pointed to her and told everyone else to take off while he wrote her a ticket.

When Serrano asked why he chose her, she said the deputy told her it was because she stood out in her purple outfit. Serrano was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer last June and wears purple to bring awareness to the disease.

"The deputy told me they are under a lot of pressure to start ticketing us because the residents are complaining," Serrano said. "What's going on is Weston residents are sick of us riding there."

That's HER side of the story, lol.  Did you catch the video of the Weston Flyers I also posted?  They don't ride in the bike lanes in general.  You know she is full of shit.  And she is right, the residents are complaining and the residents are absolutely sick of them riding here, and it's not because they are riding in the bike lanes... It's because they take over the streets in large packs and disrupt the residents.  We are a VERY pro-bicycling community, but we don't like groups of lawless people coming in and acting like the law doesn't apply to them simply because they are in a bicycle friendly city.

Also, you can see in the numerous pictures I posted of 2 abreast riders taking the right edge of the lane of vehicle lane AND the bike lane.  That's illegal.  And when people do things like this, yes, the residents get annoyed and upset.  The law applies to everyone, including the cyclists.

Here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d_tndXl7ec

Go to about 4 minutes in.  As you can see, they still do it all the time and the police have pretty much given up I think.  In fact, go to 3:55 and you can see their massive group blow right through the stop sign and DIRECTLY into an approaching truck, that had to slow hard.  They cut him off, telling him to stop and slow down, flaunting the laws, then took the lane right in front of him.  The entire ride is basically "the law doesn't apply to us" and that's, unfortunately, how cyclists act.  Comparing these violations with a car speeding a little over the limit is kind of disingenuous.  And to reiterate, the residents here don't even mind the groups for the most part, when they are riding respectfully and leaving open lanes.  It's their flagrant "we own the road, fuck you" attitude and stopping traffic that pisses people off.  A few people riding in the bicycle lane or even taking the lane when there is no bike lane, it doesn't really create these issues.  It's the large groups that think the law doesn't apply to them.  Even some of the smaller groups (5+) do the same.

[GuitarStv]

Speed is the biggest factor involved in fatalities involving automobiles, and is a contributing factor in more than 1/4 of all fatalities involving a car.  It is so common for motorists to break speed laws, that I'm surprised when I come across someone who is driving at the posted limit.  Given that you've already indicated that breaking the speed limit is legal in your state as long as other motorists are doing it, I suspect that you regularly (dangerously) break this law when driving your own automobile.

That speeding is the most common contributing factor to fatalities does not mean:

(a) that all speeding creates the same amount of danger

Sure.  By the same token, I'm sure that you agree that riding up an empty street the wrong way has no danger at all if there's no other traffic on the street.  I mean, I don't believe it's a defend-able action, safe, or a good idea . . .

(b) that speeding that leads to a fatality was also the _cause_ of a crash.

Of course that can't be proven.  Prove to me that riding the wrong way on a street causes a crash.  It doesn't.  A driver hitting a cyclist (or vice versa) causes a bike/automobile crash.  I mean, riding the wrong way increases the odds that you'll get in an accident . . . as does speeding.

Maybe some facts will change your unfounded bias?  "Based on work by Nilsson in Sweden, a change in average speed of 1 km/h will result in a change in accident numbers ranging between 2% for a 120 km/h road and 4% for a 50 km/h road. This result has been confirmed by many before and after studies of different speed reduction measures. This relationship is used by other Scandinavian countries and by Australian and Dutch safety engineers." - https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed/speed_is_a_central_issue_in_road_safety/speed_and_accident_risk_en)

Don't get me wrong.  Cycling down the wrong way of a street is idiotic and dumb.  It is dangerous to the cyclist, and you could certainly make the argument that it's dangerous to a motorist unable to keep control of his/her car in an effort to avoid the cyclist (something that is more likely due to speeding  :P  ).

I know you think you are being cute here, but in reality there are a lot of ways that safe, legal driving can lead to very bad outcomes for a driver or other bystanders in this scenario of a biker going the wrong way. For example, having to stop to not hit a biker coming from an unexpected/illegal direction while making a left, leaving your vehicle at a dead stop (and likely the driver in a state of shock) in a lane with oncoming traffic. Or swerving instead and hitting pedestrians waiting at the corner to cross, etc. These are not crazy corner cases, that's probably the two most likely ways an aberrant person would deal with such an encounter, and neither require the driver doing anything illegal or dangerous.

Braking is an appropriate action to a danger, not swerving into the busy oncoming traffic lane.  If there's not enough time to brake, then the driver was driving beyond his ability to control his vehicle . . . which is the definition of unsafe driving.

If a vehicle in front of you makes a stop, it is your duty and responsibility to stop and not hit that car.  Unless the driver is drunk, texting, or speeding . . . I see no reason that an accident should happen because a vehicle ahead made an emergency stop.  Do you?

[GuitarStv]

That's HER side of the story, lol.  Did you catch the video of the Weston Flyers I also posted?  They don't ride in the bike lanes in general.  You know she is full of shit.  And she is right, the residents are complaining and the residents are absolutely sick of them riding here, and it's not because they are riding in the bike lanes... It's because they take over the streets in large packs and disrupt the residents.  We are a VERY pro-bicycling community, but we don't like groups of lawless people coming in and acting like the law doesn't apply to them simply because they are in a bicycle friendly city.

Given your comments in this thread, you are unequivocably not a member of a pro-cycling community.  You have been extremely anti-cycling and specifically abusive to road cyclists on multiple occasions now:

"Several times every year one or a few get whacked and killed by a car and we are supposed to care."

"The simple act of doing your best Lance Armstrong cosplay and exercising on a highway is pretty fucking stupid."

"The law can say whatever it wants, but in practice, the cars DO basically own the road.  Cyclists can be on the right side of the law all they want, and it'll do them a lot of good in their grave.  Should we all share the road nicely?  Yeah, of course.  But that's just not how it works and it's not going to change.  Cyclists stopping up and blocking traffic is obnoxious.  How can they expect people to appreciate them or like them?  Surely you would just sit behind a car doing 15 in a 45 zone and not be annoyed at all, right?"

"I won't ride in the bike lanes, let alone those little strips.  It's stupid, and dangerous."

"I can't fathom how it's safer to exercise in the middle of the street than on a sidewalk off the street.  I just, can't."

"If you are riding 15 - 20 mph and cars are driving 50 mph, I'm not sure your speed is all that much closer to vehicles than pedestrians... nor are you traveling fast enough on a bike where you can't just, you know, slow down and nicely pass a pedestrian on the sidewalk.  All of your "cats, dogs, pedestrians, children, leashes, trash" on the sidewalk just seems so foreign to me.  Do you live in Vietnam or something?  I would hate to live in your neighborhood or anywhere near it."

"You know she is full of shit."



I'd encourage you to re-read your comments and take a few moments to ponder your mental image of yourself, and the image of yourself that you are showing to others.

[robartsd]

I know you think you are being cute here, but in reality there are a lot of ways that safe, legal driving can lead to very bad outcomes for a driver or other bystanders in this scenario of a biker going the wrong way. For example, having to stop to not hit a biker coming from an unexpected/illegal direction while making a left, leaving your vehicle at a dead stop (and likely the driver in a state of shock) in a lane with oncoming traffic. Or swerving instead and hitting pedestrians waiting at the corner to cross, etc. These are not crazy corner cases, that's probably the two most likely ways an aberrant person would deal with such an encounter, and neither require the driver doing anything illegal or dangerous.

Braking is an appropriate action to a danger, not swerving into the busy oncoming traffic lane.  If there's not enough time to brake, then the driver was driving beyond his ability to control his vehicle . . . which is the definition of unsafe driving.

If a vehicle in front of you makes a stop, it is your duty and responsibility to stop and not hit that car.  Unless the driver is drunk, texting, or speeding . . . I see no reason that an accident should happen because a vehicle ahead made an emergency stop.  Do you?

GuitarStv, I think you misread MilesTag on this one. He's saying a driver might be turning left (across an oncoming traffic lane) thinking that he has plenty of time to make a turn, but a wrong way cyclist blowing across the crosswalk on the street he's turning onto may cause him to stop in that oncoming traffic lane. The driver turning left is now dependent on the oncoming traffic stopping even though they are expecting him to complete the turn. No drivers are swearing into oncoming traffic in this situation (though the left turning driver might be cutting the margins too thin).

[MilesTeg]

Of course that can't be proven.  Prove to me that riding the wrong way on a street causes a crash.  It doesn't.  A driver hitting a cyclist (or vice versa) causes a bike/automobile crash.  I mean, riding the wrong way increases the odds that you'll get in an accident . . . as does speeding.

If you are involved in a crash because you were performing an ILLegal maneuver while the other person was performing a legal maneuver you are absolutely, 100% the cause of the crash. Both legally and morally.

While fault can get a bit murky if both parties are doing something illegal, fault is not determined by "who hit who". Fault is determined by whose actions caused the collision. For example, if I am traveling down the road and someone runs a stop sign/light causing me to hit them, I am not at fault, they are.

Maybe some facts will change your unfounded bias?  "Based on work by Nilsson in Sweden, a change in average speed of 1 km/h will result in a change in accident numbers ranging between 2% for a 120 km/h road and 4% for a 50 km/h road. This result has been confirmed by many before and after studies of different speed reduction measures. This relationship is used by other Scandinavian countries and by Australian and Dutch safety engineers." - https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed/speed_is_a_central_issue_in_road_safety/speed_and_accident_risk_en)

You think it's an unfounded bias that I am pointing out that the danger of speeding is relative to the nature of the speeding? Do you really believe someone doing 1km/h over is anywhere near as dangerous as someone traveling against traffic?

Braking is an appropriate action to a danger, not swerving into the busy oncoming traffic lane.  If there's not enough time to brake, then the driver was driving beyond his ability to control his vehicle . . . which is the definition of unsafe driving.

This is just silly. I already covered the case of braking in my scenario. IN the scenario described (try reading it, I won't repeat it here), if you brake to avoid hitting a biker gong the wrong way you're stopping your vehicle in a lane carrying oncoming traffic (and are likely to get t-boned).

If a vehicle in front of you makes a stop, it is your duty and responsibility to stop and not hit that car.  Unless the driver is drunk, texting, or speeding . . . I see no reason that an accident should happen because a vehicle ahead made an emergency stop.  Do you?

Oh I see, you didn't read what I wrote and/or want to try to pivot to a completely different scenario than the one I've been talking about since starting the thread so that you can 'score a point'.

[EngagedToFIRE]

That's HER side of the story, lol.  Did you catch the video of the Weston Flyers I also posted?  They don't ride in the bike lanes in general.  You know she is full of shit.  And she is right, the residents are complaining and the residents are absolutely sick of them riding here, and it's not because they are riding in the bike lanes... It's because they take over the streets in large packs and disrupt the residents.  We are a VERY pro-bicycling community, but we don't like groups of lawless people coming in and acting like the law doesn't apply to them simply because they are in a bicycle friendly city.

Given your comments in this thread, you are unequivocably not a member of a pro-cycling community.  You have been extremely anti-cycling and specifically abusive to road cyclists on multiple occasions now:

"Several times every year one or a few get whacked and killed by a car and we are supposed to care."

"The simple act of doing your best Lance Armstrong cosplay and exercising on a highway is pretty fucking stupid."

"The law can say whatever it wants, but in practice, the cars DO basically own the road.  Cyclists can be on the right side of the law all they want, and it'll do them a lot of good in their grave.  Should we all share the road nicely?  Yeah, of course.  But that's just not how it works and it's not going to change.  Cyclists stopping up and blocking traffic is obnoxious.  How can they expect people to appreciate them or like them?  Surely you would just sit behind a car doing 15 in a 45 zone and not be annoyed at all, right?"

"I won't ride in the bike lanes, let alone those little strips.  It's stupid, and dangerous."

"I can't fathom how it's safer to exercise in the middle of the street than on a sidewalk off the street.  I just, can't."

"If you are riding 15 - 20 mph and cars are driving 50 mph, I'm not sure your speed is all that much closer to vehicles than pedestrians... nor are you traveling fast enough on a bike where you can't just, you know, slow down and nicely pass a pedestrian on the sidewalk.  All of your "cats, dogs, pedestrians, children, leashes, trash" on the sidewalk just seems so foreign to me.  Do you live in Vietnam or something?  I would hate to live in your neighborhood or anywhere near it."

"You know she is full of shit."



I'd encourage you to re-read your comments and take a few moments to ponder your mental image of yourself, and the image of yourself that you are showing to others.

I don't have to be pro lawless road cyclists to be pro cycling.  I am PART of the cycling community here.  I attend rides, know lots of riders, friends with many, go to the mountain bike trails on the weekends with friends (we tailgate), etc.  It's a fantastic community.  And most of the people in the circles I'm around, do NOT do the group rides in the streets.

Yeah, most of the non-road cyclists don't hold very positive feelings about the lawless roadies.  And yes, that Weston Flyers cyclist was absolutely full of shit, as I've posted multiple times, VIDEO of their groups acting entirely lawless.  That's how they have always done their group rides.  Everyone hates them here.  And then they make up fake stories to imply the cops are just picking on them.  But that's how the road cyclists are.  They are lawless miscreants with attitudes, then pretend to be victims when others don't want to put up with it.  So yeah, you are right, and I've been clear about it,  I'm NOT pro-road cyclists who don't give a shit about being decent members of society and act lawless, but I'm absolutely pro-cyclist and know plenty of others who use bike lanes and paths, and respect the laws and our fellow citizens.

[arebelspy]

MOD NOTE: Stop being dicks to each other.

Thank you.

Locking thread. PM me or another mod with any concerns.

Cheers!