Author Topic: Cyclist Hate  (Read 18481 times)

jmusic

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
  • Location: Somewhere...
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #50 on: April 16, 2015, 01:47:18 PM »

Broken down car would have been off the road; there was more than adequate shoulder that was gravel.

And it was not reckless driving. If it was, every single driver, and every single bicycle rider on that road would have to be ticketed. Seriously.

So the gravel is good enough for a cyclist, but apparently not for entitled motorists...

MLKnits

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #51 on: April 16, 2015, 01:50:10 PM »
Broken down car would have been off the road; there was more than adequate shoulder that was gravel.

And it was not reckless driving. If it was, every single driver, and every single bicycle rider on that road would have to be ticketed. Seriously.

That's a pretty big assumption. What if there was a fender-bender between the cars right ahead of you, and they hadn't had time to pull over before you came roaring, sight-unseen, over the hill? What if someone's tire blew and they spun out in the middle of the lane? What if their car stalled in the lane?

Apparently, the answer is that you would have either hit them, or swerved into oncoming traffic. You seriously don't see why you shouldn't be speeding over a hill when you can't know that nothing's happened on the other side? And you're accusing cyclists of causing road danger?

WerKater

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
  • Location: Germany
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #52 on: April 16, 2015, 01:51:14 PM »
Here attribution bias comes roaring in!  Mtm was obviously saying that the bikers were on the other side of the hill, not that they were passing bikes while unable to see the road ahead.

I understood Mtm correctly the first time.

When you are driving (regardless of the vehicule), you should drive at a speed that allows you to avoid obstacles. It is reasonable to expect the possibility of an obstacle being present when you cannot visually deny it. The correct response in that situation is to slow down until you are able to confirm that there are no obstacles.

Sure, and you suggested the possibility that mtm was the one at fault.  You didn't leap to the conclusion that he was a sociopath, and you didn't use offensive language.  I have no quibble with your post.

Point made.  My mistake in using charged words (and in misunderstanding what had been typed).  I apologize.


Were there a broken down car just over the crest of the road, MTM would have been less able to stop in time than for cyclists.  He would have been completely at fault for the accident as well.  His issue is related to his own (admittedly repeated) bouts of reckless driving, and not to the cyclists on the road.

Broken down car would have been off the road; there was more than adequate shoulder that was gravel.
So you claim to have knowledge about any possible accident or defect which could leave a vehicle stranded on that road? You are 100% sure that in each case the vehicle would be able to get off the road?
In Germany, the law is very clear: If you can not stop your vehicle within that distance on the road that you can actually see, you are driving too fast and a collision will be on you (common sens, isn't it? Basically, you are saying you are driving very fast into somewhere you cannot see). I would be surprised if the law was very much different where you live.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #53 on: April 16, 2015, 01:53:36 PM »
If I did any number of road infractions on a bike, it would be practically impossible to *directly* kill anyone through my carelessness (though I absolutely could put myself at risk).  Contrast that to a motorist in a 3,000+ pound cage of steel.  One slip of the foot or other act of carelessness at the wrong moment could:
Kill a person on or off the road
Kill an animal
Cause $$,$$$ property damage
etc.

While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness.  It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death

There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #54 on: April 16, 2015, 01:56:40 PM »
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I am a cyclist hater.

Bicycles on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when some cyclist is in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against bikes, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads with speed limits over 25 mph.  I'm fine if there are bike lanes.

Yes, I realize that bikes have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for cyclists because I'm sure you get angry at drivers (like me).  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by cyclists who can't go the posted speed limit.
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I basically hate nobody.

Cars on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when massive amounts of car drivers are in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass their stupid >2m wide vehicles with only one person in them, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against cars, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads narrower than 20m.  I'm fine if there are special car lanes.

Yes, I realize that cars have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for car drivers because I'm sure you get angry at cyclists.  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by clown car drivers who clog up the roads for no good reason.

I take no exception to your position.  I too would prefer driving if there were no other drivers on the road.  I hate everyone equally.

Runge

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Location: TX
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #55 on: April 16, 2015, 01:58:19 PM »
My long since forgottend hatred of bikers came from my commute at my summer job from middle school to college. This was a 2-lane (1 in each direction) highway, moderate traffic, 45mph for about 3 miles. Most of it had about 6 inches of paved shoulder and 4-8 feet of gravel shoulder.

At least 2 times a week, there would be bikers riding 3-5 abreast. This despite multiple signs saying it is illegal to ride more than 2 abreast. This despite there being a bike trail RIGHT NEXT TO THE ROAD THROUGH A FOREST PRESERVE. Sure, the thign was winding, but it was a 1 mile longer ride--4 vs 5 miles. It was seriously a safety issue, and the fault would have been on the bikers if something happened.

I am pretty sure it was one group, since I would see them pretty regularly W, F, S, S, and not MTTH.

Hmm, hang on though. There's a 6" useful shoulder--eg no shoulder at all--from the bike's perspective, so the safest thing to do is to take the lane. Given that they pretty much have to take the lane, why does riding three abreast, vs. two, matter for traffic purposes? Either way a driver who wants to pass will have to go well across the median and will have to be sure that's a safe decision.

Personally, when there's little or no shoulder I hang to the right--but I'm reasonably likely to be side-swiped, and the much safer and arguably more correct choice is to take the lane.


Interesting point; unfortunately it doesn't hold up. There were 3 hills that made this the case. I had no idea what was on the other side of the hills, and at least three times over the 4 years of driving that commute, I had to make the decision "If I don't slow down fast enough, do I swerve into oncoming traffic, or take out the bike?"  The answer usually depended on what car I was in.

Had they been riding single file and within 6 inches of the shoulder (giving them 12 inches of pavement), in any vehicle, I would have been able to get past within my lane.

Frankly, it was a dangerous move on their part. There is no defending it without saying "The rewards of riding on a straight course outweighed the risk of me losing my life or causing someone else to be in a head-on collision". That is essentially what it comes down to; any justifications are alright, but they are still highly dangerous. And this is coming from someone who races cars, jumps on jetskis every chance I can, goes skiing, etc.

6 inches of shoulder? You do realize that road tires are more or less an inch wide, and also realize that the shoulder width of the actual biker is likely around 2 feet...correct? So if said biker even managed to keep his one inch wide tire in that 6 inches, he'd still have a roughly a foot of his body width still in the lane. Couple that with the standard 3 feet of spacing when passing a cyclist rule, there's now 4 feet of road width that is occupied by the cyclist. US Highways uses a standard 12 foot wide lanes, Ford F150's are 80 inches wide (6 foot 8 inches), and Ford Escapes are 6 feet wide. Best case scenario, that leaves you with 5 feet between the cyclists and worst case of 4 feet. That's with the cyclist all the way to the right and you all the way to the left. Yes, you could technically pass them while staying in your lane, and it sounds like plenty of room to split the lane, but realistically, it's severely pushing the limits.

The cyclist isn't naturally going to want to right all the way to the right, as it gives him/her zero room to maneuver away from traffic for obstacles, so this will close the gap even further. The driver isn't going to want to ride on the center line because hitting an oncoming car is always a terrible thing to do, thus closing that gap even further. Thus, the driver must wait on a safe time to cross into the oncoming lane to give enough clearance to pass the cyclist. Often this requires that the driver slows down and yields to the cyclist, just like they would when approaching a slow moving car.

If someone has a problem with this situation, then they need to petition the city/county/state to install proper, separated bike lanes, not get angry at other people who are also trying to get from A to B. Lack of proper infrastructure for the local community is the root cause.

The county (since this was unincorporated township areas) has the bike lanes (paths). The cyclists don't use them. I assume because other, less hardcore, cyclists do and it slows them up, or because they didn't want to curve through the forest. Dunno. When I used to ride to work, I'd use the path, and found it took about 2-5 minutes longer.

And note, that my hatred for them grew when they would regularly ride [illegally] 3 abreast. It was dangerous, and caused dangerous situations. If the rode single file, and even 2 abreast with a reasonable amount of room I'd have no issue staying in my lane and getting around them--even when I drove a 3/4 ton truck. Most of the time was in a Miata. And usually I'd pass on the flat areas and give them the whole lane.

A Miata width is 68 inches (5 foot 8 inches), so more or less the 5 feet that I figured above. If the riders are riding two abreast, there's likely going to be about a foot between them, plus their 2 foot body width, meaning that they're now taking up an additional three feet of road space. And even if we assume that the right most rider is riding in the shoulder, that leaves only 2 feet between the left rider and the passing Miata/Focus on a 12 foot wide road. That is illegal in most jurisdictions, thus you were right to wait to give them their own lane when passing. But if you have to do that anyway, then as it was asked above, what does it matter if they're riding 2 or 3 or 4 abreast now, since any driver would have to cross into oncoming traffic anyway? IF they're riding single file, then the driver must maintain that minimum 3 foot spacing between the car and line of cyclists, potentially very long.

There's practical reasons for not using certain paths, and since I don't know the condition of those nearby in the area you brought up, I can't speak directly for them. However, in my area, the "bike paths" are actually multiuse paths that are not at all straight, have many blind corners, are filled with pedestrians, dogs, kids, etc. They're fancy sidewalks that are detached from the roadway. Lycra wearing cyclists simply don't want to be bothered by pedestrians as they're riding fast and don't like stopping or slowing down, hence why they're mostly seen on roadways because it makes more sense than bike paths. If there's an actual bike lane, then depending on how it's designed, it's extremely useful.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #56 on: April 16, 2015, 02:00:45 PM »

There's practical reasons for not using certain paths, and since I don't know the condition of those nearby in the area you brought up, I can't speak directly for them. However, in my area, the "bike paths" are actually multiuse paths that are not at all straight, have many blind corners, are filled with pedestrians, dogs, kids, etc. They're fancy sidewalks that are detached from the roadway. Lycra wearing cyclists simply don't want to be bothered by pedestrians as they're riding fast and don't like stopping or slowing down, hence why they're mostly seen on roadways because it makes more sense than bike paths. If there's an actual bike lane, then depending on how it's designed, it's extremely useful.

So you understand *exactly* why drivers don't like bikers on the road...it's exactly the same principle as what you described in bold.

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #57 on: April 16, 2015, 02:01:39 PM »
Alright, you guys win. I'll turn in my license on my way home from work today, and devote the rest of my life to proclaiming the virtues of cyclists on dangerous roads!

/Sarcasm.

Seriously, this is an incredibly stupid conversation of hypotheticals. I'm facepunching myself for even getting into it; any reasonable person here would look at the situation (if they saw it, apparently I can't describe it very well) and say "wow, yeah, Mtn is right. he wasn't driving recklessly, and it would be foolhardy to ride 3 abreast on this road".

It was/is a dangerous road for cyclists. There was a bike path not 30 yards away from the road, yet cyclists would regularly ride illegally on the road in a dangerous fashion. In certain situations, cyclists could have caused accidents. When the riders were riding legally, there existed very little danger. When they rode illegally, it caused a significant risk. Sure, there are situations that you can draw up that make me look like the bad guy, but they are EXTREMELY unlikely on this road. In theory, a Morris Marina could fall from the sky and hit me too. But I don't account for that risk, since it probably won't happen.

I'm out. Ya'll have fun now!

Runge

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Location: TX
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #58 on: April 16, 2015, 02:04:42 PM »

There's practical reasons for not using certain paths, and since I don't know the condition of those nearby in the area you brought up, I can't speak directly for them. However, in my area, the "bike paths" are actually multiuse paths that are not at all straight, have many blind corners, are filled with pedestrians, dogs, kids, etc. They're fancy sidewalks that are detached from the roadway. Lycra wearing cyclists simply don't want to be bothered by pedestrians as they're riding fast and don't like stopping or slowing down, hence why they're mostly seen on roadways because it makes more sense than bike paths. If there's an actual bike lane, then depending on how it's designed, it's extremely useful.

So you understand *exactly* why drivers don't like bikers on the road...it's exactly the same principle as what you described in bold.

I do understand. I never said I didn't. But why do we all as a society have to get so angry at one another because we're too selfish and must yield to other people from time to time? This goes both ways.

ETA: Hence my suggestion to provide a separate lane for only bikes.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 02:10:43 PM by Runge »

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #59 on: April 16, 2015, 02:07:51 PM »
If I did any number of road infractions on a bike, it would be practically impossible to *directly* kill anyone through my carelessness (though I absolutely could put myself at risk).  Contrast that to a motorist in a 3,000+ pound cage of steel.  One slip of the foot or other act of carelessness at the wrong moment could:
Kill a person on or off the road
Kill an animal
Cause $$,$$$ property damage
etc.

While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness.  It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death

There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).

Actually, after looking at the data for the UK (the first I could find), it looks like the rareness is caused mostly by the number of miles driven, rather than intrinsic safety differences it looks like motor vehicles are about 4.7 times as fatal to pedestrians as bicycles per mile.

Reasoning: two cyclists caused pedestrian deaths in 2011, while single cars caused 233 pedestrian deaths in the same year.1  However, people drove cars about 50 times more miles than bicycles in that year.  2  233/50 = 4.66, so cars caused about 4.7 times more pedestrian deaths per mile than bicycles.

1  http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/sep/28/road-deaths-great-britain-data
2  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243957/nts2012-01.pdf

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6869
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #60 on: April 16, 2015, 02:16:14 PM »


Incidentally, cyclists ARE traffic. The perspective that cyclists are not legitimate road traffic is one-sided.

Let's go with this...."cyclists are traffic".

Why then, are cyclists allowed to go only 10-15 mph on the road, regardless of what the posted speed limit is?  If a car did that nobody would wonder why other drivers were infuriated.

In my home state of Virginia, this is the law: "No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic." 

So if bikes are traffic, why do they get a separate set of rules?

My point is only that bikes and cars should each have their own space, and neither should be forced to deal with the other in that space.
In my town in California there are some roads where bikes are not allowed, for this very reason.  However, other roads they are allowed. And in the few areas where there is no alternative to the highway, bicycles are allowed there too. 

LiveLean

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
  • Location: Central Florida
    • ToLiveLean
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #61 on: April 16, 2015, 02:22:48 PM »
I'm a cyclist and a triathlete. But I rarely ride anymore. Too dangerous, especially here in Florida's most densely-populated county.

Distracted driving has taken the danger up a notch. But so too has distracted cycling. At least 80 percent of cyclists I see on our roads are wearing some sort of listening device. Really? You're going to eliminate perhaps your second-most important sense while trying to navigate an inherently dangerous situation.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6869
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #62 on: April 16, 2015, 02:29:45 PM »
Quote
The county (since this was unincorporated township areas) has the bike lanes (paths). The cyclists don't use them. I assume because other, less hardcore, cyclists do and it slows them up, or because they didn't want to curve through the forest. Dunno. When I used to ride to work, I'd use the path, and found it took about 2-5 minutes longer.

This is a fascinating discussion, really.  As someone who walks, used to bike to work, and drives a lot now, I can see all sides. 

I grew up in the country in twisty/ windy/ hilly roads. I would fear biking there.

When you are cresting a hill, of course you slow down.  But at worst, you are thinking that maybe there is a slow car.  So that means you only have to slow down so much.  So if you are going 55, maybe you slow down to 40 or 45, because you aren't really expecting someone to be stopped, or moving extremely slowly.  Likewise, if I were a pedestrian crossing at a blind spot or walking at a blind spot, I would specifically be walking OFF the road or being very careful to cross someplace else.

My town also has bike paths and bike lanes.  It's not clear how well maintained your paths are, but for example, it would have to be paved.
The bike path to work (which is a combo of bike lanes on the road and dedicated bike paths) is 12 miles.
The road path to work (all in bike lanes on the road) is 10 miles.

So of course I prefer the 10 mile ride because it is much shorter and faster for me (at least 10 minutes).  Plus the other 2 miles the other way is through the university with a lot of other bike and foot traffic.

As far as bikes yielding to pedestrians or cars.  I personally feel that it's much easier for me to yield as a car or a ped to a bike.  To start and stop while walking or driving is easy, physically.  It takes more work on a bike.  Of course I'm going to follow the laws regardless, but this is how I yield to bikes when I'm out.

I personally think riding 3-5 abreast is incredibly rude.  But on the other hand, 6 inches of shoulder isn't enough when I'm biking.

TheAnonOne

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #63 on: April 16, 2015, 02:42:46 PM »
Not to change the subject too much but motorcycling has taken up the risk quite a bit lately with the distracted driving as well.

jmusic

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
  • Location: Somewhere...
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #64 on: April 16, 2015, 04:28:28 PM »
If I did any number of road infractions on a bike, it would be practically impossible to *directly* kill anyone through my carelessness (though I absolutely could put myself at risk).  Contrast that to a motorist in a 3,000+ pound cage of steel.  One slip of the foot or other act of carelessness at the wrong moment could:
Kill a person on or off the road
Kill an animal
Cause $$,$$$ property damage
etc.

While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness.  It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death

There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).

Note I said "practically impossible" not "impossible."  Of course, we weren't there so it also highly depends on the circumstances of the individual incident.  I don't make excuses for irresponsible cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by riding the wrong way, riding on the sidewalk, etc. 

Also, appearing in the article that you linked:

Quote
According to Dft figures 2007 was a particularly bad year resulting in a total of 3 deaths being caused by cyclists the annual average in the UK is usually less than one none of those who died were killed on the pavement. In the same year of over 600 pedestrians killed 54 were killed on the pavement by motor vehicles.


beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #65 on: April 16, 2015, 04:50:37 PM »
If I did any number of road infractions on a bike, it would be practically impossible to *directly* kill anyone through my carelessness (though I absolutely could put myself at risk).  Contrast that to a motorist in a 3,000+ pound cage of steel.  One slip of the foot or other act of carelessness at the wrong moment could:
Kill a person on or off the road
Kill an animal
Cause $$,$$$ property damage
etc.

While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness.  It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death

There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).

Note I said "practically impossible" not "impossible."  Of course, we weren't there so it also highly depends on the circumstances of the individual incident.  I don't make excuses for irresponsible cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by riding the wrong way, riding on the sidewalk, etc. 

Also, appearing in the article that you linked:

Quote
According to Dft figures 2007 was a particularly bad year resulting in a total of 3 deaths being caused by cyclists the annual average in the UK is usually less than one none of those who died were killed on the pavement. In the same year of over 600 pedestrians killed 54 were killed on the pavement by motor vehicles.

Right I said it was rare.  But it's rare mostly because of the greater rate of car driving(about 90% of the difference in frequency) rather than the innate danger of cars compared to bicycles (about 10%).

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14054
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #66 on: April 16, 2015, 04:53:22 PM »
If I did any number of road infractions on a bike, it would be practically impossible to *directly* kill anyone through my carelessness (though I absolutely could put myself at risk).  Contrast that to a motorist in a 3,000+ pound cage of steel.  One slip of the foot or other act of carelessness at the wrong moment could:
Kill a person on or off the road
Kill an animal
Cause $$,$$$ property damage
etc.

While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness.  It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death

There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).

Note I said "practically impossible" not "impossible."  Of course, we weren't there so it also highly depends on the circumstances of the individual incident.  I don't make excuses for irresponsible cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by riding the wrong way, riding on the sidewalk, etc. 

Also, appearing in the article that you linked:

Quote
According to Dft figures 2007 was a particularly bad year resulting in a total of 3 deaths being caused by cyclists the annual average in the UK is usually less than one none of those who died were killed on the pavement. In the same year of over 600 pedestrians killed 54 were killed on the pavement by motor vehicles.

This 2014 article points out that when you also consider severe injuries into the equation cars are 60 times dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists per mile walked.  http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians

kib

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 197
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #67 on: April 16, 2015, 04:58:11 PM »
Just a little word from the other side: as a driver in a city with busy traffic, it's my worst nightmare that my car might hit and kill a pedestrian, cyclist, zooming Rascal operator or other unarmed creature.  My 'anger' at disobedient bipeds is mostly fear, not rage. 

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #68 on: April 16, 2015, 05:00:50 PM »
If I did any number of road infractions on a bike, it would be practically impossible to *directly* kill anyone through my carelessness (though I absolutely could put myself at risk).  Contrast that to a motorist in a 3,000+ pound cage of steel.  One slip of the foot or other act of carelessness at the wrong moment could:
Kill a person on or off the road
Kill an animal
Cause $$,$$$ property damage
etc.

While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness.  It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death

There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).

Note I said "practically impossible" not "impossible."  Of course, we weren't there so it also highly depends on the circumstances of the individual incident.  I don't make excuses for irresponsible cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by riding the wrong way, riding on the sidewalk, etc. 

Also, appearing in the article that you linked:

Quote
According to Dft figures 2007 was a particularly bad year resulting in a total of 3 deaths being caused by cyclists the annual average in the UK is usually less than one none of those who died were killed on the pavement. In the same year of over 600 pedestrians killed 54 were killed on the pavement by motor vehicles.

This 2014 article points out that when you also consider severe injuries into the equation cars are 60 times dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists per mile walked.  http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians

Interesting figures, but that article has terrible analysis.  Yes, cars are 60 times more dangerous to pedestrians per mile walked using their assumptions - but since cars travel 50 times more miles than bicycles, then cars are only 1.2 times as dangerous as bicycles to pedestrians.

jmusic

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
  • Location: Somewhere...
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #69 on: April 16, 2015, 05:05:02 PM »
Interesting figures, but that article has terrible analysis.  Yes, cars are 60 times more dangerous to pedestrians per mile walked using their assumptions - but since cars travel 50 times more miles than bicycles, then cars are only 1.2 times as dangerous as bicycles to pedestrians.

Sure, but your numbers also include HIGHWAY miles, where there shouldn't be any bikes or pedestrians anyway!  There's a million different ways to spin it. 

I'll put it to you this way:  If you were walking down the street, would you rather get hit by a cyclist at 18mph, or a 3,500lb car?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14054
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #70 on: April 16, 2015, 05:06:23 PM »
FWIW, I get anger towards cyclists when they're doing stupid stuff.  And I do see cyclists doing stupid stuff on a regular basis.  I don't see them doing it on a greater basis than vehicle drivers though (for every cyclist who runs a stop sign there are a dozen drivers who break the speed limit).

The part that is disturbing to me is anger towards cyclists who are cycling safely on the road where they belong.


If I did any number of road infractions on a bike, it would be practically impossible to *directly* kill anyone through my carelessness (though I absolutely could put myself at risk).  Contrast that to a motorist in a 3,000+ pound cage of steel.  One slip of the foot or other act of carelessness at the wrong moment could:
Kill a person on or off the road
Kill an animal
Cause $$,$$$ property damage
etc.

While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness.  It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death

There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).

Note I said "practically impossible" not "impossible."  Of course, we weren't there so it also highly depends on the circumstances of the individual incident.  I don't make excuses for irresponsible cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by riding the wrong way, riding on the sidewalk, etc. 

Also, appearing in the article that you linked:

Quote
According to Dft figures 2007 was a particularly bad year resulting in a total of 3 deaths being caused by cyclists the annual average in the UK is usually less than one none of those who died were killed on the pavement. In the same year of over 600 pedestrians killed 54 were killed on the pavement by motor vehicles.

This 2014 article points out that when you also consider severe injuries into the equation cars are 60 times dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists per mile walked.  http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians

Interesting figures, but that article has terrible analysis.  Yes, cars are 60 times more dangerous to pedestrians per mile walked using their assumptions - but since cars travel 50 times more miles than bicycles, then cars are only 1.2 times as dangerous as bicycles to pedestrians.

It would be cool if there was a breakdown of how many accidents/deaths occurred due to side-walk cycling.  What we're talking about in this thread are cyclists who are on the road, where typically pedestrians aren't around to be hit/injured.

jmusic

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
  • Location: Somewhere...
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #71 on: April 16, 2015, 05:09:15 PM »
Just a little word from the other side: as a driver in a city with busy traffic, it's my worst nightmare that my car might hit and kill a pedestrian, cyclist, zooming Rascal operator or other unarmed creature.  My 'anger' at disobedient bipeds is mostly fear, not rage.

I agree with your sentiment.  It's important that we realize that "cyclist" and "car" haters are really a minority of the population, they just stick out in our brains and we ignore the 90% of interactions that pass with zero incident.

I will say, that when I'm driving my car, I make DAMN sure not to do anything that would cause a cyclist to shake his/her fist at me! I respect that they are in much more potential danger than I.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #72 on: April 16, 2015, 05:16:17 PM »
Interesting figures, but that article has terrible analysis.  Yes, cars are 60 times more dangerous to pedestrians per mile walked using their assumptions - but since cars travel 50 times more miles than bicycles, then cars are only 1.2 times as dangerous as bicycles to pedestrians.

Sure, but your numbers also include HIGHWAY miles, where there shouldn't be any bikes or pedestrians anyway!  There's a million different ways to spin it. 

I'll put it to you this way:  If you were walking down the street, would you rather get hit by a cyclist at 18mph, or a 3,500lb car?

Sure.  I'd love to only use highway miles, but those numbers are hard to find. 

As for your question, of course I'd rather get hit by the bike.  I've never argued that cars are safer for pedestrians.  I'm just saying that using raw numbers - without adjusting for relative frequency - misses the point entirely.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #73 on: April 16, 2015, 05:22:12 PM »
FWIW, I get anger towards cyclists when they're doing stupid stuff.  And I do see cyclists doing stupid stuff on a regular basis.  I don't see them doing it on a greater basis than vehicle drivers though (for every cyclist who runs a stop sign there are a dozen drivers who break the speed limit).

The part that is disturbing to me is anger towards cyclists who are cycling safely on the road where they belong.

It would be cool if there was a breakdown of how many accidents/deaths occurred due to side-walk cycling.  What we're talking about in this thread are cyclists who are on the road, where typically pedestrians aren't around to be hit/injured.

I completely agree that it would be interesting.  But most pedestrian injuries caused by cars occur on the road - cars rarely (in a relative sense) drive up onto sidewalks to injure pedestrians.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14054
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #74 on: April 16, 2015, 05:33:16 PM »
FWIW, I get anger towards cyclists when they're doing stupid stuff.  And I do see cyclists doing stupid stuff on a regular basis.  I don't see them doing it on a greater basis than vehicle drivers though (for every cyclist who runs a stop sign there are a dozen drivers who break the speed limit).

The part that is disturbing to me is anger towards cyclists who are cycling safely on the road where they belong.

It would be cool if there was a breakdown of how many accidents/deaths occurred due to side-walk cycling.  What we're talking about in this thread are cyclists who are on the road, where typically pedestrians aren't around to be hit/injured.

I completely agree that it would be interesting.  But most pedestrian injuries caused by cars occur on the road - cars rarely (in a relative sense) drive up onto sidewalks to injure pedestrians.

Many cyclists choose to cycle on the sidewalk despite this being a more dangerous place for them and for pedestrians due to fear of cars and widespread social acceptance of this practice.  I'd be interested to see how the stats work out for the cyclists who are in the road where they should be.

Were a large number of car drivers socially accepted on sidewalks I suspect that the car stats would slant heavily towards more injury with pedestrians.

Dr. A

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 177
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Massachusetts
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #75 on: April 16, 2015, 07:56:31 PM »
Seriously, this is an incredibly stupid conversation of hypotheticals. I'm facepunching myself for even getting into it; any reasonable person here would look at the situation (if they saw it, apparently I can't describe it very well) and say "wow, yeah, Mtn is right. he wasn't driving recklessly, and it would be foolhardy to ride 3 abreast on this road".

I know I'm late to the party, but I feel the need to throw this out there. If the above statement is actually true, the road would be dangerously under-designed. Vertical curves are designed so that a driver can see far enough down the road to observe an object at rest (forget one that's moving forward at 15-20mph) in the road and react, brake and come to a stop prior to colliding with the object. If you can't do that at least one of the following is true: (1) you're exceeding the speed limit by a wide margin (the road is customarily designed for a speed 5-10 mph higher than the posted limit), (2) the posted speed limit is too high for the road's geometry.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #76 on: April 16, 2015, 10:10:52 PM »
Take the bicycle safety quiz before biking.    Ask yourself,  "on the route I'm about to take would my spouse believe it is safe to take our 1 year old on the back? "  If the answer is probably not,  then the route is not safe for biking.     Many of the biking situations I've seen described here appear unsafe for the bikers.   

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1274
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #77 on: April 17, 2015, 08:47:41 AM »
FWIW, I get anger towards cyclists when they're doing stupid stuff.  And I do see cyclists doing stupid stuff on a regular basis.  I don't see them doing it on a greater basis than vehicle drivers though (for every cyclist who runs a stop sign there are a dozen drivers who break the speed limit).

The part that is disturbing to me is anger towards cyclists who are cycling safely on the road where they belong.


If I did any number of road infractions on a bike, it would be practically impossible to *directly* kill anyone through my carelessness (though I absolutely could put myself at risk).  Contrast that to a motorist in a 3,000+ pound cage of steel.  One slip of the foot or other act of carelessness at the wrong moment could:
Kill a person on or off the road
Kill an animal
Cause $$,$$$ property damage
etc.

While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness.  It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death

There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).

Note I said "practically impossible" not "impossible."  Of course, we weren't there so it also highly depends on the circumstances of the individual incident.  I don't make excuses for irresponsible cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by riding the wrong way, riding on the sidewalk, etc. 

Also, appearing in the article that you linked:

Quote
According to Dft figures 2007 was a particularly bad year resulting in a total of 3 deaths being caused by cyclists the annual average in the UK is usually less than one none of those who died were killed on the pavement. In the same year of over 600 pedestrians killed 54 were killed on the pavement by motor vehicles.

This 2014 article points out that when you also consider severe injuries into the equation cars are 60 times dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists per mile walked.  http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians

Interesting figures, but that article has terrible analysis.  Yes, cars are 60 times more dangerous to pedestrians per mile walked using their assumptions - but since cars travel 50 times more miles than bicycles, then cars are only 1.2 times as dangerous as bicycles to pedestrians.

It would be cool if there was a breakdown of how many accidents/deaths occurred due to side-walk cycling.  What we're talking about in this thread are cyclists who are on the road, where typically pedestrians aren't around to be hit/injured.

There are a lot of problems with those statistics. Usually they are derived from surveys, and they seldom ask kids (who very often travel by bike or foot). Also, surveys are often skewed towards people wealthy enough to have computers/internet.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5638
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #78 on: April 17, 2015, 11:32:20 AM »
FWIW, I get anger towards cyclists when they're doing stupid stuff.  And I do see cyclists doing stupid stuff on a regular basis.  I don't see them doing it on a greater basis than vehicle drivers though (for every cyclist who runs a stop sign there are a dozen drivers who break the speed limit).

The part that is disturbing to me is anger towards cyclists who are cycling safely on the road where they belong.

It would be cool if there was a breakdown of how many accidents/deaths occurred due to side-walk cycling.  What we're talking about in this thread are cyclists who are on the road, where typically pedestrians aren't around to be hit/injured.

I completely agree that it would be interesting.  But most pedestrian injuries caused by cars occur on the road - cars rarely (in a relative sense) drive up onto sidewalks to injure pedestrians.

Many cyclists choose to cycle on the sidewalk despite this being a more dangerous place for them and for pedestrians due to fear of cars and widespread social acceptance of this practice.  I'd be interested to see how the stats work out for the cyclists who are in the road where they should be.

Were a large number of car drivers socially accepted on sidewalks I suspect that the car stats would slant heavily towards more injury with pedestrians.

Some cyclists also like to bend the rules to whichever is most convenient - ever watch a cyclist riding on the road, then they hit a red light with a walk signal and ride across the crosswalk as if they were a pedestrian? :P

I biked to work for years in a decent sized city (Gainesville FL) and I respect considerate cyclists. The problematic ones are the ones who don't think of themselves as a vehicle - riding against traffic, at night with no lights, crossing the road wherever they want, towards or against traffic, changing from sidewalks to roads, etc.  I worked for a college-town police department for years. When talking about in-town stuff, bicycles were generally (percentage-wise) far worse regarding traffic laws than cars (specifically running stop signs - and yes, I would stop them).

I expect the inconsiderate cyclists are the ones who garner the most rage, which is then distributed to all cyclists, deserving or not.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2557
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #79 on: April 17, 2015, 11:50:56 AM »
Quote
ever watch a cyclist riding on the road, then they hit a red light with a walk signal and ride across the crosswalk as if they were a pedestrian? :P

Saw this last year when I was in Kuwait. I was stopped at a T-intersection in the left turn lane waiting for traffic to clear.  A cyclist behind decided he didn't want to wait and swerved over and started walking his bike on the crosswalk almost right through traffic.  All the vehicles had to stop for him.


Sidebar: On my ride back home I sometimes get stuck on a left turn signal that is pressure sensitive and never activates if I'm the only one in the lane. Once or twice I've "cheated" and just took an immediate left onto the crosswalk to get across. I've thought about sliding over from the turn lane and going straight through to get in line to go the other direction, but the road configuration could make that dangerous for me. Thoughts?

Russ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Boulder, CO
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #80 on: April 17, 2015, 12:00:42 PM »
Sidebar: On my ride back home I sometimes get stuck on a left turn signal that is pressure sensitive and never activates if I'm the only one in the lane. Once or twice I've "cheated" and just took an immediate left onto the crosswalk to get across. I've thought about sliding over from the turn lane and going straight through to get in line to go the other direction, but the road configuration could make that dangerous for me. Thoughts?

This is why it's legal to ride through red lights if they don't turn for you within a cycle (assuming it is otherwise safe), and why I never bother waiting at the few lights I know don't trigger

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9616
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #81 on: April 17, 2015, 12:38:38 PM »
This is why it's legal to ride through red lights if they don't turn for you within a cycle (assuming it is otherwise safe), and why I never bother waiting at the few lights I know don't trigger
Note that is a Wisconsin state law - might not apply elsewhere.

Le Poisson

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12378
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #82 on: April 17, 2015, 01:53:43 PM »
Wow. As a traffic guy who is wading through the politics/economics/engineering of getting transit and cycling lanes on major roads, this thread is quite interesting.

I don't even know where to start.

Lets try here... What is a cyclist? We see three (sometimes four) subsets of 'cyclist' that need to be served. Some of these work differently than others, and some have different interests.

Subset 1: kids - up to about 8 years old, a child on a bicycle will behave unpredictably, and need a load of guidance. We encourage these kids to ride on sidewalks and paths. We know they have a high probability of getting in trouble on the roads. Usually ride with parents or other kids.

Subset 2: Recreational cyclists - these are folks who have bikes in their garden shed and take them out a few times over the summer. They may go to the park or for an evening ride through the neighbourhood. These folks will mostly be on trails and roads, they will use bike paths if they are provided, but mostly they don't care as long as they feel safe. They will be nervous in heavy traffic and may or may not have good discipline with regards to rules of the road. Usually they ride alone or in pairs/families.

Subset 3: Utilitarian cyclists. These folks use their bike for errands and commuting. They include older kids and teens riding to school and most Mustachians. They use a bike the way most families use a car. They prefer to be on the road since foot traffic on sidewalks slows them down. They like bike lanes for safety. Their discipline is usually pretty good on the road. They are comfortable in traffic, but not fearless. Usually they ride alone.

Subset 4: Sport/training/courier cyclists. These guys prefer to be on the road with mixed traffic. They will often not use bike lanes even if they are available since the utilitarian cyclists slow them down. If they do use the bike lanes, they will leave them in order to pass other cyclists. Often they ride in large groups, sometimes very large. The groups will ride 1, 2, or 3 abreast (more on this later). They don't tend to have good discipline, although they will stop if a threat is percieved (ie. at a busy intersection they will stop for the red light, but then go as soon as traffic clears). They tend to be fearless in mixed traffic relying on the rules of the road for safety and disregarding the 'dead right' rule.  Many have a disdain for cycling lanes considering them to be for newbies/casuals.

Since there is such huge disparity between the types of cyclists, its pretty hard to broad-brush label all cyclists as being of one behaviour or another. And even at that, within those 4 subsets there is pretty strong crossover between the groups. In most of our cycling design work here, we try to meet the needs of the utilitarian cyclist. When we do that, there is a lot of backlash and misunderstanding from the public - including cyclists.

At red lights -yeah - not all traffic signals go to sidestreet - many run on a rest-in-green timing which means mainstreet will stay green until something with enough metal in it rests on the induction loops to trip the signal to change. This doesn't give you the right to just roll through the light. There are 2 ways to trip the light. One is to hit the pedestrian button. This will force the light to enter a clearance phase (usually 10-15 seconds, then change. A second way is to trick the light into believing you are a car. To do this, tape a rare earth magnet to teh bottom of your bike at its lowest point (chainstay or bottom bracket, or even a pedal). Stop with the magnet right over the black line rectangular cutout at the intersections.  The magnet will force teh loop to detect you, and the light will go through its clearance phase and then cycle to sidestreet.

What we build:

Cycling facilities designed into the upper tier (county/regional) road network are limited to on-road and off-road improvements. On road we have paved/widened shoulders and bike lanes. Off road we have Multi-use paths. All of these except shoulder hardening meet public disdain. Some of the more common complaints we get are that bikes don't contribute to road-building so why would we build roads/lanes/paths for them? We also hear about maintenance - cyclists like to see paths and shoulders in the same condition as roads, and sometimes we aren't able to sweep/plow/paint paths and bike lanes as regularly as we'd like. Roads have tires and fast vehicles rubbing the dirt away. Bike lanes don't always self-clean the same way. This results in an increased maintenance cost to the taxpayer. Widened shoulders tend to be favourable to everyone since both sides feel they are being served (all rural paving jobs in my jurisdiction now call for a minimum 2ft paved apron).

Our challenges with the bike lanes/paths are often related to topography (setting a multi-use path requires that we meet minimum grades and crossfalls) and property ownership. Very few landowners are willing to give up frontage for a bike lane or path. Cost to expropriate can create huge project budget overrides due to legal and real-estate values. Once we hash through the whole gammut of getting property then regrading for the bike lane, we are often stuck at structures (bridges) where we simply don't have space to fit a bike lane. It is also difficult to set up the lanes and paths to have destinations - especially in rural areas where we will incorporate a bike lane into a road project, only to have it lead to nothing until phase 4 or 5 of the project gets approval years later.

I am in the middle of a project now where I have managed to get bike lanes in phase 1 and 4 which have both been built, but phase 2, 3, and 5 have been shelved due to budget restraints. It may be 20 years before the middle piece of this project gets built. In the mean time, we have a busy road with bike lanes leading nowhere, and 100m (+/-) of bike lane at every crossing intersection. 

Riding 1-2-3 abreast

In my jurisdiction, it is legal today for cyclists to ride 2 abreast. Most drivers aren't aware of this and get angry when they are held up by a peloton. Since they don't want to be run off the road, many riders will only go out single file. This is very considerate, and reduces the space needed for a car to pass. A number of cycling clubs are now petitioning for 3-abreast riding to be allowed in our highway traffic act, which is interesting to me to watch played out. I'm not sure which scenario I like best. Here's why.

Lets pretend a group of 12 racers go out for a training ride (common around here) in an area without bike lanes. By the books (Union Cyclise International), a single bike takes up about 1.85 m in length. For riders who aren't too aggressive, the bikes will be spaced about 2 feet (0.6 m) apart in a peloton. This puts your single unit length at 2.5 m. Considering that a standard lane width around here is 3.5 m (11.5 ft), read on...

If our 12 riders go in single file, a car will have a 100 ft (30 m) long line of cyclists one meter wide (3 ft) to pass. This may be difficult maintaining the additional 1m (3 ft) clearance between car and bike as required by the highway traffic act. Basically, the driver will have to straddle the centreline in order to pass. In fact, data has shown that the longer it takes a car to pass the cyclists, the closer they will come to the lead bikes in the pack since they feel threatened the longer they are shifted out of their normal driving position. Unfortunately, since the chain is so long, there is noplace for the driver to pull back in if an oncoming vehicle approaches. In fact, if an oncoming vehicle threatens the driver, he is most likely to drive into the peloton, injuring the cyclists.

Now if those cyclists were riding 2 abreast, the story would be different. Riding 2 abreast, the cyclists still take 1 m (3 ft) at the edge of the lane for the first file, plus another 60cm (2 ft) for the second file. We know that the cyclists on the edge will encroach less into the lane when they have other bikes beside them, pushing them over with less risk. So now we have a peloton width of 1.6 m plus 1 m clearance for a total of 2.6 m (8.5 ft) in a 3.5 m (11.5 ft) lane. The passing driver is still forced to straddle the centreline, although encroaching a little further into the oncoming lane, however now the peloton is only 15m long since the riders are side by side instead of strung out in a line. This means the driver only straddles the centreline for half the time, and is less likely to meet an oncoming vehicle. If he does though, he will pull into the peloton, risking contact with twice the cyclists.

Finally, if the cyclists are three-abreast. We now get a full lane of bikes. The car coming up on the peloton is forced to wait behind them until it is safe to pass. This is the same scenario as would happen with any slow moving vehicle (ie. farm tractor/tour bus/maintenance equipment) Once it is safe, the car will pass entirely in the oncoming lane. The advantage though is that our peloton is only 1/3 the length of riding single file, so the car only has 10 m (32.8 ft) to pass, which can be done very quickly once a gap in oncoming traffic presents itself.

Now I'm not condoning any one of these scenarios as best or better than the others, just giving another way to look at it. Really cyclists riding in a peloton should take a page from the motorcycle safety handbook and limit the size of their groups to prevent long pelotons that trap faster vehicles behind them for extended periods. Once your peloton is stretched out longer than truck, you are creating a safety risk for yourself. Also, pick routes that do offer paved shoulders and lighter/slower traffic wherever possible.

That's enough for now. Need to get back to what I'm supposed to be doing.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14054
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #83 on: April 17, 2015, 02:01:05 PM »
At red lights -yeah - not all traffic signals go to sidestreet - many run on a rest-in-green timing which means mainstreet will stay green until something with enough metal in it rests on the induction loops to trip the signal to change. This doesn't give you the right to just roll through the light. There are 2 ways to trip the light. One is to hit the pedestrian button. This will force the light to enter a clearance phase (usually 10-15 seconds, then change. A second way is to trick the light into believing you are a car. To do this, tape a rare earth magnet to teh bottom of your bike at its lowest point (chainstay or bottom bracket, or even a pedal). Stop with the magnet right over the black line rectangular cutout at the intersections.  The magnet will force teh loop to detect you, and the light will go through its clearance phase and then cycle to sidestreet.

In Toronto the lights with timers have three long cuts that go down the center of the lane spaced about two feet apart.  If you rest both your wheels directly over one of these cuts it will trigger the sensor just like a car 99% of the time.  No need for magnets or doo-dads.

(I've only tried this with regular aluminum rims, not sure if it still works for fancy carbon fiber race type ones.)

Le Poisson

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12378
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #84 on: April 17, 2015, 02:10:33 PM »
Correct Guitar - You are doing it exactly right. We get a lot of calls from cyclists and motorbikes with too little metal in them to trip the lights. For them the rare earth magnets usually work.

Here's the "how stuff works" on it: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/question234.htm

At some locations we have tried infra-red and video detection, but we end up cycling the lights for rain drops and stray dogs with those, so the good old induction loop is still used 90% of the time.