<p>“Bad, obnoxious drivers think they have a superior right to the road. They are incorrect. Roads are for traveling. I have as much right as a driver to be on the road, and I have no obligation to get off .”</p>
<p>Yet your tone suggests that you think you have a superior right to be on the bike paths compared to the joggers and baby strollers. You were just as derisive towards the joggers and strollers as what you claim to despise when drivers direct that derision towards you.</p>
<p>Our bike path has stop signs for bikers at intersections. Makes sense for safety sake.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Try this on for size. You’re a mother who has just had a baby. You’re going to try to get in some walking with a girlfriend and your baby stroller in order to get some exercise and lose the baby weight. You’re not going to walk on the roads, so you go on the paths designed for that purpose. You really enjoy your three-mile walk and the pounds are starting to fall off. This is a highlight of your day, and important both for health and stress relief. And there you are, walking and minding your own business. And some @#$)&(* on a bicycle swerves by and nearly clips you and the baby. Why, you might say:</p>
<p>“I take umbrage at cyclists who do dangerous things that might kill me. I think people who get upset about other lawful traffic on the path delaying them should realize that they don’t own the paths, and they have to share with the rest of the people using the paths.”</p>
<p>As to passing a right-turning motorist on their right, if I have room to do that, that motorist is in the wrong place. They should merge right, and then turn. If they are in the process of merging into my lane, then I of course have the right of way because I’m already in it. If they are planning to turn without merging, they are incompetent. It’s not always clear how to deal with incompetent motorists, because who knows how they will act? If they appear to be planning to turn right without merging, I move around them to the left and yell at them.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>></p>
<p>I’m not understanding this at all. Merge? One simply turns right, 90 degrees from one street onto another street.</p>
<p>^At least for those of us in areas without dedicated bike lanes. On the roads I share with bikes there’s no lane to merge into.</p>
<p>I don’t mind slowing down for a few minutes until I can get into the left-hand lane to pass a cyclist with plenty of room. They really don’t have a better alternative than to ride on the awful Post Rd. And I do feel that they have a perfect right to drive on the road, even if they are going more slowly than the cars. I do get annoyed when I have to do this 3 times for the same cyclist on a drive of a few miles, because the cyclist has repeatedly gotten ahead of cars by going through red lights and driving between the cars stopped at lights.</p>
<p>Maybe I am ill informed about this…I thought road was made for motorist (things which could go above 25 miles/hour), sidewalk was for pedestrians, and bike lane was for cyclists. If I were to take a walk on a road without a sidewalk, it would be on me to be more careful to watch out for cars and I would certainly not walk in the middle of road and hold up traffic. I wouldn’t expect motorists to do anything differently just because I choose to walk on a road without sidewalk.
Walkers, runners, and skaters are traveling too, so should they be allowed to walk/run/skate on the road? I don’t understand why cyclists feel they are entitled to ride 5-10 miles per hour on a road which has speed limit of 45+. But I do see cyclists are annoyed to have people with strollers walking on their bike lane.</p>
<p>The idea is that the car is supposed to merge half way into the bike lane to cut that lane off from use in anticipation of the turn so a cyclist cannot pass. On our newest suburban roads many of the bike lanes have that dashed merge zone for cars to pass over the bike lane (if clear) to get to the turn lane if there is one or just turn. The bikes still have the right of way in that lane so it would be like merging over to an adjacent car lane. The biggest issue is in places with hills and where there isn’t enough space for dedicated lane improvements at intersections. We have retrofitted roads where bike lanes exist in the middle but not at the intersections because of the expense of redoing the entire intersection, sidewalks, curb cuts etc. Where it narrows and there is only one lane each way with no shoulder due to space constraints cars should be free to make turning motions with bikes actually in the lane like a car and proceeding when it is their turn. When they ride up along the side mirror or between cars it just isn’t safe. At one such intersection up the street from me I have had those recumbent bikes try to squeeze in along side. They are so low to the ground that you can’t actually see them above the door of your car. They usually have an orange flag on the back but if they are directly along side of you the back flag doesn’t help with visibility.</p>
<p>he law is clear about my rights as a cyclist. I am entitled to use the road. If five drivers are behind me and unable to pass I must pull over and let them pass, just as I would if I were in a slow-moving motorized vehicle.>>>>>></p>
<p>Then I apologize. I totally misread your earlier posts. Thank you.</p>
<p>In our area much of the bike/car conflict occurs when bikes are moving faster than the flow of traffic.</p>
<p>I apologize for not making myself clear about multi-use trails. Joggers and walkers and moms with strollers and elderly people out for an airing and little kids on trikes and older kids just learning to ride bikes have every right to be on multi-use trails. I’m glad they’re out and about and enjoying the fresh air! More power to them! </p>
<p>But if I’m trying to get somewhere, I will avoid a multi-use trail when it is busy. Busy multi-use trails are dangerous for bikes. I will, instead, take the road, because on the road I have a lower chance of a crash and I don’t want to crash. Also, I can go faster.</p>
<p>I’m not saying joggers and stroller-moms should stay off the multi-use trails. I’m saying I should stay off them when they’re busy. </p>
<p>As to making right turns, here’s a site with pictures:
<a href=“Bike Lanes and Right Turns – San Francisco Bicycle Coalition”>http://www.sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/</a></p>
<p>Thanks for clarifying, CF. </p>
<p>In our area the strollers and dog walkers and roller bladers tend to stay off the trails during rush hour because all the bikes are there so it isn’t fun to be there walking and anyway many people are busy doing other things at that time. It works out pretty well. Lots of bikers use them to get to and from work. But at other times during daylight hours the paths are not much fun for bikers, at least the paths close to downtown, very congested. Further out there are rec trails that go for many many miles that have bikes at all times and aren’t as busy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hear that a lot, from motorists who need to become better informed. </p>
<p>In my area, roads were made for oxen, mules and horses, as the teams dragged the logs to the lumber mills, then took the cut lumber to the ports.</p>
<p>In the east, roads were made for walkers, equestrians, and carts and carriages pulled by horses.</p>
<p>Then around the turn of the 20th century bikes came along. It’s a little known fact (except by cyclists) that the initial push for paving roads, the Good Roads Movement, was a bicyclist initiative in the 1890s. At that point, motorists were not even a factor.</p>
<p>Later, motorists took over the roads. But roads, and paved roads, pre-date cars.</p>
<p>But what about now? Now, bicycles are recognized by the law as legitimate road users. I love this quote from a Minnesota court case about the matter:
</p>
<p>And this simpler one, from a California court case:
</p>
<p>For more (California-centric): <a href=“http://www.cabobike.org/articles/bicycles-and-the-law/”>http://www.cabobike.org/articles/bicycles-and-the-law/</a></p>
<p>Well, it’s not fully recognized as being a car’s “equal,” as I can’t ride a bike on a highway. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Coming into this late and I admit that I have skimmed through most of the 174 posts–here’s my question. Is the above a law that’s common in most states? I have to say that I have never seen a bicyclist with many cars behind him/her pull over and let the cars pass. In my town, which is in a rural area, there are very few roads that have a shoulder so pulling over is really difficult for the guy/gal on a bicycle. Even when it’s not difficult, I don’t think I’ve ever seen it happen in my town, which is popular destination for weekend bikers from the city. Also, what’s the protocol when there are people riding two or three abreast–that makes it even more difficult to pass. </p>
<p>The protocol when people are riding two or three abreast, and traffic is behind them, is that they move to riding single file so motorists can pass! I hesitate to recommend honking at bikes, because people do it too much, but in this situation if the riders are riding two or three abreast and blocking five cars (or even one car), a tap on the horn to get their attention seems in order.</p>
<p>As I understand the law (in my state, California) the requirement applies when five cars are stuck behind me. The issue is not that drivers have to slow down to pass me. That might happen. The issue is when five cars are behind me (or behind a car, the law is the same for cars and bikes) and they can’t pass at all. This rarely happens to me, because even though I ride on narrow twisty roads with no shoulder, most of the time there is no oncoming traffic so the drivers can, one by one, cross the centerline a bit and go around me. If the drivers are doing that, I don’t need to pull over. So a clot of drivers rarely builds up behind me unless there was already a clot when they got to me. </p>
<p>CF, that is a nice illustration and that is how I do it, but imagine the car in the drawing is three times longer… like a city bus. It will not be able to make the turn from the right lane, it will need both lanes. Some unfortunate topography and the resulting bicyclist’s speed going downhill can lead to an accident in that case, even if the driver carefully checks everything in his sight prior to making the turn. Those rigs turn so sloooowly. </p>
<p>Re: horns and bells. I do not mind when bicyclists use their bell or say “on your left” when they pass me on the Beer trail. I usually wave at them to signal, “Got it!”</p>
<p>In our downtown we have mostly one way streets both directions. That means that the predominant turning motions flip flops every block. The whole thing comes to a head at the two intersections where a vehicle could turn left up the hill to get to the I-5 freeway onramps. </p>
<p>How many bicyclists know (not just common sense or courtesy) that they are supposed to pull over if there are 5 or more cars behind them? And is it safe to turn around and look if one is riding? Or where they should move to if they are in a bike lane and a motor vehicle to their left wants to turn right? Sounds like there should be an exam and license required of all cyclists (racing and recreational riders) so they understand the rules of the road. Bottom line, calling motor vehicle drivers idiots or whatever does not contribute to a civil conversation. Safety should be the major concern- for everyone on the road. And lastly, some of the historical discussion is starting to sound like another poster who likes to talk about stuff from decades ago as if it was relevant today. Regardless of why paved roads were first created last century or prior, its irrelevant in today’s motorized society in urban areas.</p>