Safely crossing solid centerlines
October 7, 2014 11:31 PM Subscribe
Crossing the Double Yellow Line
If you are like most motorists, you take the first opportunity to pass the cyclist safely, regardless of the stripe. After all, the purpose of the solid yellow line is to indicate where it is unsafe to pass, and the purpose of prohibiting drivers from crossing a solid yellow line to pass another driver is to prevent unsafe passing. So if it is safe to pass, then why is the solid yellow line there in the first place?
The legal ambiguity around crossing a solid centerline line is a source of conflict for cyclists, motorists, police officers, and driving instructors. Motorists can be unnecessarily inconvenienced because they believe that they are not allowed to pass a cyclist. Their frustration can lead to resentment and hostility toward cyclists. It can even lead to riskier behavior and crashes. A motorist might honk or yell at cyclists or might buzz them to avoid crossing a solid centerline. In the worst cases, motorists have attempted to squeeze past cyclists within the same lane and fatally struck the cyclists.
[...]
The ambiguity about crossing a solid centerline frustrates driving instructors who teach cyclists or motorists about safely interacting with the other. In a typical encounter between a cyclist and a motorist on a narrow two-lane road, the safe and effective technique for the motorist is to wait behind the bicyclist until it is safe to move into the oncoming lane to pass. The safe and effective behavior for the cyclist consists of controlling the lane (taking a position in the lane far enough leftward to discourage motorists from attempting to pass) while there is oncoming traffic or any other conditions that would make passing unsafe, and at other times encouraging the motorist, through a more rightward position and/or gestures, to move into the oncoming lane to pass. This technique is known as Control and Release. However, discussion of these techniques are frequently derailed by arguments over whether it is legal for the motorist to cross a solid centerline to pass a cyclist and when it is legal for a cyclist travel on a road under any conditions in which motorists cannot legally pass them.
In California, it is now illegal to cross the double yellow line to pass a cyclist.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 11:56 PM on October 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 11:56 PM on October 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
My mind across the double yellow line...
posted by vibratory manner of working at 12:05 AM on October 8, 2014
posted by vibratory manner of working at 12:05 AM on October 8, 2014
Where I drive, cyclists (much like tractors) are classified as Slow Moving Vehicles (but exempt from having to display the orange triangle sign) and as such you're allowed to pass them, even on a double yellow, but "only when it is safe to do so."
posted by furtive at 12:06 AM on October 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by furtive at 12:06 AM on October 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
It's a bit tricky, as a cyclist. I hate to say it, but it feels like that the more you try to make it easy for cars to get around you, the more likely you are to be passed in a blatantly unsafe manner. If a car can just zoom by you at full speed without doing anything, they'll do it regardless of the passing distance. If a car can pass you by just nipping into the other lane, they'll do it regardless of visibility (I've had drivers jump into the other lane to pass me and nearly head-on oncoming traffic, because I guess blind turns and hills don't count when you're passing a bike).
The best result from the average driver seems to be when you ride significantly in the lane of traffic, so they can't pass you at all without getting mostly in the other lane - this seems to reactivate the part of the driver's mind that tells them "oh shit, I'm passing" and they'll use blinkers and give you some space and in general pass you in a non-shitty manner. Of course, this gets you the most rage and is dangerous from the perspective of drivers who just don't spot you at all, although once a driver is waiting to pass you they protect you from drivers behind them to some degree.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:23 AM on October 8, 2014 [28 favorites]
The best result from the average driver seems to be when you ride significantly in the lane of traffic, so they can't pass you at all without getting mostly in the other lane - this seems to reactivate the part of the driver's mind that tells them "oh shit, I'm passing" and they'll use blinkers and give you some space and in general pass you in a non-shitty manner. Of course, this gets you the most rage and is dangerous from the perspective of drivers who just don't spot you at all, although once a driver is waiting to pass you they protect you from drivers behind them to some degree.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:23 AM on October 8, 2014 [28 favorites]
When I'm biking on narrow two-way streets, cars will often take the option of edging over the double yellow line to give me a wide berth, and I'm grateful for it. I try to do the same when I'm driving.
For better or worse, between bikes and delivery trucks and double-parked cars and pulled-over cabs, crossing the double yellow line is something of a necessity around here. On the bright side, we're dealing with lower-speed urban streets, and not the higher-speed roads considered in the article.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:46 AM on October 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
For better or worse, between bikes and delivery trucks and double-parked cars and pulled-over cabs, crossing the double yellow line is something of a necessity around here. On the bright side, we're dealing with lower-speed urban streets, and not the higher-speed roads considered in the article.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:46 AM on October 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I figure people in cars often just don't realize how dangerous it is to be on a bicycle crammed in between a door zone and a car flying by at 30mph.
posted by aniola at 1:16 AM on October 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by aniola at 1:16 AM on October 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
Catch and release only really works if the driver is aware of what the cyclist is trying to do and is not an idiot. The problem is that there's a lot of drivers who are not paying attention and have rage as the default response to cyclists.
posted by arcticseal at 1:28 AM on October 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by arcticseal at 1:28 AM on October 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
How about turning on a double white line? I have to make a turn on double white line to reach my home. Otherwise, I have to go around the town for about 10 - 20 minutes depending on traffic (because of no turnings and one way roads) to end up on the other side of the road and make a turn.
posted by TomDunn at 1:53 AM on October 8, 2014
posted by TomDunn at 1:53 AM on October 8, 2014
Convention trumps what's on the books. We have, for example, a road that was "converted" from four to two lanes but still driven as four lanes. We have no-left-turn signs people freely ignore in front of police. If enough people dip over the line to pass cyclists in an area, then more will do it with increasing confidence and precision, and oncoming motorists will be more alert in the areas where passing is more frequently done.
posted by michaelh at 2:20 AM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by michaelh at 2:20 AM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
We really need a word for this concept of "if you put in too many safety features, people disable or ignore them, and it's worse than if those features weren't there at all." This is a prime example. In yet another difference between the US and the UK - the attitude towards the centerline differs remarkably. In the US, it seems, the default is double-yellow, with a dashed line only if it's really, really clear. In the UK, the default is a dashed line, with a double solid only when it's OMG scary scary blind corner1. As a result, in general2 people respect double solid lines and don't overtake cyclists on them, because they can trust that they're there for a good reason. Whereas in the US, there's no indication to say "no, this really is a dangerous section of road, you really shouldn't overtake here."
1: They also have a gradient of dashed lines, with widely spaced dashes meaning safe to pass, more closely spaced dashes indicating use caution.
2: Ludicrous drivers of white vans excepted.
posted by penguinicity at 2:21 AM on October 8, 2014 [8 favorites]
1: They also have a gradient of dashed lines, with widely spaced dashes meaning safe to pass, more closely spaced dashes indicating use caution.
2: Ludicrous drivers of white vans excepted.
posted by penguinicity at 2:21 AM on October 8, 2014 [8 favorites]
2: Ludicrous drivers of white vans excepted.
Ludacris drives a Bentley.
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 3:01 AM on October 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
Ludacris drives a Bentley.
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 3:01 AM on October 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
I have reservations about this "control and release" technique, because I'm not sure a bicycle rider is the best judge of when it's safe for a car to go into the other lane to pass.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:28 AM on October 8, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:28 AM on October 8, 2014 [7 favorites]
I think there are very specific roads in terms of traffic volumes and speeds, as well as sight distances, where the "catch and release" plan can work. But a lot of other roads just aren't appropriate for that, and people should use different techniques more appropriate to that instance.
I cross double yellow lines all the time in order to swing wide around cyclists, slow farm machinery, animals standing on the side of the road, or to give the maximum room for a stopped emergency vehicle. Basic safety trumps rules -- and I've always understood the double yellow as preventing full speed overtaking, not slowing for a cyclist or a deer and then swinging out to pass when there is no oncoming traffic. Apparently that's not universally true, and perhaps I'll end up with a ticket for it some day, but I'm going to keep doing what is safe rather than taking a more narrow view of the rules.
But the general point that in the US cyclists face poor rules, poor signage, and drivers with a limited understanding of bicycles is very true (and it doesn't help that many bicyclists seem to have an equally poor understanding of how to ride on the roads); this piece stood out to me by offering concrete regulatory suggestions that look to me (as a driver and cyclist, but not a traffic engineer) to offer realistic improvements to a complex situation.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:50 AM on October 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I cross double yellow lines all the time in order to swing wide around cyclists, slow farm machinery, animals standing on the side of the road, or to give the maximum room for a stopped emergency vehicle. Basic safety trumps rules -- and I've always understood the double yellow as preventing full speed overtaking, not slowing for a cyclist or a deer and then swinging out to pass when there is no oncoming traffic. Apparently that's not universally true, and perhaps I'll end up with a ticket for it some day, but I'm going to keep doing what is safe rather than taking a more narrow view of the rules.
But the general point that in the US cyclists face poor rules, poor signage, and drivers with a limited understanding of bicycles is very true (and it doesn't help that many bicyclists seem to have an equally poor understanding of how to ride on the roads); this piece stood out to me by offering concrete regulatory suggestions that look to me (as a driver and cyclist, but not a traffic engineer) to offer realistic improvements to a complex situation.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:50 AM on October 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
Whereas in the US, there's no indication to say "no, this really is a dangerous section of road, you really shouldn't overtake here."
Where I live in the US (Western PA) basically every rural two-lane road is dangerous and scary. The roads are generally narrow with no shoulder, filled with sharp curves, steep hills and usually heavy forest on both sides so that there's zero visibility. Then add in rain, sleet and/or snow and you've got some fun driving.
posted by octothorpe at 4:58 AM on October 8, 2014
Where I live in the US (Western PA) basically every rural two-lane road is dangerous and scary. The roads are generally narrow with no shoulder, filled with sharp curves, steep hills and usually heavy forest on both sides so that there's zero visibility. Then add in rain, sleet and/or snow and you've got some fun driving.
posted by octothorpe at 4:58 AM on October 8, 2014
I often wonder, when motorists overtake me, if they are afraid that they will be doomed to plod along behind me at 30km/h forever unless they pass me immediately. The truth is:
- I don't want a large hunk of metal following directly behind me for any longer than is necessary.
- I know that your journey is as important as mine and I don't get any pleasure out of holding you up.
- I need time to find a spot where it is safe for me to pull aside and make room for you to pass.
- I will only "claim the lane" for as long as is necessary to prevent you attempting an unsafe pass.
If motorists would just hold off on the aggression and give me, say, 30 seconds to find a safe spot on the shoulder of the road, I will gladly make room for them to pass me safely. If they honk and yell and rev their engines, it will take a bit longer because I will be busy worrying about my personal safety instead of concentrating on the road conditions.
Part of the problem, I think, is that it is really hard for a motorist to tell exactly how close they are passing me or how terrifying an unsafe pass can feel to a rider. Motorists are ensconced in a strengthened steel box. If they hit me, they are unlikely to be personally injured. Their bumper bar will probably protect the rest of their car from damage. I have a bike made of thin steel tubing, a delicate human spine and nothing but a helmet to protect me. "Close" is relative.
(If this seems strange to you, consider whether you have ever been passed from behind by a cyclist while walking in a park. What feels like a "close pass" to you probably doesn't feel that way to the cyclist - they have control of their vehicle and they probably know they're not going to hit you - but because you are slower and unprotected, it can give you a real fright. I always give pedestrians a much wider berth than is really necessary in order not to hit them, because I know what it feels like when a larger, faster vehicle comes too close).
Also, let's be honest - how common is it really for a road to have only two lanes and no shoulder, and yet be considered safe for a car to travel at high speed? I guess this varies from country to country, but where I am, narrow roads like this are either in residential areas (where motorists should be driving carefully anyway to avoid hitting children/pets/pedestrians) or they are secondary rural roads (where there is usually a main highway as an alternative, and road conditions such as tight bends or steep drop-offs mean drivers ought to slow down anyway for their own safety).
It should, of course, go without saying that if there is more than one lane in each direction, drivers should pass cyclists by indicating and changing lanes, just as they would if they encountered a garbage truck or a police horse or someone towing a caravan. Just because you think you can squeeze past, doesn't mean you should.
posted by embrangled at 4:59 AM on October 8, 2014 [14 favorites]
- I don't want a large hunk of metal following directly behind me for any longer than is necessary.
- I know that your journey is as important as mine and I don't get any pleasure out of holding you up.
- I need time to find a spot where it is safe for me to pull aside and make room for you to pass.
- I will only "claim the lane" for as long as is necessary to prevent you attempting an unsafe pass.
If motorists would just hold off on the aggression and give me, say, 30 seconds to find a safe spot on the shoulder of the road, I will gladly make room for them to pass me safely. If they honk and yell and rev their engines, it will take a bit longer because I will be busy worrying about my personal safety instead of concentrating on the road conditions.
Part of the problem, I think, is that it is really hard for a motorist to tell exactly how close they are passing me or how terrifying an unsafe pass can feel to a rider. Motorists are ensconced in a strengthened steel box. If they hit me, they are unlikely to be personally injured. Their bumper bar will probably protect the rest of their car from damage. I have a bike made of thin steel tubing, a delicate human spine and nothing but a helmet to protect me. "Close" is relative.
(If this seems strange to you, consider whether you have ever been passed from behind by a cyclist while walking in a park. What feels like a "close pass" to you probably doesn't feel that way to the cyclist - they have control of their vehicle and they probably know they're not going to hit you - but because you are slower and unprotected, it can give you a real fright. I always give pedestrians a much wider berth than is really necessary in order not to hit them, because I know what it feels like when a larger, faster vehicle comes too close).
Also, let's be honest - how common is it really for a road to have only two lanes and no shoulder, and yet be considered safe for a car to travel at high speed? I guess this varies from country to country, but where I am, narrow roads like this are either in residential areas (where motorists should be driving carefully anyway to avoid hitting children/pets/pedestrians) or they are secondary rural roads (where there is usually a main highway as an alternative, and road conditions such as tight bends or steep drop-offs mean drivers ought to slow down anyway for their own safety).
It should, of course, go without saying that if there is more than one lane in each direction, drivers should pass cyclists by indicating and changing lanes, just as they would if they encountered a garbage truck or a police horse or someone towing a caravan. Just because you think you can squeeze past, doesn't mean you should.
posted by embrangled at 4:59 AM on October 8, 2014 [14 favorites]
The problem is that there's a lot of drivers who are not paying attention and have rage as the default response to cyclists.
Everything.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:10 AM on October 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Everything.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:10 AM on October 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
I commute along a bus route on a narrow road, and if a bus looks like they might pick up a passenger any time soon, motorists have ZERO qualms about crossing the double yellow lines to pass them. It's the most dangerous situation I can imagine because they are not paying attention at all to the actual condition of the bus. Did the bus just close its door and start to pull back into the roadway proper? Doesn't matter, if even a centimeter of the bus tire is in the bike lane (where it pulls over to pick up passengers), every motorist and most cyclists and passing on the left and over the yellow lines.
I don't know what Texas' laws are concerning the double yellows, but it seems to me that a traffic cop could meet their before they're done with their first cup of coffee if they just camp out along the bus route.
I have reservations about this "control and release" technique, because I'm not sure a bicycle rider is the best judge of when it's safe for a car to go into the other lane to pass.
But they are the best judge of when it's not safe for you to pass them. They are not forcing you into the other lane, but telling you that it's not safe to pass in the same lane now, so you need to decide what you want to do from there (wait patiently or pass).
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:17 AM on October 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I don't know what Texas' laws are concerning the double yellows, but it seems to me that a traffic cop could meet their before they're done with their first cup of coffee if they just camp out along the bus route.
I have reservations about this "control and release" technique, because I'm not sure a bicycle rider is the best judge of when it's safe for a car to go into the other lane to pass.
But they are the best judge of when it's not safe for you to pass them. They are not forcing you into the other lane, but telling you that it's not safe to pass in the same lane now, so you need to decide what you want to do from there (wait patiently or pass).
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:17 AM on October 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
Whereas in the US, there's no indication to say "no, this really is a dangerous section of road, you really shouldn't overtake here."
On my commute, there's a very dangerous span where the road narrows, so the bike lane merges into the traffic lane for about a block. It's a heavy traffic road. The city painted indicators in the lane of bikes moving from the bike lane into the center of the main traffic lane and put up special warning signs. Did this make a wit of difference? NOPE.
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:22 AM on October 8, 2014
On my commute, there's a very dangerous span where the road narrows, so the bike lane merges into the traffic lane for about a block. It's a heavy traffic road. The city painted indicators in the lane of bikes moving from the bike lane into the center of the main traffic lane and put up special warning signs. Did this make a wit of difference? NOPE.
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:22 AM on October 8, 2014
I guess everybody's experience is different. I live in the inner/"old" suburbs of DC and there are a lot of heavily-used collectors/minor arterials that are 2-lane/no shoulder. Because in the old suburbs these are usually laid over old farm roads they are also typically pretty twisty/hilly with lousy sight lines and double yellows that stretch for miles. And the situation on the major arterials is even worse, because even though you've now got multiple lanes, during heavy traffic times effectively losing an entire lane to a cyclist (just like losing a lane to a crew repairing a pothole or a disabled vehicle) as everyone has to merge left is just the sort of disruption than can throw off the fragile balance of an overloaded road.
As both a respectful driver and occasional cyclist, it's a lousy situation for everyone, especially during rush hour. The horrible irony is that encouraging more car commuters (or kids going to school, for example) to become cyclists would ease the traffic burden on these overloaded roads during critical times, but it's a tough choice to become a cycle commuter or give your kid the OK to ride to school when bike facilities are so poor. It's not even so much just the problem of angry drivers; as a cyclist I've never had a problem with angry drivers, and as a driver I don't think I've witnessed blatantly unsafe or hostile behavior from fellow drivers either. I see a lot more bad/unsafe driving behavior with respect to other automobiles. Which is not to say it never happens--just that 99% of drivers out there seem to be trying to do their best under crappy circumstances.
posted by drlith at 6:23 AM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
As both a respectful driver and occasional cyclist, it's a lousy situation for everyone, especially during rush hour. The horrible irony is that encouraging more car commuters (or kids going to school, for example) to become cyclists would ease the traffic burden on these overloaded roads during critical times, but it's a tough choice to become a cycle commuter or give your kid the OK to ride to school when bike facilities are so poor. It's not even so much just the problem of angry drivers; as a cyclist I've never had a problem with angry drivers, and as a driver I don't think I've witnessed blatantly unsafe or hostile behavior from fellow drivers either. I see a lot more bad/unsafe driving behavior with respect to other automobiles. Which is not to say it never happens--just that 99% of drivers out there seem to be trying to do their best under crappy circumstances.
posted by drlith at 6:23 AM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
We really need a word for this concept of "if you put in too many safety features, people disable or ignore them, and it's worse than if those features weren't there at all."
I live between what used to be two five-way intersections. At one of them, they installed a traffic light and it seemed from that point on that there was an accident there nearly every day. It got so bad that they actually closed off one of the entrances to the intersection. At the other five way intersection, they simply had stop signs and while it was already a quieter intersection it had much fewer accidents. The traffic light gave people a false sense of safety while drivers at the intersection with stop signs were extremely cautious and attentive because driving through there was f---ing terrifying.
posted by dances with hamsters at 6:43 AM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
I live between what used to be two five-way intersections. At one of them, they installed a traffic light and it seemed from that point on that there was an accident there nearly every day. It got so bad that they actually closed off one of the entrances to the intersection. At the other five way intersection, they simply had stop signs and while it was already a quieter intersection it had much fewer accidents. The traffic light gave people a false sense of safety while drivers at the intersection with stop signs were extremely cautious and attentive because driving through there was f---ing terrifying.
posted by dances with hamsters at 6:43 AM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
The best result from the average driver seems to be when you ride significantly in the lane of traffic, so they can't pass you at all without getting mostly in the other lane - this seems to reactivate the part of the driver's mind that tells them "oh shit, I'm passing" and they'll use blinkers and give you some space and in general pass you in a non-shitty manner.
THIS. This is basically the advice I give to all new cyclists: Don't be shy about taking the whole lane. If you can't ride safely in the shoulder, don't ride in the shoulder. Don't dodge in and out of traffic -- merging and weaving are dangerous, and should be done as infrequently as possible.
I often point out that bikes are not cars, and are not subject to the exact set of laws, regulations, and norms. However, when you take up a whole lane, you are essentially signaling that you are in "car mode," and expect to interact with traffic as though you were a car.
If the lane is too narrow for a car to safely pass you, you should make every attempt to make this fact blindingly obvious to the motorists who are behind you. The cyclist has a *much* better perception of the width of the road (and condition of the shoulder) than the motorist does.
Once there's room to safely ride off to the side, it's polite to go back to doing so. Don't prevent bikes or cars from passing by riding two-abreast -- this pisses people off, and muddles your intentions for riding in the traffic lane.
Also, it's basically every bit as dangerous to "slightly" cross the yellow line to pass a cyclist as it is to fully cross over to pass a car (except for the fact that the cyclist will be going slower). If there's oncoming traffic present, it's not going to matter very much if you're occupying 30% or 100% of their lane.
tl;dr: Stand up for your own safety. Don't be a dick.
posted by schmod at 7:04 AM on October 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
THIS. This is basically the advice I give to all new cyclists: Don't be shy about taking the whole lane. If you can't ride safely in the shoulder, don't ride in the shoulder. Don't dodge in and out of traffic -- merging and weaving are dangerous, and should be done as infrequently as possible.
I often point out that bikes are not cars, and are not subject to the exact set of laws, regulations, and norms. However, when you take up a whole lane, you are essentially signaling that you are in "car mode," and expect to interact with traffic as though you were a car.
If the lane is too narrow for a car to safely pass you, you should make every attempt to make this fact blindingly obvious to the motorists who are behind you. The cyclist has a *much* better perception of the width of the road (and condition of the shoulder) than the motorist does.
Once there's room to safely ride off to the side, it's polite to go back to doing so. Don't prevent bikes or cars from passing by riding two-abreast -- this pisses people off, and muddles your intentions for riding in the traffic lane.
Also, it's basically every bit as dangerous to "slightly" cross the yellow line to pass a cyclist as it is to fully cross over to pass a car (except for the fact that the cyclist will be going slower). If there's oncoming traffic present, it's not going to matter very much if you're occupying 30% or 100% of their lane.
tl;dr: Stand up for your own safety. Don't be a dick.
posted by schmod at 7:04 AM on October 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I guess everybody's experience is different. I live in the inner/"old" suburbs of DC and there are a lot of heavily-used collectors/minor arterials that are 2-lane/no shoulder. Because in the old suburbs these are usually laid over old farm roads they are also typically pretty twisty/hilly with lousy sight lines and double yellows that stretch for miles. And the situation on the major arterials is even worse, because even though you've now got multiple lanes
The irony here is that Arlington County managed to build a road network that is very friendly to cyclists (without really making many compromises), while PG County seems to design its roads with the express purpose of killing them.
This is purely a "Maryland" problem. Thanks to similarly-terrible planning, transit usage is also dismally low in the neighborhoods that you're talking about.
posted by schmod at 7:10 AM on October 8, 2014
The irony here is that Arlington County managed to build a road network that is very friendly to cyclists (without really making many compromises), while PG County seems to design its roads with the express purpose of killing them.
This is purely a "Maryland" problem. Thanks to similarly-terrible planning, transit usage is also dismally low in the neighborhoods that you're talking about.
posted by schmod at 7:10 AM on October 8, 2014
As a cyclist and a driver, it never occurred to me that it was the yellow line preventing drivers giving cyclists enough space when passing. I'm pretty sure a lot more of it has to do with drivers who have never ridden a bike in a city not realizing 1.) how wide their car is and 2.) how dangerous and terrifying it is to pass by a cyclist closely at full speed. While thankfully my commute is now almost 100% buffered or protected bike lanes, in the past a lot of it included riding on city streets with no cycling infrastructure at all (or "sharrows" which are bullshit and insulting and do nothing). And the thing is, you can almost see some drivers tensing up, hunching their shoulders with this "oohhhh gooooddddd i hope i don't hit that biker" expression on their faces as they pass, yet the thought of, idk, using their brake pedal and waiting till there is room to pass doesn't seem to even occur to them.
I've experienced this as a driver too and had to consciously alter my mindset when in the car. There is just something about being in a car that makes it feel like you are entitled to go at full speed at all times, and anything that interrupts that -- a inexplicably slow car in front of you, a cyclist in the way, a car turning left, a truck blocking the road to back up into a driveway, construction, whatever -- can cause a lot of rage and poor behavior as the driver tries to get around the obstruction as quickly as possible and get back up to speed. Being a cyclist has made me a much better driver!
As I've gotten older I've become a more cautious cyclist and honestly, I'm not sure how cyclists in more suburban or rural areas manage, with all the high speed limits and curvy roads. As scary as riding in the city can sometimes be, I'll take my 30mph speed limits, grid street network, and lots of lights/stop signs/etc. any day. There are some streets, like Western or Ashland here in Chicago, that I refuse to ride on because they are 2 lanes in each direction plus center turn lane and the traffic is often going WAY faster than 30mph.
(Self link: I recently wrote up some suggestions for drivers in a blog post Don't Drive Like a Dickweed, a follow up to Mefi's own Juliet Banana's Don't Bike Like a Dickweed.)
posted by misskaz at 8:08 AM on October 8, 2014
I've experienced this as a driver too and had to consciously alter my mindset when in the car. There is just something about being in a car that makes it feel like you are entitled to go at full speed at all times, and anything that interrupts that -- a inexplicably slow car in front of you, a cyclist in the way, a car turning left, a truck blocking the road to back up into a driveway, construction, whatever -- can cause a lot of rage and poor behavior as the driver tries to get around the obstruction as quickly as possible and get back up to speed. Being a cyclist has made me a much better driver!
As I've gotten older I've become a more cautious cyclist and honestly, I'm not sure how cyclists in more suburban or rural areas manage, with all the high speed limits and curvy roads. As scary as riding in the city can sometimes be, I'll take my 30mph speed limits, grid street network, and lots of lights/stop signs/etc. any day. There are some streets, like Western or Ashland here in Chicago, that I refuse to ride on because they are 2 lanes in each direction plus center turn lane and the traffic is often going WAY faster than 30mph.
(Self link: I recently wrote up some suggestions for drivers in a blog post Don't Drive Like a Dickweed, a follow up to Mefi's own Juliet Banana's Don't Bike Like a Dickweed.)
posted by misskaz at 8:08 AM on October 8, 2014
Motorists are ensconced in a strengthened steel box. If they hit me, they are unlikely to be personally injured. Their bumper bar will probably protect the rest of their car from damage. I have a bike made of thin steel tubing, a delicate human spine and nothing but a helmet to protect me.
THIS!
I don't ride nearly as much as I should but I fondly recall the two years or so that I was able to commute by bike and I feel strongly that cycling needs to be promoted. However many of those who currently advocate for cyclists simply don't believe in physics! There are roads where cars and bikes can share the road safely without separate lanes e.g. residential neighborhood streets. Most roads are not like that. For them, sharing the road is gazelles and lions sharing a cage.
What we need is more bike lanes.
posted by Octaviuz at 8:15 AM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
THIS!
I don't ride nearly as much as I should but I fondly recall the two years or so that I was able to commute by bike and I feel strongly that cycling needs to be promoted. However many of those who currently advocate for cyclists simply don't believe in physics! There are roads where cars and bikes can share the road safely without separate lanes e.g. residential neighborhood streets. Most roads are not like that. For them, sharing the road is gazelles and lions sharing a cage.
What we need is more bike lanes.
posted by Octaviuz at 8:15 AM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Also, it's basically every bit as dangerous to "slightly" cross the yellow line to pass a cyclist as it is to fully cross over to pass a car (except for the fact that the cyclist will be going slower). If there's oncoming traffic present, it's not going to matter very much if you're occupying 30% or 100% of their lane.
What? The oncoming traffic has three times as much space to work with. Depending vastly on the specifics of the road but that could be the difference between "dive into the weeds to get out of that asshole's way" and "head on collision".
posted by Skorgu at 8:28 AM on October 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
What? The oncoming traffic has three times as much space to work with. Depending vastly on the specifics of the road but that could be the difference between "dive into the weeds to get out of that asshole's way" and "head on collision".
posted by Skorgu at 8:28 AM on October 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
Don't miss this article either: http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/
posted by Joe Chip at 8:30 AM on October 8, 2014
posted by Joe Chip at 8:30 AM on October 8, 2014
My daily commute takes me on this road, which is curvy and has only one lane each direction with no shoulder and a double yellow the whole way. This is outside bicycle mecca Portland, so there are sometimes cyclists on this road. The speed limit is 45-50mph. This is also a major truck route because there are no hazmats allowed in the tunnel between the west side and Portland (26 just west of 405). There are not very many parts where you can see far enough ahead to pass, and there is just so much traffic on this road. Also there is quite an elevation gain, so bikes going along the uphill part are moving VERY SLOW. You pretty much have to pass or your 45-minute commute becomes a 90-minute commute.
Now, I am a cyclist and I have the I-support-bicycling plates on my car and everything, but I really wish cyclists followed the rule that trucks on that road often do, which is if there are more than 6 cars stacked up behind you, pull over and let them pass. I fully agree with a cyclist's right to take the full lane, but there are pragmatic considerations too and I think pulling over occasionally to let cars pass as a rule might make everyone safer and happier.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 8:38 AM on October 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Now, I am a cyclist and I have the I-support-bicycling plates on my car and everything, but I really wish cyclists followed the rule that trucks on that road often do, which is if there are more than 6 cars stacked up behind you, pull over and let them pass. I fully agree with a cyclist's right to take the full lane, but there are pragmatic considerations too and I think pulling over occasionally to let cars pass as a rule might make everyone safer and happier.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 8:38 AM on October 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Making it "more legal" for cars to pass cyclists by driving in the opposite lane and often well above posted speed limits is not a good solution to this common problem.
The better solution is for all drivers to do what some already do: take a deep breath and wait 10-30 seconds. That's it. Ninety-nine percent of cyclists will disappear from your world in that time.
If a cyclist has been holding up traffic for more than 15 seconds, it's time for that cyclist to consider an alternate route or maybe even to pull over. For holding up a single car, the timer starts ticking at around 20 and runs out at 30 seconds.
The fact is, cars are basically never behind me for longer than that in the city. With turning, stop signs, red lights, me going faster than stop-and-go traffic, and all of the other things that happen, the problem of "car stuck behind cyclist for 20+ seconds" is almost non-existent.
Where it does exist, again, cyclists should consider pulling over after a grace period where it is safe to do so.
So drivers: take a deep breath, slow down for a few seconds, and the problem will almost always solve itself, without any of those stressful "I'm going way too fast in the opposite lane!!" situations that you always seem to get yourselves into.
posted by the thing about it at 8:46 AM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
The better solution is for all drivers to do what some already do: take a deep breath and wait 10-30 seconds. That's it. Ninety-nine percent of cyclists will disappear from your world in that time.
If a cyclist has been holding up traffic for more than 15 seconds, it's time for that cyclist to consider an alternate route or maybe even to pull over. For holding up a single car, the timer starts ticking at around 20 and runs out at 30 seconds.
The fact is, cars are basically never behind me for longer than that in the city. With turning, stop signs, red lights, me going faster than stop-and-go traffic, and all of the other things that happen, the problem of "car stuck behind cyclist for 20+ seconds" is almost non-existent.
Where it does exist, again, cyclists should consider pulling over after a grace period where it is safe to do so.
So drivers: take a deep breath, slow down for a few seconds, and the problem will almost always solve itself, without any of those stressful "I'm going way too fast in the opposite lane!!" situations that you always seem to get yourselves into.
posted by the thing about it at 8:46 AM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
There are roads where cars and bikes can share the road safely without separate lanes e.g. residential neighborhood streets. Most roads are not like that. For them, sharing the road is gazelles and lions sharing a cage.
I do a lot of bike touring - I've done several thousands miles over 3 trips just this year, all of Eastern Europe last year, all of the Pacific coast down into Mexico, both the Appalachian mountains and the Sierra Cascades... the kinds of trips where I ride all day for weeks at a time on all kinds of roads in all kinds of conditions. You try to pick the nice scenic, low traffic roads of course but when you're doing a few thousand miles inevitably you must take the roads that "bikes shouldn't be on" to get wherever you are going next. Twisty narrow mountain roads in the rain, dirt roads through towns that aren't on the map, scary feeder highways into large cities, no shoulder suburban roads with hostile drivers, bridges that weren't designed for a cyclist to cross at all, crazy roundabouts full of goats, rails to trails, that one time in South Carolina where I had to do a few miles on the interstate... I have ridden anything you can think of.
All you can do as a cyclist is be visible. And everywhere I have been, that is all it takes, because most people do not want to kill cyclists. It's common sense, basic human decency. Most people will pause for half a second and slow down or give you a wide berth regardless of the legality of the move or whether you "should" be there or not.
There are definitely some places I've ridden through where common sense does not prevail, because the people there have been locked inside glass and steel boxes their entire lives. They experience the world as disconnected bubbles, the spaces in between are a no man's land, just the trance of traffic to pass through from the climate controlled cockpit. The idea that there might be people out there in that void is foreign, and you are seen not as a human being but as an obstacle, an obstruction, an irritant. You broke the spell by being there, and sometimes people react poorly.
I've heard that lions in cages at the zoo sometimes become antisocial and lash out in their frustration. It's much the same with drivers.
posted by bradbane at 11:09 AM on October 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I do a lot of bike touring - I've done several thousands miles over 3 trips just this year, all of Eastern Europe last year, all of the Pacific coast down into Mexico, both the Appalachian mountains and the Sierra Cascades... the kinds of trips where I ride all day for weeks at a time on all kinds of roads in all kinds of conditions. You try to pick the nice scenic, low traffic roads of course but when you're doing a few thousand miles inevitably you must take the roads that "bikes shouldn't be on" to get wherever you are going next. Twisty narrow mountain roads in the rain, dirt roads through towns that aren't on the map, scary feeder highways into large cities, no shoulder suburban roads with hostile drivers, bridges that weren't designed for a cyclist to cross at all, crazy roundabouts full of goats, rails to trails, that one time in South Carolina where I had to do a few miles on the interstate... I have ridden anything you can think of.
All you can do as a cyclist is be visible. And everywhere I have been, that is all it takes, because most people do not want to kill cyclists. It's common sense, basic human decency. Most people will pause for half a second and slow down or give you a wide berth regardless of the legality of the move or whether you "should" be there or not.
There are definitely some places I've ridden through where common sense does not prevail, because the people there have been locked inside glass and steel boxes their entire lives. They experience the world as disconnected bubbles, the spaces in between are a no man's land, just the trance of traffic to pass through from the climate controlled cockpit. The idea that there might be people out there in that void is foreign, and you are seen not as a human being but as an obstacle, an obstruction, an irritant. You broke the spell by being there, and sometimes people react poorly.
I've heard that lions in cages at the zoo sometimes become antisocial and lash out in their frustration. It's much the same with drivers.
posted by bradbane at 11:09 AM on October 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I don't know about the bike lane suggestion above. I bike a lot, and I hate bike lanes. Well, I hate inadequate bike lanes, but that's 90% of them. Why?
Bike lanes come with the price of telling motorists you don't belong on the road, but are often unsuitable for travel. They're often too narrow, in the door zone, they start and stop, etc. Any of those things will make them more dangerous than simply riding in the road all of the time. Plus, they're often not swept or have terrible pavement. This is especially true of the holy grail, the buffered bike lane. Around here at least, they are never, ever, ever swept and are full of gravel and broken glass. I won't ever ride in them - they are guaranteed flat tire zones.
Plus all to them make you much less visible at intersections, so I'm not even sure they are safer.
I really think that bike lanes aren't there for cyclists - they are there to get you out of the way of cars.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:34 AM on October 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
Bike lanes come with the price of telling motorists you don't belong on the road, but are often unsuitable for travel. They're often too narrow, in the door zone, they start and stop, etc. Any of those things will make them more dangerous than simply riding in the road all of the time. Plus, they're often not swept or have terrible pavement. This is especially true of the holy grail, the buffered bike lane. Around here at least, they are never, ever, ever swept and are full of gravel and broken glass. I won't ever ride in them - they are guaranteed flat tire zones.
Plus all to them make you much less visible at intersections, so I'm not even sure they are safer.
I really think that bike lanes aren't there for cyclists - they are there to get you out of the way of cars.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:34 AM on October 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
Our city recently added bike lanes to a busy road that previously didn't have them. They did it two different ways on two different stretches. In one area, they provided a protected bike lane that ran between the sidewalk and the street parking. In another area, they created a dedicated car-sized lane that was for bikes and buses only.
The protected bike lane seems to me to be WAY more dangerous than the previous situation where there were no bike lanes. Pedestrians don't respect it as a roadway, drivers pull into it when they are trying to parallel park, and drivers in the main roadway can't see the bike lane well when they are turning at an intersection.
The BUS lane however, is great. I can ride in the middle of it without any worry that someone will merge in or out of my lane or try to squeeze me out of it. If there's a bus, there's still a shoulder that I can go into if I want to let them pass, or I can just race ahead of them since they are stopping every few blocks anyway.
Of course, this only works because this street is a major artery and has enough buses going down it to warrant an entire lane.
posted by tofu_crouton at 12:07 PM on October 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
The protected bike lane seems to me to be WAY more dangerous than the previous situation where there were no bike lanes. Pedestrians don't respect it as a roadway, drivers pull into it when they are trying to parallel park, and drivers in the main roadway can't see the bike lane well when they are turning at an intersection.
The BUS lane however, is great. I can ride in the middle of it without any worry that someone will merge in or out of my lane or try to squeeze me out of it. If there's a bus, there's still a shoulder that I can go into if I want to let them pass, or I can just race ahead of them since they are stopping every few blocks anyway.
Of course, this only works because this street is a major artery and has enough buses going down it to warrant an entire lane.
posted by tofu_crouton at 12:07 PM on October 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
Having been a pretty serious cycle commuter in the past (I avoid cycling now because it's too risky to potentially leave my family without a source of income), I try to be kind to cyclists when driving, including only passing when it is absolutely safe to do so, and this means observing the center-line. It's a little frustrating, but I know what it's like to have a giant metal box sliding by me.
posted by Nevin at 12:21 PM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Nevin at 12:21 PM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
I can sympathize with the vehicular cycling POV, I really can, but the numbers behind protected bike lanes really speak for themselves.
Personally, I see protected bike lanes as a necessary intermediary step to increase cycling before we go full Amsterdam. (You always want to go full Amerstdam.)
posted by entropicamericana at 12:39 PM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Personally, I see protected bike lanes as a necessary intermediary step to increase cycling before we go full Amsterdam. (You always want to go full Amerstdam.)
posted by entropicamericana at 12:39 PM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yes, there is a HUGE difference between a proper protected cycleway and a sad, glass-filled, door-zone cycle lane. When a cycleway is assertively protected by a raised concrete barrier, motorists make entirely different calculations about whether or not to enter it. Suddenly it's not just about some abstract cyclist who probably shouldn't be on the road anyway; it's about their car and their tyres and their personal safety. Funnily enough, motorists are much more conservative when their car is at risk then they are when cyclists lives are at risk. I feel much safer on a well-designed protected cycleway because I know that motorists can't harm me without also harming themselves.
My city (Sydney) has been building a network of separated cycleways (along with the usual anti-bike hysteria from tabloid media) and they have more than doubled cycling participation in just a couple of years. The network isn't complete yet, but just having a few usable routes in place has made cycling a viable option for people who would never have considered it five years ago. And having more bikes on the roads makes everyone safer, because drivers who regularly encounter cyclists are more much likely to look out for them. That's not to say that Sydney hasn't had its share of absurd road ragey incidents - it has - but the protected cycleways have gone a long way toward normalising cycling as a way of getting around the city.
posted by embrangled at 2:11 PM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
My city (Sydney) has been building a network of separated cycleways (along with the usual anti-bike hysteria from tabloid media) and they have more than doubled cycling participation in just a couple of years. The network isn't complete yet, but just having a few usable routes in place has made cycling a viable option for people who would never have considered it five years ago. And having more bikes on the roads makes everyone safer, because drivers who regularly encounter cyclists are more much likely to look out for them. That's not to say that Sydney hasn't had its share of absurd road ragey incidents - it has - but the protected cycleways have gone a long way toward normalising cycling as a way of getting around the city.
posted by embrangled at 2:11 PM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's really hard to say that protected bike lanes are awesome or awful without specifying which ones. Even the best protected-with-a-barrier bike lanes vary widely in how they're implemented, at least in the US. Common flaws include: not enough guidance for how cyclists and drivers should behave at intersections, insufficient or poorly-designed entry/exit points for the bike lane, too narrow for one person on a bike to pass another safely, lack of pavement maintenance/sweeping, lack of signs or other visual cues to let you know where you are since all the street signs are still aimed at the regular traffic lanes. (That last is a particular problem with a lot of entirely off-street bike paths.)
I've seen all of these in my area, and some of these problems crop up in the most recently built and fanciest bicycle infrastructure. It's really frustrating when new bike facilities are built for people riding purely for recreation, not simple transportation. Different cyclists have different needs at different times, but transportation's the harder one to accommodate, given that we mostly want to bike to the same places we do when we're driving cars or riding transit or walking. That means we really do need to spend at least some of that time in the same space, and the transportation infrastructure has to meet that need for everyone.
And sometimes, we're going to be on two-lane roads with a solid centerline, and it's useful to get some guidance on the best ways to deal with that. Like others here, I hadn't realized that a lot of people are shy of crossing those to pass slow-moving vehicles when it's safe to do so. Though given the way a lot of people won't change properly to the left lane to pass me biking in the right lane when there's not even any other traffic on a four-lane road, I probably ought to have guessed.
posted by asperity at 2:39 PM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
I've seen all of these in my area, and some of these problems crop up in the most recently built and fanciest bicycle infrastructure. It's really frustrating when new bike facilities are built for people riding purely for recreation, not simple transportation. Different cyclists have different needs at different times, but transportation's the harder one to accommodate, given that we mostly want to bike to the same places we do when we're driving cars or riding transit or walking. That means we really do need to spend at least some of that time in the same space, and the transportation infrastructure has to meet that need for everyone.
And sometimes, we're going to be on two-lane roads with a solid centerline, and it's useful to get some guidance on the best ways to deal with that. Like others here, I hadn't realized that a lot of people are shy of crossing those to pass slow-moving vehicles when it's safe to do so. Though given the way a lot of people won't change properly to the left lane to pass me biking in the right lane when there's not even any other traffic on a four-lane road, I probably ought to have guessed.
posted by asperity at 2:39 PM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's really hard to say that protected bike lanes are awesome or awful without specifying which ones.
Yes, that's true. Sydney has a mix of good and less-good cycleways - the quality varies a lot across different council areas and seems to be heavily dependent on the amount of NIMBYism from non-bike-riding residents during the planning process. Some cycelways are well-controlled with bike-specific lights at every intersection, giving cyclists a relatively smooth run and ensuring that turning cars don't hit cyclists unless someone disobeys the traffic lights. There are others with ridiculous bike-only give way signs at every intersection, giving cyclists an irritating stop-start ride and sending a dangerous message to drivers that cars naturally have priority over cyclists (they don't). But riding on a well-designed protected cycleway is absolute bliss - cycling is so much more fun when you can put the fear of death and injury a little further to the back of your mind and just enjoy the ride.
posted by embrangled at 4:14 PM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yes, that's true. Sydney has a mix of good and less-good cycleways - the quality varies a lot across different council areas and seems to be heavily dependent on the amount of NIMBYism from non-bike-riding residents during the planning process. Some cycelways are well-controlled with bike-specific lights at every intersection, giving cyclists a relatively smooth run and ensuring that turning cars don't hit cyclists unless someone disobeys the traffic lights. There are others with ridiculous bike-only give way signs at every intersection, giving cyclists an irritating stop-start ride and sending a dangerous message to drivers that cars naturally have priority over cyclists (they don't). But riding on a well-designed protected cycleway is absolute bliss - cycling is so much more fun when you can put the fear of death and injury a little further to the back of your mind and just enjoy the ride.
posted by embrangled at 4:14 PM on October 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think the authors of this piece are very optimistic and charitable. The fact, as I've learned from experience (and as someone who's read my province's Highways Act front to back), is that drivers have no idea what the laws are regarding cyclists and when confronted with that reality switch to arguing from what they think the law should be. Yesterday, I actually got into a shouting match with someone about the fact that I took the lane while turning left at an intersection, who refused to believe that the law does, in fact, require that, until I pointed to the little bicycle painted in the exact middle of the lane where I had been turning. There's really no emphasis on the law in driving exams, and drivers are never retested or refreshed during their lives. But would it help to change that? I doubt it.
When drivers get mad about cyclists being slow on the road, so I've been told over and over again, usually in the form of angry shouting, it's not because they're nervous about passing safely or unsure of what the markings mean. It's about the notion that "roads are for cars" (which is categorically not true, according to the law), and that cyclists are arrogant obstructionists. There's no anger directed at horses or buses or garbage trucks or any other slow vehicles, only bicycles. Why?
I don't know. I just can't figure it out. On nearly every ride, and I ride every day, someone (or multiple people) does something, whether "accidental" or clearly deliberate, that endangers my life. Worse, I obey the law and signs scrupulously, yet I get harassed for perfectly legal actions constantly. I just can't win, and with every ride, I lose more enthusiasm for the one activity that has reliably brought me joy throughout my life. I've realized that this is not only the thing that keeps me healthy, but it is the thing that will probably ultimately lead to my death. And not because it's inherently risky, but because people make the conscious choice to put me in danger.
But it ultimately has nothing to do with cars. Cyclists who endanger pedestrians are acting from the same impulses as drivers are. I attribute it to some essential, destructive human quality -- I guess the road is about as close to a State of Nature as we get. Lines on the pavement aren't going to change that.
posted by klanawa at 10:13 PM on October 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
When drivers get mad about cyclists being slow on the road, so I've been told over and over again, usually in the form of angry shouting, it's not because they're nervous about passing safely or unsure of what the markings mean. It's about the notion that "roads are for cars" (which is categorically not true, according to the law), and that cyclists are arrogant obstructionists. There's no anger directed at horses or buses or garbage trucks or any other slow vehicles, only bicycles. Why?
I don't know. I just can't figure it out. On nearly every ride, and I ride every day, someone (or multiple people) does something, whether "accidental" or clearly deliberate, that endangers my life. Worse, I obey the law and signs scrupulously, yet I get harassed for perfectly legal actions constantly. I just can't win, and with every ride, I lose more enthusiasm for the one activity that has reliably brought me joy throughout my life. I've realized that this is not only the thing that keeps me healthy, but it is the thing that will probably ultimately lead to my death. And not because it's inherently risky, but because people make the conscious choice to put me in danger.
But it ultimately has nothing to do with cars. Cyclists who endanger pedestrians are acting from the same impulses as drivers are. I attribute it to some essential, destructive human quality -- I guess the road is about as close to a State of Nature as we get. Lines on the pavement aren't going to change that.
posted by klanawa at 10:13 PM on October 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
There's no anger directed at horses or buses or garbage trucks or any other slow vehicles, only bicycles. Why?
Why Bikes Make Smart People Say Dumb Things
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:11 AM on October 9, 2014
Why Bikes Make Smart People Say Dumb Things
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:11 AM on October 9, 2014
"There's no anger directed at horses or buses or garbage trucks or any other slow vehicles, only bicycles. Why?"
Oh, live near an Amish community for a little while, or near rural highways during harvest season, and you'll see these people are ABSOLUTE DICKBAGS to horse-drawn vehicles (which is crazy-dangerous; horses can bolt when startled by cars like that) and to slow, oversize farm implements as well. (I mean, look, nobody's delighted to get stuck behind a combine going 20 mph for 3 miles, but it is September on a rural highway, this should be part of your route planning.) Combines go crazy-slow and can't really pull to the side to let you pass or turn off on a side road, and you can't really pass them because they tend to take up a lane-and-a-quarter. The farmer's not delighted about it either but this is the kind of thing we all treat with patience and understanding because that's where food comes from and if the farmer had an alternative route he'd be on it. Except for car-supremacist dickbags, who are pissed that you're slowing down their "shortcut!" through farm country on rural highways that are obviously there for the convenience of dudes in sportscars going 80 mph. When God is feeling kind, they try to pass, find out they can't get around without driving on the soft shoulder, attempt to do so at high speed, and get stuck in the mud in their dickish car.
My husband is an avid cyclist and it's always been male drivers, he says, who throw things at him or drive too close to him or get aggressive about him being on the road. That's my observation with drivers who are jerks about horses or farm equipment as well -- most often male. Is that the experience of other cyclists?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:10 AM on October 9, 2014
Oh, live near an Amish community for a little while, or near rural highways during harvest season, and you'll see these people are ABSOLUTE DICKBAGS to horse-drawn vehicles (which is crazy-dangerous; horses can bolt when startled by cars like that) and to slow, oversize farm implements as well. (I mean, look, nobody's delighted to get stuck behind a combine going 20 mph for 3 miles, but it is September on a rural highway, this should be part of your route planning.) Combines go crazy-slow and can't really pull to the side to let you pass or turn off on a side road, and you can't really pass them because they tend to take up a lane-and-a-quarter. The farmer's not delighted about it either but this is the kind of thing we all treat with patience and understanding because that's where food comes from and if the farmer had an alternative route he'd be on it. Except for car-supremacist dickbags, who are pissed that you're slowing down their "shortcut!" through farm country on rural highways that are obviously there for the convenience of dudes in sportscars going 80 mph. When God is feeling kind, they try to pass, find out they can't get around without driving on the soft shoulder, attempt to do so at high speed, and get stuck in the mud in their dickish car.
My husband is an avid cyclist and it's always been male drivers, he says, who throw things at him or drive too close to him or get aggressive about him being on the road. That's my observation with drivers who are jerks about horses or farm equipment as well -- most often male. Is that the experience of other cyclists?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:10 AM on October 9, 2014
"sharrows" which are bullshit and insulting and do nothing
But! Scroll down for a happier tale!
Yesterday, I actually got into a shouting match with someone ... until I pointed to the little bicycle painted in the exact middle of the lane where I had been turning.
Now a mutant Dolly Parton earworm is occupying my skull in support of little sharrows
posted by feral_goldfish at 9:27 AM on October 9, 2014
But! Scroll down for a happier tale!
Yesterday, I actually got into a shouting match with someone ... until I pointed to the little bicycle painted in the exact middle of the lane where I had been turning.
Now a mutant Dolly Parton earworm is occupying my skull in support of little sharrows
posted by feral_goldfish at 9:27 AM on October 9, 2014
I'm guessing that was a "put your bike here" marking for the signal loop, because sharrows typically are not centered in my experience, nor in turn lanes. :)
posted by entropicamericana at 9:53 AM on October 9, 2014
posted by entropicamericana at 9:53 AM on October 9, 2014
Current trend on sharrows is putting them more or less where a safe place to ride would be (out of the door zone, say), providing more guidance to road users about what they should do/expect. Unfortunately a lot of older ones are weirdly over to the side and kind of actively bad for everyone. But hey, at least those tend to wear down over time and when they're replaced have a good shot at being redone correctly, even more so if you ask your local government/public works department about it!
posted by asperity at 10:07 AM on October 9, 2014
posted by asperity at 10:07 AM on October 9, 2014
The frustrating thing about the sharrows I see is that they signal that the cyclist should be in the road RIGHT NOW. There's no 'warning' that soon there will be sharrows. Merging is the dangerous part, so where the merge happens should be the focus.
posted by tofu_crouton at 10:18 AM on October 9, 2014
posted by tofu_crouton at 10:18 AM on October 9, 2014
when they're replaced have a good shot at being redone correctly, even more so if you ask your local government/public works department about it!
lol, i want to live where you live.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:28 AM on October 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
lol, i want to live where you live.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:28 AM on October 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
Oh, live near an Amish community for a little while, or near rural highways during harvest season, and you'll see these people are ABSOLUTE DICKBAGS to horse-drawn vehicles
I live on the edge of the tourist district to the north, and a heritage urban, green, residential neighbourhood to the south that is hemmed in on three sides by water. So there are few roads in and out of this neighbourhood.
Of course, when the weather is warm there are horse-drawn carriages for the tourists. While I try to walk as much as possible, and only drive a couple of times a week, it's a tremendous inconvenience to be stuck behind one of these things if you're trying to get somewhere in a hurry.
And often you'll have a line of plodding horse-drawn carriages ranging along an entire city block, with no room to pass. It's a major problem because this isolated neighbourhood - where I live for crying out loud - has already got a ton of cars trying to zigzag through it on their way to the waterfront or wherever.
It's almost passive-aggressiveness on the part of whoever is holding the reins.
It seriously affects my quality of life. On top of that, the horses piss and shit all over the place, notably at the intersection just up the street from my house. In high summer it stinks, and I can only imagine what a city would have smelled like a hundred years ago.
So what makes perfect sense for the Amish or whatever does not make sense at all in an order environment. I feel sorry for the horsey people wearing their riding breeches and Crocodile Dundee hats and oilskins, but horses have gotta go.
posted by Nevin at 2:09 PM on October 9, 2014
I live on the edge of the tourist district to the north, and a heritage urban, green, residential neighbourhood to the south that is hemmed in on three sides by water. So there are few roads in and out of this neighbourhood.
Of course, when the weather is warm there are horse-drawn carriages for the tourists. While I try to walk as much as possible, and only drive a couple of times a week, it's a tremendous inconvenience to be stuck behind one of these things if you're trying to get somewhere in a hurry.
And often you'll have a line of plodding horse-drawn carriages ranging along an entire city block, with no room to pass. It's a major problem because this isolated neighbourhood - where I live for crying out loud - has already got a ton of cars trying to zigzag through it on their way to the waterfront or wherever.
It's almost passive-aggressiveness on the part of whoever is holding the reins.
It seriously affects my quality of life. On top of that, the horses piss and shit all over the place, notably at the intersection just up the street from my house. In high summer it stinks, and I can only imagine what a city would have smelled like a hundred years ago.
So what makes perfect sense for the Amish or whatever does not make sense at all in an order environment. I feel sorry for the horsey people wearing their riding breeches and Crocodile Dundee hats and oilskins, but horses have gotta go.
posted by Nevin at 2:09 PM on October 9, 2014
The frustrating thing about the sharrows I see is that they signal that the cyclist should be in the road RIGHT NOW. There's no 'warning' that soon there will be sharrows. Merging is the dangerous part
Sharrows may seem to randomly appear, but all they are doing is pointing out in paint what is the law everywhere, paint or no: that cyclists are legally allowed to ride on the street and not over in the shoulder. So ideally there shouldn't be any dangerous merging in and out of the lane because of sharrows. Most cyclists are pretty careful about taking the lane as needed and whether or not there are sharrows present doesn't really factor into that process.
posted by misskaz at 3:53 PM on October 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
Sharrows may seem to randomly appear, but all they are doing is pointing out in paint what is the law everywhere, paint or no: that cyclists are legally allowed to ride on the street and not over in the shoulder. So ideally there shouldn't be any dangerous merging in and out of the lane because of sharrows. Most cyclists are pretty careful about taking the lane as needed and whether or not there are sharrows present doesn't really factor into that process.
posted by misskaz at 3:53 PM on October 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
« Older "Socialism Is Our Launching Pad!" | “If we don’t work, we die.” Excellent! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Of COURSE if there isn't room for this casual maneuver I drive behind the cyclist for 30 miles, stewing, because I'm not some kind of sociopath!
Note there are no CURVES where I live, it's all flat and gridded, and this article would refer almost entirely to rural highways. (Cities have multiple lanes and lower speeds, or no lines on residential/secondary roads.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:51 PM on October 7, 2014 [3 favorites]