Get out of the road!

[Gerrinson]

Part 1 - Bicyclists

I realize that you, much like Freddie Mercury, want nothing more than to ride your bicycle. Despite the fact that it is January and you are in New England. Generally speaking, if you want to freeze, that's your business. There, however, some issues that I have with you and they are as follows:

1) There are three of you, side by side by side, taking up a whole lane of traffic. I'm pretty sure it is illegal here to do more than 2 abreast.

2) You are travelling up a steep hill in a 55 mph zone. But you not travelling 55, you're not even doing 35. Or 25. Or 15. Or even 10 mph. I know this because all three of you are walking up the hill while pushing your bikes and blocking an entire lane of highway speed traffic.

3) You're even dumb enough to be walking with traffic, so you can't see the cars coming up behind you.

Just to clue you in: Three days ago there was an accident on this same hill because a car travelling very slowly was just around one of the bends when a truck travelling the posted speed came up behind them and didn't have enough time to slow down. Cue collision and both vehicles flying off the road. Now play out that same scenario, but replace the slow moving car with you three morons...

That's a pretty ugly picture, now isn't it?

The law says I have to share the road with people riding their bikes. I'm going to have to draw the line here and say that the moment you start walking and pushing your bikes you cease to be bike riders and downgrade to pedestrians. Which means you should be walking single file, facing traffic, and off to the side of the road! I don't want to have to scrape your dumb ass out of my grill, but thanks for opportunity anyway. Now, please, get out of the road!

Part 2 - Actual pedestrians

Points for walking against traffic, so you can see people coming. But double negative points for walking two abreast in the middle of the lane and not budging an inch when you see traffic coming at you.

Triple negative points for staring at me like I'm a lunatic for hitting the brakes and stopping in front of you when a stream of oncoming traffic made it impossible for me to go around you. Next time I could just keep going and wave as you bounce over my hood. Would that be more to your liking?

Pedestrians have the right of way in clearly marked crosswalks. Not at any point in the road that they decide. So, for your own sake, get out of the road!

And that was just my drive to work. Can't wait to see what happens on the way home.

[blas]

I think it's bad enough when cyclists get adament about riding in the middle of the road just because they can (even in higher speed areas), but proceeding to get off their bikes and walk them up a hill in a 55 mph zone?! Do they want to get killed? Or at the very least, are they purposely trying to piss off as many motorists as possible?

As of this morning, the roads were so icy here, I can't even imagine a person on a bicycle being able to ride at all on a day this cold and frozen. With my luck, if I had to slow down in these conditions for a cyclist, I'd probably plow into one of them, or a fire hydrant.

[EvilEmpryss]

While I understand your annoyance with the bikers, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the illegality of what they were doing. Most state statutes on bicyclists state that they have the same rights and responsibilities as motorized vehicle operators. One bicyclist or eleven, they probably have the right to a lane of traffic for their use. Of course, having the right and insisting on exercising that right under dangerous circumstances are not the same thing. Still, those statutes then go on to say that bicyclists must obey all traffic regulations, including observing speed limits. Since it's not possible for a bicycle to do 55 mph, not sure how that one can be rationalized, especially once they got off their bikes to walk.

The pedestrians walking in the road? Way out of bounds. Call the cops and have them taken care of before they wind up as bumper stickers.

[It's me]

Still, those statutes then go on to say that bicyclists must obey all traffic regulations, including observing speed limits. Since it's not possible for a bicycle to do 55 mph, not sure how that one can be rationalized, especially once they got off their bikes to walk.

There usually also laws about obstructing traffic.......

[Andara Bledin]

Since it's not possible for a bicycle to do 55 mph, not sure how that one can be rationalized, especially once they got off their bikes to walk.

Bikes can do 60, actually. I have a friend that used to be a bike courier, and he'd get ticketed semi-regularly for doing over 40 on one of his regular routes.

The pedestrians walking in the road? Way out of bounds. Call the cops and have them taken care of before they wind up as bumper stickers.

This goes for both sets of pedestrians. While I don't agree that a cyclist forced to dismount and walk his bike up a hill should have to cross the highway to face traffic, he also shouldn't be in the way of other traffic, either.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

While I understand your annoyance with the bikers, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the illegality of what they were doing.

dismounting means you are now a pedestrian, and no longer a vehicle. Though since they were likely planning to remount at the hillcrest, crossing to the other side would not be practical or safe(they would have to cross twice), though they should've been single file, and not in the lane.

There usually also laws about obstructing traffic.......

they usually do not apply to bicycles.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Enhancing Bicycle Safety: Law Enforcement’s Role

Some people believe it is illegal for a bicyclist to travel on the road if other traffic has to slow down – such a cyclist would be impeding traffic. However, this belief has no basis in law.

Some States have statutes to prohibit impeding traffic, with language such as the following: “No person shall operate a motor vehicle upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation. These statutes usually specifically apply to motor vehicles.

Even if the statute does not use the term “motor vehicle,” it is clear that traveling a bicycle at normal bicycle speeds is not a violation of this rule. Such an interpretation would have the effect of prohibiting bicycles on many roads, which is clearly not what was intended.

[EvilEmpryss]

See, this is why I like this site. It's not just about griping about SCs and other assorted idiots: I get to learn new things. It never occurred to me that bicyclists other than the professional racers would be able to move at highway speeds.

After thinking some more about the three bicyclists taking up a lane while walking, I think that might actually have been the safest thing for everyone on the road. Sure, it slowed down traffic for a few minutes, but it made them easier to be seen in hazardous conditions, meaning the bicyclists and the motorists were less likely to be involved in an accident.

Motorists and bicyclists are like the Hatfields and the McCoys: bicyclists dislike rude motorists, motorists dislike rude bicyclists, and inconsiderate idiots on both sides who don't understand their rights and responsibilities make things worse for everyone.

[BlaqueKatt]

Sure, it slowed down traffic for a few minutes, but it made them easier to be seen in hazardous conditions, meaning the bicyclists and the motorists were less likely to be involved in an accident.

true as a large percentage of motorists do not bother looking for cyclists or pedestrians on the shoulder and are more likely to pass them at unsafe speeds and with less space than is required by law.

Three days ago there was an accident on this same hill because a car travelling very slowly was just around one of the bends when a truck travelling the posted speed came up behind them and didn't have enough time to slow down.

Laws regarding speed in most states are worded similar to this one from Wisconsin:

"No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing."

yes you can be driving the posted speed limit and still receive a citation. Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should.

In other words don't drive fast enough that you can't stop for something you can't see. Slow down around curves, corners, and hills. Will driving the posted speed limit magically save a driver that turns a corner and finds a disabled vehicle, or a crash? Obviously not.

[protege]

In PA, if the cyclist is moving at a speed less than traffic, they have to stay to the right. Also, bikes are treated as vehicles...and are supposed to obey the same traffic laws. Oh, and the 3-abreast thing? Illegal here. Also illegal (not to mention stupid), is to ride a bike on a major highway.

[Raveni]

they usually do not apply to bicycles.

I loathe that website. I prefer to quote quote the actual Statutes, not advocacy organizations. Since the website you quoted refers to Florida law (even though Gerrinson does not live there), I'll talk about that.

Here
Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing.

In Florida, it is always illegal for bicyclists to ride three abreast in a traffic lane like in Gerrinson's story. Bicylists may also not ride two abreast at less than the speed of traffic if doing so would impede traffic. If bicylists are riding single file as close to the curb as possible and still impeding traffic because the lane-width is substandard, then too bad for the motorist. They can wait until it is safe to pass.

Other state statutes are worded very similarly.

[Daemonmonkey]

Most state statutes on bicyclists state that they have the same rights and responsibilities as motorized vehicle operators.

I believe that in most countries the traffic law says that nobody has rights, only obligations. You MAY use the road, but must respect the others who travel there

[BlaqueKatt]

Also, bikes are treated as vehicles...and are supposed to obey the same traffic laws.

really?
the PA DOT would like to know that
"In Pennsylvania, a bicycle is considered a vehicle and, as such, is governed by a general set of rules (common to all vehicles) and a specific set of rules (designed for bicycles). "
Section 3501. Applicability of traffic laws to pedalcycles.
(a) General rule. -- Every person riding a pedalcycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title, except as to special provisions in this subchapter and except as to those provisions of this title which by their nature can have no application.

perfect example of that here(also from the PADOT)
Section 3112
when at a stoplight with a metal detector(called car activated in WI)
Going through the red isn't against the law, because the light is defective.

and Section 3511 part b lists exceptions to the "not allowed on highways"

I loathe that website. I prefer to quote quote the actual Statutes, not advocacy organizations.

the purpose of the advocacy group is:
"We envision a state where people of all ages see bicycling as an enjoyable, practical and safe activity and transportation option, and where all who lawfully use the roadways, motorists and bicyclists alike, respect and appreciate each other's use."

To educate bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists about safely sharing roadways and paths

why would you loathe a group that is promoting enforcing the law and riding legally? Bicycle advocacy groups try to educate law enforcement which are normally ignorant of the laws and therefore don't enforce them, making everyone less safe.
I belong to one here in WI, we are pushing to get MORE Traffic citations written to offenders on bicycles, so they start obeying they laws their supposed to. General issue with lawbreakers, is there is no consequences to their actions.

[Raveni]

why would you loathe a group that is promoting enforcing the law and riding legally?

I don't loathe the group. I never said I did. I loathe the website.

The statements that the site labels as facts (like what is a substandard width road), are rarely backed with facts. Attempts to ask for said facts are viewed as unfair criticism. Facts posted to the contrary of the website's statements are deleted or edited as to be unhelpful.

I originally wrote much more, but then I realized I went way over into fratching, so I think that I will bow out of this discussion right here.

[It's me]

Hey guys............ please stop sniping at each other before this gets booted over to fratching.... this is useful thread right now........

[protege]

really?
the PA DOT would like to know that
"In Pennsylvania, a bicycle is considered a vehicle and, as such, is governed by a general set of rules (common to all vehicles) and a specific set of rules (designed for bicycles). "

So, reading what you just quoted...they have to obey the same laws as cars...plus an *additional* set of rules, which are really additional clarifications. They still have to use some sort of signals when stopping or changing direction (like cars), they're supposed to keep to the right (like other slow-moving vehicles), pedestrians still have right-of-way, etc. There are a couple of exceptions, but otherwise, what I posted before is still correct. Oh, and when the law refers to "freeways," they mean the Interstate highway system. Bikes are *allowed,* but only with written permission ahead of time.