U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alabama > Huntsville-Madison-Decatur area
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-02-2014, 08:14 AM
 
2,513 posts, read 2,279,685 times
Reputation: 1734

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shyguylh View Post
It has to do with the fact that people have no shame in taking more "back" roads on their work commutes, often-times making previously quiet/quaint country roads quite busy, and then such people are apparently some of the very same ones griping about bicycles.
If this is in fact a problem why is it a problem? Why are car drivers forced to take back roads that they are legally allowed to drive on? There is no moral high ground here. Everyone has the right to drive on the roads as they see fit. Maybe because the 4 lane roads should be 6 or 7? Again, blame infrastructure.

Quote:
Well--tough. You chose a secluded country road to drive on, don't be griping about the bicycles, or the people walking their dogs etc. Different roads have different intended purposes, even if they're legally accessible by any. Just as some call for cyclists to, if they're going to take busy roads, to at least stay out of the way of all of the heavy traffic by keeping right and the like, in like manner I think we can call for people in cars to show some respect when they're on country roads.
Different roads have different purposes? What? County roads are there for access for everyone, including farm equipment, cyclists, dog walkers, everyone. Again, no moral high ground here.

Quote:
That especially goes if such people are the ones griping about bicycles on the 4-lane roads.
And like a few pages back, someone griping about walkers at greenways. Double standard eh?

Quote:
Yes, those cars do have the legal right to be on those roads, but I still think they have no business being back there, at least in large numbers. A few here and there, okay, but to make it busy, no, that's wrong.
Trying to take some moral high ground that doesn't exist. Everyone has equal access to the roads, regardless of your opinion.

Quote:
Okay, the other roads weren't widened--oh well. That still doesn't make it okay.
For people to drive on?

Quote:
If people are going to call for bicycles to stay off of busy roads, or to at least stay on the shoulders/bicycle paths, then in like manner I think we can start calling for people to stop "rat running" so much on their work commutes and stick to the 4-lane highways as much as possible.
People aren't obligated to stick to 4 lane roads. Just like cyclists aren't obligated to stick to two lane roads.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-02-2014, 08:20 AM
 
2,513 posts, read 2,279,685 times
Reputation: 1734
If anyone is interested, this is the ALDOT Pedestrian/cycle plan.

https://www.dot.state.al.us/moweb/do...T_Bike_Ped.pdf
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2014, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Birmingham
11,787 posts, read 14,394,280 times
Reputation: 10056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Parker View Post
Road is definitely not suitable for biking.....as evidenced by the fact that the riders were riding "in memoriam" for a rider that was hit 2 years ago, less than 2 miles from this very spot on the same road. It's a state road with 55mph speed limit and curves. This happened right as a driver came around a curve and into the sun. That's not to make the situation better for anyone involved. The driver was not impaired. The bikers weren't doing anything wrong or illegal. It's just a sad, sad accident.
If that is true, that is some crazy stupid irony right there. I would liken it to playing Russian roulette in homage to a friend that went out that way.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2014, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Madison, AL
1,614 posts, read 1,881,283 times
Reputation: 1639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourian View Post
If that is true, that is some crazy stupid irony right there. I would liken it to playing Russian roulette in homage to a friend that went out that way.
Yeah, it seems like *some* (not all) cyclists have an attitude of "it's my right to ride on this road, so by God I'm gonna exercise my right, safety be damned!" Like they are doing it just to prove a point. That, as my grandmother used to say, is "cutting your nose off to spite your face". If I have to explain what that means, you're probably one of those militant cyclists.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2014, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Idaho
5,348 posts, read 5,330,401 times
Reputation: 10984
Quote:
Originally Posted by TN2HSV View Post
....I also agree that if cyclists insist on biking the main roads, they should be required to register their bikes & display license plates. Even if that isn't where the majority of road dollars comes from. What's fair for one is fair for the other.
In 2010, motorized vehicles caused the death of 32,885 people. In the same year, bicycles caused six deaths. From a safety standpoint, registering and licensing cars and trucks hasn't worked so well.

"There is no comparison between the risk that cyclists post to public safety and the risk posed by drivers. This is why the states have never required cyclists to be licensed or insured."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2014, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Huntsville
5,467 posts, read 4,696,189 times
Reputation: 6273
Quote:
Originally Posted by volosong View Post
There is no comparison between the risk that cyclists post to public safety and the risk posed by drivers. This is why the states have never required cyclists to be licensed or insured.

But they do pose a risk.

For instance, Old Gurley Pike (in Gurley) is riddled with cyclists. The problem is that it's a winding road that has very limited visibility and not very many passing zones. We've had numerous close calls because we come around a curve (going the speed limit of 45 mph) and end up having to dodge a group of 7-8 cyclists riding in the middle of the lane. To dodge them, we either have to cross the double yellow line with no visibilty of oncoming traffic or slam on the brakes abruptly to keep from mowing them over.

The cyclist themselves may not pose a risk to directly harm anyone on their bicycles, but the way that many vehicles often meet them can be dangerous and is an indirect danger. It's what measures vehicles are sometimes required to take to avoid them that creates the dangerous situation. Then the vehicles are often times forced to ride behind the cyclists for miles before finding a passing zone where we can go around. I've seen lines of 10-15 cars riding behind 1-2 cyclists and only once or twice have I seen the cyclists actually pull off the road to let traffic go by. The other times, the cyclists typically look at us and continue their leisurely stroll of 10-15 mph and just let the traffic build.


I have zero issue with cyclists using the road as long as they are doing so safely and respectfully. I keep my distance from them whenever possible and always wave when they eventually let us by, taking care to stay as far to the left of them as possible. However, there are some instances where cyclists refuse to even acknowledge that we were trying to be courteous and act like the road belongs to them.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2014, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Madison, AL
1,614 posts, read 1,881,283 times
Reputation: 1639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nlambert View Post
But they do pose a risk.


The cyclist themselves may not pose a risk to directly harm anyone on their bicycles, but the way that many vehicles often meet them can be dangerous and is an indirect danger. It's what measures vehicles are sometimes required to take to avoid them that creates the dangerous situation. Then the vehicles are often times forced to ride behind the cyclists for miles before finding a passing zone where we can go around. I've seen lines of 10-15 cars riding behind 1-2 cyclists and only once or twice have I seen the cyclists actually pull off the road to let traffic go by. The other times, the cyclists typically look at us and continue their leisurely stroll of 10-15 mph and just let the traffic build.

Exactly.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2014, 11:39 AM
 
482 posts, read 893,243 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourian View Post
If that is true, that is some crazy stupid irony right there. I would liken it to playing Russian roulette in homage to a friend that went out that way.
From the WAFF News Story:

"Green and Rogers were on the ride in support of their friend, Melissa Moore, who was hit by a car while cycling one year ago, less than two miles from where Monday's crash occurred."

Bicyclist killed, another critical, protecting friend - WAFF-TV: News, Weather and Sports for Huntsville, AL
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2014, 12:29 PM
 
3,279 posts, read 4,451,249 times
Reputation: 6149
Boy, talk about an anti-cycling bigoted attitude being on display here.

Get over it, people. Cyclists have the right to be there and are doing nothing wrong, especially when they go through great pains to stay out of the way. YOU are when you can't watch what the heck you're doing and drive like you have half a brain without running into someone. There are accidents, yes, there is also just not paying attention.

The answer is NOT for bicyclists to surrender roads they have every right to be on, because from there it only further entrenches the false mentality that cyclists "have no business on the road." The answer is for the roads to be properly designed, and for motorists to show some respect.

And yes, that respect means no "rat running." To wit:

Trying to take some moral high ground that doesn't exist. Everyone has equal access to the roads, regardless of your opinion.

At that point, I direct you to the Wikipedia rat-running article. In it, you will read how people who live on such roads oppose rat-running because it's considered a disturbance of their peace. You know what--many years ago, I'd called them NIMBYs, but anymore I totally agree with them. A 4-lane highway and a 1 lane secluded path have totally different intended uses. They may both be roads, but that's like saying a pair of blue jeans and the sky are both blue.

People choose such secluded roads to live on because they want to be able to walk on the roads, bike-ride on the roads without having to be so watchful, walk their dogs, jog, let their kids play a little, and they don't want a bunch of traffic right in front of their house spoiling all of this, and they're not wrong. It would be one thing if they lived directly off a 4-lane highway, in such cases they have no right to complain, but in choosing a secluded road, they are accepting the trade-offs--longer distances from the grocery stores and such--in exchange for some seclusion. They have every right to expect to basically be left the freak alone--and yes, that is in spite of the fact that they don't privately own the roads, they still want to be left alone, and should be, and yes, without having to pay for the roads themselves personally.

When many persons drive on such roads, these people who live there are being harassed. They're less comfortable walking their dogs, pushing their kids in the strollers etc, and it's freaking noisy. Large volumes of traffic totally spoil the whole living situation. Again, if such people lived on a 4-lane road, oh well, but on a secluded 1-lane farm road, they are right to ask that people not drive back there in large numbers.

However, yes, bicyclists should be allowed on the 4-lane highways, especially if there are generous shoulders and the like, and they keep out of the way. Done correctly, a cyclist can be on such roads and avoid causing issues for motorists. On the other hand, there is no way that large volumes of cars on secluded roads can be there and not spoil the atmosphere for the people who live there. So yes, stay out of there if you don't live there or are visiting someone who does.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2014, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Huntsville
5,467 posts, read 4,696,189 times
Reputation: 6273
You are not from this area and therefore know absolutely nothing about our road systems. No one who lives on these roads is being harrassed because vehicles are driving on them. That's what they were designed for. Many areas are rural so we have to take those roads to get to work or into town. The issue is that the roads were not designed for cyclists, and some cyclists are riding in areas with very low visibility, causing vehicles to either come on them unexpectedly which forces the motor vehicle to either a) swerve around them, or b) slam on brakes. On the road I provided an example of, there is virtually no shoulder. Furthermore, there are no people out jogging, or walking kids in strollers because it's a road with low visibility. We all know it, so we all do this in neighborhoods or other safer roads. There is nowhere for the cyclist to ride but on the road, and coming around the corner and being on top of a group of cyclists is unnerving to say the least. Please do not comment on our road system if you are not familiar with it. It's not the same as the road systems in other areas.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alabama > Huntsville-Madison-Decatur area
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top