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.
oh boy, I know this is opening a can of worms so let the comments rip.
What a lot of drivers don't realize is that when you are riding single file it is much more dangerous as it is easier to be clipped by a car. I know cyclists can be rude but the two abreast is the safest for everyone. And what is the big deal if you have to slow down for a few minutes - is it really that big a deal??
Some drivers around here act like you've insulted them if you put on your turn signal and turn -- if it means they need to slow down for half a second while you do so. And that's when you're in a car.
So slow down for two-abreast BIKES? How DARE you make them "waste" a moment of their time!!!
I believe that "Effective Cycling" the bible on cycling, says single file is the safest arrangement on the rode.
I rode cross country in 1982 from Williamsburg VA to Portland OR and there was 12 of us. NO sag wagon.
We would never have thought of riding side-by-side. On the back roads of VA and KY, there was barely enough room for ONE bike when a tandem trailer coal truck went down the mountain at 65 MPH.
It would be much SAFER if the cyclists spread out and not try to ride single file line that is more than 5-10 cyclists in one grouping. Riding in a line that is more than 40 cyclists is dangerous for EVERYONE on the road.
As taken from Johns Forester's book--
Forester summarizes the rules of the road for vehicle operation in five principles:
Use the correct half of the road, and not the sidewalk.
Yield to other traffic as required.
Yield when moving laterally across the road.
Choose the correct lane and position within the lane at intersections and their approaches, based on your destination. For example, a cyclist planning to go straight through an intersection should avoid getting stuck in a right-turn-only lane, where it is easy to get clobbered by a right-turning car; a cyclist in a through-traffic lane may get a few surprised looks but will probably not get hit. Choosing the correct lane and position often involves taking the lane when the lane is not wide enough for a car and a bike side by side.
Between intersections move away from the curb based on speed relative to other traffic and effective lane width.
Forester sums up Effective Cycling with what he calls the vehicular cycling (VC) principle: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." This injunction is consistent with the rules of the road, which generally apply to all types of drivers of vehicles.
Now the state wants to tell me how to ride my bike!
Why is it any less appropriate for the state to pass laws dictating how bicycle riders are to operate on roads than it is for them to do so for drivers of cars? I can understand that you might want to debate whehter this particular proposed law is appropriate or not, but the attitude that bicyclists should be able to use the roads without regulation seems awfully arrogant to me, especially when bicyclists want the same rights to use the roads as cars.
My problem isn't having to slow down. My biggest issue is that the most popular roads seem to be curvy, narrow roads with little or no shoulder. When a vehicle is traveling down the road, goes around a curve and is immediately on the rear wheel of a cyclist (doesn't matter if it is single, double or fifty). And I am not talking speeding.... some parts the curves are sharp enough to require 35 mph on a country road.
My solution... why not require a bicycle tax for road bikes (not kid's bikes). Have then display a sticker. Use that $$$ to make bike lanes. Problem solved.
I think two-abreast biking is a good idea. I just don't get why people choose to cycle on a busy road at a busy time when it's not really safe for everyone. I really don't want to ride behind someone on a bike, on a 2 lane road, with a speed limit of 55, with virtually no shoulder, with cars behind me, and cars coming in the lane ahead of me. There are safer places to bike. If they want to follow the rules of the road, they should and either keep up with traffic or find somewhere else to bike.
Why shouldn't the state regulate people on bikes. Im in Western NC. I know and have seen many bikers who know how to ride appropraitely on the roads. However, I've seen many people who seem to think that it is alright to do the following:
- Ride their bikes at night
- Not use any lights while doing so
- Not even have reflectors on the bike
- Do this while being in the center of the road
- Do so while wearing dark clothing that does not reflect light
- And also it seems that they like to do so in the rain when oncoming traffic have a hard time seeing them.
I have no problem sharing the road, but I am suprised I dont hear of more people getting hit by cars because they dont have the sense to make themselves visable while riding bikes in the evening or night time. If anything, the government should pass laws regulating this as well, someone is going to get hurt sometime.
I can understand your reasoning behind riding two-abreast. However, I have had multiple encounters where I approach a group of cyclists who are riding in multiples of "two-abreast" and refuse to move into a single-file line. I assume they do this because they have "the right" to ride on a road. 'Tis true, cyclists do have a right to ride on the road but they do not have the right to impede traffic. I just politely remind them of this when I'm in my diesel truck and I pass them by getting next to them, flooring it, and fogging them out with bellows of thick, black smoke. Don't get me wrong, I leave plenty of room and am probably too polite to cyclists who are just riding. But you want to be a prick to me and I'll let you know who's the bigger prick.
My problem isn't having to slow down. My biggest issue is that the most popular roads seem to be curvy, narrow roads with little or no shoulder. When a vehicle is traveling down the road, goes around a curve and is immediately on the rear wheel of a cyclist (doesn't matter if it is single, double or fifty). And I am not talking speeding.... some parts the curves are sharp enough to require 35 mph on a country road.
My solution... why not require a bicycle tax for road bikes (not kid's bikes). Have then display a sticker. Use that $$$ to make bike lanes. Problem solved.
Cyclists are already paying taxes for roads, your "solution" makes no sense. I think we actually want to encourage people to find alternative methods of transportation, and get out there and exercise.
oh boy, I know this is opening a can of worms so let the comments rip.
What a lot of drivers don't realize is that when you are riding single file it is much more dangerous as it is easier to be clipped by a car. I know cyclists can be rude but the two abreast is the safest for everyone. And what is the big deal if you have to slow down for a few minutes - is it really that big a deal??
I like to ride, and have to disagree with riding 2 abreast being the safest method. If someone is going to pass close to you, they are going to do it whether you are riding single file or not. The only person this may benefit would be the inside rider.
To me this rule makes sense. Just like with cars, the slower vehicle should get over to the right and out of the way to let the faster vehicle pass.
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.
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.
