What does share the road really mean?

The following comment was made on my last post:

"I agree that we all share the roads, etc. What I do not understand is cyclists who will steadfastly ride in the middle of a thoroughfare lane while cars back up for blocks behind them not being able to pass.

Sure, bikes have as much right as anyone else to be on the street, but what they do not have the right to do is block a lane or impede traffic.

Politeness and common sense dictate that they get out of the way and allow others to pass if they cannot keep up with the flow of traffic."

To many non-cyclists “Share the road” means, “Okay I accept that you have a right to be on the road, but just stay out of my way.” This comes through in the last sentence of the above comment.

Politeness and common sense need to prevail on both sides, otherwise it is not a true “Sharing” of the road. I would be happy to stay out of the way and ride to the extreme right, if in return other road users would have a little concern for my safety and not pass me at 50 or 60 mph, missing me by inches.

Most people drive in the middle of the lane leaving equal space to the edge of the lane on either side. Many will simply hold that line when passing a cyclist, when “Politeness and common sense” would suggest steering to the outside edge of the lane thereby leaving more space on the inside.

If it is a two-lane, divided highway, and there is no one along side or about to overtake, signal and move to the other lane, or at least put the car’s wheels over the line. The same on narrow rural roads, cross that center line if it can be done safely, if not, stay behind for a brief moment, and then pass. A cyclist is less than 7 feet long and 3 feet wide, it is not like passing an eighteen-wheeler.

Many states are bringing in new laws to give cyclists a minimum of 3 feet when passing. If politeness and common sense prevailed, these laws would be unnecessary. So in the mean time, I exercise my right to “take the lane,” in other words move to the center of the lane when it is unsafe to pass.

A good example of this would be where there are cars parked at the side of the road. I will not ride within 5 feet of a parked car because people will fling open car doors without warning. Five feet will usually put me in the middle of the lane, if I ride any closer cars will still continue to pass at their normal speed.

If someone opens a car door I have nowhere to go. I am not only injured by running into the edge of the door, I will most likely fall in the path of a passing car. It is unfortunate that city planners allow parking for long stretches of city roads, without understanding the real danger this imposes on cyclists.

Another situation where I would take the lane is if I want to make a left turn ahead. (Right turn in the UK.) On a multi-lane highway I may need to start the maneuver several blocks before I actually turn.

From the right lane I will wait for a gap in traffic, signal and move to the center of the lane, stopping any further traffic from passing. I cannot safely get into the second lane from the extreme right edge of the first lane.

Then when there is a gap in traffic in the second lane, I signal move over again. Sometimes an impatient driver will also see this gap and try to go around me. If this stops me from changing lanes then all the traffic behind me continues to be delayed because one selfish driver didn’t allow me to get over and move out of the way.

When I reach the left turn lane, I stay in the middle of that lane. If I move to the left of the lane, cars will pass me on the outside and after I complete the turn, I am now stuck in the middle, needing to get back over to the right.

If I move to the right side of the turn lane, now I have traffic passing at speed on both sides. If one should hit me, I would be knocked into the path of another vehicle.

This is often a left turn at a traffic light. Everyone is rushing to make the green light, no one is concerned for my safety except me, so forgive me if I appear a little “selfish” at this point.

More people would commute to work by bicycle but they see it as dangerous. As time goes by, economic reasons will force some to overcome this fear. Every bicycle on the road means one less car; people will become more aware of bicycles and drive slower and with caution. People will actually get to their destination quicker and safer because there will be less congestion.


Footnote:

The picture at the top is Savannah Hwy. (Rt. 17.) the main road south out of Charleston, South Carolina where I live. Traffic is heavy during the week, but moderate at weekends. Not the best place to ride, but necessary to get from where I live to some of the more rural areas on John’s Island, and Wadmalaw Island.

The road has a narrow shoulder and “Share the road” signs are posted. It is a divided highway with two wide traffic lanes in either direction. I ride on the shoulder and in spite of this drivers will pass me within inches at 50 to 60 mph as I described earlier, even though there is no traffic in the outside lane.

I use my “take the lane” right sparingly and only when absolutely necessary. If I delay other road users briefly, I am doing it in the interest of my own safety, not just to piss people off.

Awareness Test

London Transport is a huge government agency that runs all public transport in the City of London. The Underground (Subway) system and those familiar red double-decker buses are London Transport.

They also view bicycles as a genuine form of transport, and have put out this wonderful video. View the whole thing, including the intro; it is quite short.

Turn your sound on and DO THE TEST

My thanks to the Maltese Falcon for bringing this to my attention.

Do separate bike paths improve safety?

She came flying up to the intersection; driving way too fast.

I could tell by her speed she wasn't going to stop, even though there was a stop sign. I touched my brakes and moved out to the center of the road near to the yellow line.

I could see there was no traffic coming towards me, and I already knew there was nothing immediately behind me.

Two things told me this: 1.) My ears; I could hear no vehicle behind me, and 2.) The fact that she was not intending to stop. She was looking right past me further down the road.

Had I not moved out to the center I would have run smack in the side of her. She saw me at the last second and slammed on the brakes; a little late because by now she was right out into the lane I had been riding in. She might as well have kept going because by this time I was over the yellow line and in the opposing lane completely out of her way.

Anyway, she stopped and let me pass, and I moved back over to the right. As she passed me slowly, I saw her passenger side window roll down and I was actually expecting an apology. She called out, "Why aren't you on the bike path?" There is a bike path that runs along side this road.

Somewhat taken back I hesitated for a second, then told her. "If I had been on the bike path you would have hit me for sure." I don't know if she even heard me because by now the window was rolling up again and she was speeding away.

I would have liked to explain that she had not intended to stop at road intersection, and was certainly not looking to see if there was anyone on the bike path before she came to the road.

Had I been on the path I could not have stopped in time because she came up so fast, and there was nowhere I could go to avoid hitting her. On the road I was at least able to move to the left and give her room.

I dislike this type of bike path. It gives the city planners the impression that they are doing the right thing to improve safety for cyclists. It gives the inexperienced cyclist the impression that they are safe, but are they?

On the road there is a remote possibility a cyclist will be run down from behind. However statistics show that this is the least likely accident that can happen. An accident is more likely to occur at an intersection; either someone pulling out of the side road, or turning into it, in front of a cyclist, or a vehicle passing the cyclist then side-swiping them as they turn. (The right-hook.)

Although the cyclist on the bike path has zero possibility of being run down from behind, they are at even greater danger at each intersection than if they were on the road, because they are less visible.

In addition, as I have demonstrated on the bike path there is no room for the cyclist to take evasive action. Then you have the added hazard as in this case a driver pulling up to the intersection and the cyclist runs into the side of the vehicle.

If planners are going to install this type of bike path, why not move the stop signs back behind the bike path, so at least in theory a vehicle will stop at the bike path then move slowly forward to the intersection.

The bike path crossing should be clearly marked on the road with lines and possibly the bike symbol. And what is a cyclist to do at every intersection? I'm sure the planners will say he should stop every time, but if bike rider is on the road he has the right of way to ride straight through the same as other vehicles.

Personally, I would rather see bike lanes on the existing highway. Cheaper to install, and certainly easier to keep clean. It gets the bike rider used to riding in traffic, the cyclist is more visible, and it lets the car driver know that cyclists have a right to be there.

I like the idea they have in Denmark where the bike lanes are painted a different color at the intersection.(Picture above right.) Speaking of Denmark, yesterday’s post on Copenhagen Girls on Bikes explains their Green Wave System:

“The 'Green Wave' system coordinates the traffic lights to give cyclists a 'green wave' all the way along the route.

This means that if you ride 20 km per hour (12.5 mph.) you'll hit green lights the whole way.

Some people have bike speedometers - not many - but most can adjust their speed using their experience, without electronic interference, and enjoy an uninterrupted ride to and from work.

Most of the stretches featuring the Green Wave have 15,000 - 30,000 bikes per day.”

Now that’s what I call bicycle friendly.

Cyclists and POBs

I have been a cyclist since my early teens; most regular readers of this blog are also cyclists.

I don’t know about you, but I get tired of my reputation being tarnished by another group who should not even be categorized as cyclists.

Owning a set of golf clubs does not qualify someone to call themselves a golfer. A person might own a musical instrument, but they are not a musician unless they can play it. Yet anyone who throws their leg over a bicycle is immediately labeled a cyclist.

“As easy as riding a bike, anyone can do it,” is a common expression. Riding a bike in today’s heavy traffic is anything but easy; it requires considerable skill and a lot of moxie.

As a cyclists I am always lumped together with what I call POBs; (People on Bikes.) there is a big difference. I read in the paper of a “cyclist” killed in a traffic accident; I am left to wonder, is this really a cyclist or a POB? (Person on a Bike.)

They could be called "Pedestrians on a Bike," which is a contradiction in terms, but POBs behave like pedestrians. Most pedestrians don't follow too many rules; they wander around willy-nilly all over the place.

Some places have jaywalking laws, but apart from that, there are not too many rules enforced on a pedestrian. They will be on the sidewalk on one side of the road, when suddenly they will see a gap in traffic and without warning or signal will dart across the road to the opposite sidewalk.

As for traffic lights, most pedestrians don't even look to see if they are red or green, but rather look to see if there are any cars coming, and will cross with complete indifference to the color of the light. Sometimes they will not even look, because cars tend to give way to a pedestrian.

The result is, when a person gets on a bike they behave like a pedestrian; they ride on the sidewalk, they ride on the wrong side of the road against the flow traffic, and they ignore traffic signs and signals. At night they don't use lights, because after all, most pedestrians don't carry flash lights after dark.

Cyclists see themselves as a vehicle on the road, whereas, POBs see themselves as a person just trying to get from point A to point B and it’s too far to walk. They are often focused only on their destination, oblivious to everything else around them.

Sadly, statistics show that when a bicycle rider is killed on the road, it is often the victim’s fault. Running red lights, riding against traffic, or suddenly entering a road without warning in front of an oncoming car. This gives a false impression that cycling is dangerous. It is POBs that are getting killed, not cyclists.

A cyclist and a POB may look the same; what they wear or the type of bike they ride does not necessarily distinguish the difference. Some POBs even think they are cyclists.

These are a splinter group known as APOBs. The “A” is for Anarchist, Arrogant, or Asshole, pick any one. They grew up as POBs, later bought expensive bikes and started hanging out and riding with cyclists. However, they never became true cyclists because they disregard the laws of the road, at all times.

Worse, they somehow see themselves as above the law; they give all cyclists a bad reputation. Being ignorant of the law is one thing, but knowing better and still disregarding the rules and laws of our society is anarchy plain and simple.

If you know someone who is an APOB; then maybe you need to get together with a few other cyclists and hold an intervention. Tell them they can’t be a cyclist part of the time, and POB the rest; they have to pick a side.

The strange thing is many POBs drive cars, and when they do for the most part they follow the rules of the road. This furthers my belief that POBs see themselves as pedestrians on wheels, and think the rules on the road don’t apply. As “Motorists,” they suffer the same fate as cyclists; lumped together with PICs. (People in Cars.)

Motorists get in their cars and do nothing else but drive. Their full attention is on the road; they are the good and careful drivers. I see motorists as being the same as cyclists; they are just using a different form of transport.

PICs, on the other hand, drive as if they are still at home or at work. They talk on the phone, eat, drink, shave, and put on makeup. Another way to describe it; POBs ride their bike as if they are walking, and PICs drive their car as if they are sleepwalking.

Organizations who put out accident statistics should adopt the term POBs and PICs, in addition to the terms cyclist and motorist. We would then see that cyclists and motorists sharing the road is not the problem. It’s those SOBs the POBs and PICs.

Same crap, different country

When a blogger from New Zealand linked to this blog the other day, I checked to see what it was all about. It turned out to be one of those articles about how dangerous cycling is, how cyclists make up their own rules and blow through traffic lights, etc, etc.

The piece started out in this fashion:

“Thanks to Al Gore, biking to work has attained a new cachet. You can exercise, get to work, and save the earth all at the same time.

But cycling is - particularly on New Zealand roads - dangerous. About a dozen cyclists die on our roads each year, and lots more suffer injuries as a result of accidents. And most commuters will be able to recount a near miss or two observed in rush hour traffic.”

Now wait a minute, let's back up here. A dozen cyclists killed a year in New Zealand. That's hardly a statistic to back up a claim that cycling is dangerous. I did some checking and discovered that New Zealand has a population of over four million people.

Twelve out of four million killed on a bicycle in a year must rank up there with people slipping in their bathtub listed as a cause of death. How many people died in cars in New Zealand in a similar period? A lot more than twelve, I guarantee.

In another part of the piece, there is this strange statement:

“Some cyclists seem to operate to an odd code which permits traveling through red lights and transferring occasionally to footpaths when it suits. Not to mention the odd sight of Lycra-clad cyclists in cafés sipping lattés.”

He said, “Not to mention Lycra-clad cyclists,” but he did anyway. This says a lot about the author of this article. The statement has nothing to do with safety or any other issue in the piece, but clearly shows he is anti-cyclist. I find a statement like this disturbing, coming from an educated man, who happens to be a lawyer no less.

I will go even further and say he is a bigot. If you were to substitute the words "Lycra-clad cyclist" with the name of a race of people or their color, this would be a bigoted statement. He is judging a whole group of people solely on their appearance.

I have explained before why I wear Lycra. For safety; bright colors can be seen; and for comfort; riding fifty miles or more in anything else is uncomfortable.

If I decide to stop for refreshment at the end of my ride with a few like-minded friends, am I to carry a change of clothes for fear I might be discriminated against? And what is the reason for this discrimination that seems to be world wide?

It goes beyond simple road rage. Is it because society as we know it can no longer discriminate against anyone on the grounds of race, sexual orientation, or religion? The "Lycra-clad cyclist" fills a void. Why this human need to make outcasts of anyone who appears a little different?

You can read the rest of the article here.