Why the hate for Cyclists?

[jamil]

If it is "practicable" for you to ride farther to the right, yet you choose instead to ride in the center of the lane, then no: you're not following the law.

You have stated that such riding is not a matter of what is "practicable" but rather a matter of what you consider to improve your safety when cars approach/pass you.

But Mike has special powers where he can say someone or even a law is saying what it didn't say. Remember? He said he interpreted it to mean he can drive in the middle of the lane, and he believes the law would be on his side. He's probably not wrong there. He'd have to sue a driver for stamping a chevy bowtie on his ass for that to even be a consideration.

 

[chipbennett]

But Mike has special powers where he can say someone or even a law is saying what it didn't say. Remember? He said he interpreted it to mean he can drive in the middle of the lane, and he believes the law would be on his side. He's probably not wrong there. He'd have to sue a driver for stamping a chevy bowtie on his ass for that to even be a consideration.

And that's the whole point of my "if" statement. I'm not deciding what is "practicable" or even what "practicable" means in these circumstances. The definition of "practicable" is "capable of being done", which if applied in a vacuum would seem to preclude "choosing to ride farther to the left for safety".

But I'm not making an assertion there. I'm deferring to the cyclist who stated that he chose to ride more to the left in the lane, not because he was incapable of riding farther to the right but rather because he believe that riding farther to the left improved his safety. If that was the thought process, then the cyclist in question would not be in conformance with the law.

 

[Ingomike]

But Mike has special powers where he can say someone or even a law is saying what it didn't say. Remember? He said he interpreted it to mean he can drive in the middle of the lane, and he believes the law would be on his side. He's probably not wrong there. He'd have to sue a driver for stamping a chevy bowtie on his ass for that to even be a consideration.

Please show the post where I said ride middle?

And that's the whole point of my "if" statement. I'm not deciding what is "practicable" or even what "practicable" means in these circumstances. The definition of "practicable" is "capable of being done", which if applied in a vacuum would seem to preclude "choosing to ride farther to the left for safety".

But I'm not making an assertion there. I'm deferring to the cyclist who stated that he chose to ride more to the left in the lane, not because he was incapable of riding farther to the right but rather because he believe that riding farther to the left improved his safety. If that was the thought process, then the cyclist in question would not be in conformance with the law.

Please show a post I said ride left either in the lane or left lane.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Who said that?


There are many different road sizes and just as varied a number of practicable cyclist positioning on those varied roadways. One size does not fit all. Therefore:

“There is the occasional driver who may see a cyclist riding further from the curb, or edge of the road, as being belligerent. Cyclists have a right to be on the road, and riding further from the edge is simply a matter of safety—for the cyclist, for motorists and for other road users.”

You said I was trying to police where riders can be. Never said they couldn't ride on the left side of the lane like an ass. I also don't try to force them over. Or even drive in a manner to make it difficult to do so. Unlike some riders who will position themselves to intentionally make it difficult and/or unlawful to pass. That is attempting to police the roads.

For the moment, I will concede the possibility. I have devoted all the time I'm willing to right now to a search and I can find plenty of organizations, including some official Indiana ones, stating that bicyclists may but are not required to use bike lanes but I cannot find a specific IC citation where I would expect to

I am assuming some such exists, due to the frequent reference to it, but have not yet found it. I suspect that requiring bicycles to use bike lanes would require a change to the law

Further, I must admit that I am surprised that use of the sidewalk is specifically required when one is available

There is no requirement to use a bike lane and never said there was. I asked since it's a requirement for pedestrians to use a sidewalk when available, if you would support the same for bikes.

And why are you surprised? Simple safety and practicality.

 

[BugI02]

In practical terms, if bicycles are considered in planning out roads, then we should be able to discern some kind of difference in roads when bicycles are not considered, in a way that is relevant to the points you guys are trying to make. Otherwise, the point is moot. So you dug out a specification for roadways that say a grate has to be safe for bicycles. While technically a "consideration", is there a consequence for any point you'd like to make about it?

Just check to see if bicycle safe drainage grates are specified for interstate construction because bicycles are prohibited

And the stipulation that he made was binary, 'bicycles are not considered in road construction', so any exception disproves the point

 

[Hatin Since 87]

As the title is literally begging the question, perhaps there is room to argue about the (pre-ordained) answer?

I will allow it

Vis a vis questioning why INGO questions something, you must be new here. Welcome to INGO

Just tryin to get 50 quality posts

 

[BugI02]

The road I live on has zero road grates. Prove that any consideration was made for all the bikes that ride on it. I'll say this, if consideration was given, design intent must have been to kill off cyclists. It's a dangerous road even for cars. I wish they could widen it, and maybe add a berm on the sides.

Have you considered that your road was built long enough ago that it fell under differing INDOT rules - you know like code being different for a house built in the 60s relative to code today?

You could probably find out when the last major upgrade was done to that road and get an idea how prehistoric the associated code was

 

[BugI02]

No; I've fully conceded that you are correct that road design contemplates bicycles for the non-traffic-lane part of road construction. You were right about that. I was wrong.

I'll be watching for you riding your bicycle in such non-traffic-lane parts of roads.

It isn't the non-traffic lane. jamil is correct (that hurts to say) the standard specifies that the grates should be at the edges of the lane so as to make them impact all users as little as possible and then further specifies bicycle safe grates (ie: the width of the grate openings is smaller than the width of bicycle tires or possibly oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel) because it is expected that bicycles would be predominantly using the right side of the lane

 

[BugI02]

You said I was trying to police where riders can be. Never said they couldn't ride on the left side of the lane like an ass. I also don't try to force them over. Or even drive in a manner to make it difficult to do so. Unlike some riders who will position themselves to intentionally make it difficult and/or unlawful to pass. That is attempting to police the roads.

There is no requirement to use a bike lane and never said there was. I asked since it's a requirement for pedestrians to use a sidewalk when available, if you would support the same for bikes.

And why are you surprised? Simple safety and practicality.

We have signage, quite common in residential neighborhoods, that advise 'pedestrians using roadway'. They are the yellow cautionary type of road sign but I wouldn't assume they would be available to support an activity the state considered illegal

 

[Timjoebillybob]

We have signage, quite common in residential neighborhoods, that advise 'pedestrians using roadway'. They are the yellow cautionary type of road sign but I wouldn't assume they would be available to support an activity the state considered illegal

The law is the same in OH. Almost if not verbatim. OC 4511.50. Not all roads have sidewalks, even in residential neighborhoods. Heck I know a few near me that don't.

But for my question, since I have shown that pedestrians are required to use sidewalks when available. Would you support the same for bicycles? Road with a bike lane, bikes are required to use said lane.

 

[Creedmoor]

Who said riding on the left side? Strawman!

Still trying to police where riders can ride I see.

The time I got hit by a car I was too far right and he thought he could squeeze through with me in the right hand lane while an oncoming car was in the left and hit me. NEVER AGAIN!

And it appears you haven't learned that age old thing, that gross tonnage always wins.

 

[Ingomike]

You said I was trying to police where riders can be. Never said they couldn't ride on the left side of the lane like an ass. I also don't try to force them over. Or even drive in a manner to make it difficult to do so. Unlike some riders who will position themselves to intentionally make it difficult and/or unlawful to pass. That is attempting to police the roads.

Are you trying to be obtuse? If there is a 20 foot wide lane a cyclist would have little needed to manage traffic passing and space. As lane width narrows it logically becomes impossible for a car and the bicycle they are passing to pass without the car crossing the center line.

Riding the edge of the road in lanes too narrow for both the car and the bicycle being passed to fit is an invitation to the car wanting to pass to squeeze the cyclist. When the cyclist sees either oncoming traffic or it is impossible to see oncoming traffic due to hills or curves it is dangerous for the cyclist to ride the edge. Therefore the cyclist is riding in the right side of the lane but not on the edge as is practicable for safety.

On narrow roads with limited forward visibility this is a common practice for the safety of all. I posted this months ago but it was reinterpreted to mean I stop/police traffic and ride on the left side of the lane. This is why discussion is dying on INGO. No one reads or thinks, they just react.

There is no requirement to use a bike lane and never said there was. I asked since it's a requirement for pedestrians to use a sidewalk when available, if you would support the same for bikes.

And why are you surprised? Simple safety and practicality.

I would not support the same for bikes. The reason being cyclists are not monolithic a commuter cyclist that can go 20-22 mph average is an appropriate road user and needs that efficiency of the road not available on bike paths. 5 mph granny needs to use the path.

Remember the dog walkers and stroller pushers don’t want the bikes on the path because they are too quiet and too fast hence many areas putting up speed limits.

 

[Ingomike]

And it appears you haven't learned that age old thing, that gross tonnage always wins.

I have learned that bullies bully…

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Are you trying to be obtuse? If there is a 20 foot wide lane a cyclist would have little needed to manage traffic passing and space. As lane width narrows it logically becomes impossible for a car and the bicycle they are passing to pass without the car crossing the center line.

Riding the edge of the road in lanes too narrow for both the car and the bicycle being passed to fit is an invitation to the car wanting to pass to squeeze the cyclist. When the cyclist sees either oncoming traffic or it is impossible to see oncoming traffic due to hills or curves it is dangerous for the cyclist to ride the edge. Therefore the cyclist is riding in the right side of the lane but not on the edge as is practicable for safety.

On narrow roads with limited forward visibility this is a common practice for the safety of all. I posted this months ago but it was reinterpreted to mean I stop/police traffic and ride on the left side of the lane. This is why discussion is dying on INGO. No one reads or thinks, they just react.



I would not support the same for bikes. The reason being cyclists are not monolithic a commuter cyclist that can go 20-22 mph average is an appropriate road user and needs that efficiency of the road not available on bike paths. 5 mph granny needs to use the path.

Pedestrians aren't a monolithic group either. And a vehicle that can only maintain a 20mph speed is an appropriate user of a road with a 45 mph or higher speed limit?

And at least you admit to trying to police the roads, well "manage" anyway.

Remember the dog walkers and stroller pushers don’t want the bikes on the path because they are too quiet and too fast hence many areas putting up speed limits.

I never said anything about multipurpose trails/paths. I specifically stated bike lane, as in a lane of the road designated specifically for the use of bikes.

 

[chipbennett]

Please show a post I said ride left either in the lane or left lane.

Was this not you?

Why the hate for Cyclists?

www.indianagunowners.com

So apparently you have never noticed but not all roads are the same, might make a note of that. And yes, if I’m on certain roads that are not wide enough for two cars to pass with reasonable clearance and give 3 feet to the bicycle I will ride over enough to not get squeezed.

Would this not fall under choosing not to ride as far right as practicable? (And note that riding left of "as far right as is practicable" is all I ever stated. I never said anything about riding "left either in the lane or left lane".)

 

[chipbennett]

Just check to see if bicycle safe drainage grates are specified for interstate construction because bicycles are prohibited

And the stipulation that he made was binary, 'bicycles are not considered in road construction', so any exception disproves the point

Again: point was conceded that non-driving-lane parts of roads have some explicit design consideration for bicycles. You were right. I was wrong.

I'm still waiting for a meaningful bicycle-specific road-design consideration; but it was absolutely my fault for speaking in such a generality. (It wasn't even really my intent do do so, because it would be very easy to find road-design elements that consider bicycles, e.g. bike lanes. But, I own writing that statement in a way that could be easily, if irrelevantly, refuted.)

 

[chipbennett]

It isn't the non-traffic lane. jamil is correct (that hurts to say) the standard specifies that the grates should be at the edges of the lane so as to make them impact all users as little as possible and then further specifies bicycle safe grates (ie: the width of the grate openings is smaller than the width of bicycle tires or possibly oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel) because it is expected that bicycles would be predominantly using the right side of the lane

It's literally (from your own quote of the regulation) the non-traffic-lane part of the road.

This is the exact quote:
Grate inlets and depression of curb opening inlets should be located outside the through traffic lanes to minimize the shifting of vehicles attempting to avoid them. All grate inlets shall be bicycle safe when used on roadways that allow bicycle travel.

 

[jamil]

Have you considered that your road was built long enough ago that it fell under differing INDOT rules - you know like code being different for a house built in the 60s relative to code today?

You could probably find out when the last major upgrade was done to that road and get an idea how prehistoric the associated code was

Obviously it's old. Like most country roads. Which cycling clubs seem to really like out here. Except. Usually I think I'd have seen some more by this time of year. I have only seen one group out here so far. They don't upgrade these roads. They just throw another layer of tar on them. At least it's not chip-n-seal. No offense to Chip.

 

[chipbennett]

Are you trying to be obtuse? If there is a 20 foot wide lane a cyclist would have little needed to manage traffic passing and space. As lane width narrows it logically becomes impossible for a car and the bicycle they are passing to pass without the car crossing the center line.

Riding the edge of the road in lanes too narrow for both the car and the bicycle being passed to fit is an invitation to the car wanting to pass to squeeze the cyclist. When the cyclist sees either oncoming traffic or it is impossible to see oncoming traffic due to hills or curves it is dangerous for the cyclist to ride the edge. Therefore the cyclist is riding in the right side of the lane but not on the edge as is practicable for safety.

So you imply - again - that such a cyclist chooses to ride farther left than "as right as practicable". The rider is capable of riding farther to the right, but chooses not to do so, because the cyclist determines that preventing cars from attempting to "squeeze by" when passing is a matter of safety.

Again, the law says "as far right as practicable". The law further stipulates a certain passing width for motor vehicles passing bicycles.

What you describe is contrary to black-letter law.

On narrow roads with limited forward visibility this is a common practice for the safety of all. I posted this months ago but it was reinterpreted to mean I stop/police traffic and ride on the left side of the lane. This is why discussion is dying on INGO. No one reads or thinks, they just react.

You mean: exactly like what you're doing, right here?

 

[chipbennett]

Obviously it's old. Like most country roads. Which cycling clubs seem to really like out here. Except. Usually I think I'd have seen some more by this time of year. I have only seen one group out here so far. They don't upgrade these roads. They just throw another layer of tar on them. At least it's not chip-n-seal. No offense to Chip.

I indeed take great offense to poorly engineered road repairs.