Q&A FOR DRIVERS
Everything Motorists Want to Know about Road Cyclists
Perhaps if motorists understand why cyclists do the things they do, they might be a little more tolerate and patient.By Bill Schneider, 10-01-09
 |
|
 | |
| A cyclist momentarily riding side-by-side while he moves upfront to take his pull. Photo by Reed Gregerson | |
|
Last week, I vented about the incredibly dangerous rage a few motorists have for road cyclists. (You should check out the comment section.)
This week I’m trying to be more constructive and address some of the reasons I think might cause the anger, things many motorists might not understand about cycling and cyclists. Hopefully, this “motorist Q&A” helps explain why cyclists do the things they do and lessen concerns drivers have, which should make it easier for all of us to courteously and safely share the road.
I could, actually, give the same answer for all of these questions--"it’s the safest way to ride"--but I will try to be more helpful.
Q. Why do cyclists ride in the traffic lane instead of on or right of the fog line?
A. Most highways to not have a shoulder large enough for road cycling, and many that do aren’t swept or maintained or have rumble strips, which makes it nearly impossible and often dangerous to ride there. Most experienced cyclists ride “as far to the right as practicable,” as required in most state laws, which cyclist often interpret as about a foot into the traffic lane instead on the fog line. This discourages motorists from making the worst decision they can make when approaching cyclists from behind--trying to squeeze through in the same lane at high speed. One minor adjustment by the cyclist to miss a pothole or roadkill or because of a sudden gust of wind could cause a lethal accident. All it takes is a glancing blow by a side mirror. Instead, motorists should wait for a safe passing lane and cross the centerline and not get within five feet of the cyclist, which brings me to the most important words in this commentary: Share the Road, Not the Lane.
Q. Why cyclists ride on roads when there are sidewalks or bikeways?
A. Even though I’ve ridden about a 100,000 miles on my bike, I have never had an accident involving a motor vehicle, but I have had several involving other cyclists, pedestrians and dogs. Consequently, I avoid sidewalks and bikeways, which are occupied by pedestrians, dogs and kids with BMX bikes or training wheels.
Plus, residential streets cross all sidewalks and most bikeways, and stop signs are positioned so most motorists overdrive them before stopping, making it dangerous to ride bikeways or sidewalks unless cyclists want to go very slowly and don’t mind stopping or almost stopping every block. All this discourages cyclists from using bikeways specifically put in by city planners to ‘solve” the conflict with motorists. And sidewalks, well, I don’t believe adult cyclists belong there.
Nationally, there are many more injuries from cyclist-cyclist or cyclist-pedestrian accidents than from cyclist-motorist accidents. Think about it. Two cyclists, each going 15-20 mph, having a head-on--possibly more serious than two cars having a head-on, even at greater speeds.
Q. Why cyclists don’t always use hand signals when turning?
A. Laws requiring hand signals were written when most bicycles had coaster brakes instead of handlebar brakes, but even then, cyclists often had to keep both hands on the handlebars to safely turn, whereas motorists can signal a turn and keep both hands on the wheel. Most cyclists signal most of the time, but in some situations, cyclists can’t remove one hand from the handlebars or brakes and still adequately slow and safely turn.
Q. Why cyclists sometimes ride in the left lane on a four-lane street?
A. Most state laws define bicycles as vehicles, and no vehicle can make a left hand turn from the right hand lane, so cyclists have to move the left lane a block or so before the turn to comply with traffic laws. Cyclists should, however, only ride in the left lane when making a left turn.
Q. Why cyclists take the whole lane when riding down a steep hill?
A. When on a steep descent, often at 40-50 mph, cyclists need the whole lane to safely make the curves. They can’t ride on the shoulder where even a tiny patch of sand can cause a life-threatening crash. Plus, at these speeds, motorists should experience very minor inconvenience, no more than coming up behind an eighteen-wheeler geared down to reduce speed on a big hill.
When riding a two-lane road and backing up traffic on a long descent, cyclists should pull over, if possible, to allow motorists to pass. This is common protocol in Europe and other places, but unfortunately, many cyclists in the United States don’t do this. Fortunately, there aren’t many circumstances where this problem occurs.
Q. Why cyclists ride so far from parked vehicles?
A. Any cyclist who has ridden extensively on city streets has been “doored,” so it has become accepted practice to ride at least a “door’s length” plus a few inches from parked vehicles. Motorists are supposed to check for oncoming cyclists before opening doors, but most don’t. When riding on streets with only a few cars in the parking lane, cyclists should continue in a straight line, in the traffic lane a door’s length from vehicles, instead of weaving in and out of the parking lane.
Q. Why cyclists look like they aren’t riding single file?
A. Experienced cyclists ride in what’s called a paceline. This is, technically, single file, but cyclists usually do not ride exactly behind the cyclist in front of them for two reasons.
First, it’s dangerous. At speeds of 20 mph or more but only 6-12 inches from the next cyclist’s back wheel, any minor slowing can cause a serious crash. That’s why cyclists ride slightly off to the side, so if the first cyclist has to slow without having time to signal, the second cyclist’s wheel can come up beside his/her bike instead of hitting it, which almost always causes a bad crash.
The second reason is wind. Drafting is very important in cycling, and unless the wind is directly behind or in the face of the paceline, riding slightly off to side gives a better draft. From behind, it may look like cyclists are riding side-by-side, but this usually isn’t the case. Also keep in mind that cyclists take turns cutting the wind, which means they’ll momentarily ride side-by-side when somebody moves upfront to take his/her “pull.”
Q. Why cyclists hate stopping at stop signs?
A. It’s much easier for motorists than cyclists to stop and get started again. Nonetheless, cyclists should always stop at stop signs; it’s the law in every state except Idaho, but they hate it. They not only lose hard-earned momentum, but also have to unclip and then clip up again, which makes bicycle commuting much harder and slower--and it’s already so slow and so hard that it discourages most people from doing it. No excuse for not stopping, but just in case you’ve wondered, that’s why they don’t do it.
Q. Why cyclists don’t always ride in a straight line?
A. Actually, experienced cyclists always try to ride a straight line, but no different than motorists, they sometimes have to swerve to miss potholes and other obstructions, such as pedestrians or traffic-calming devices. Hitting a pothole with your motor vehicle can be aggravating, but hitting it with a bicycle can be deadly. Motorists can hardly notice a strong wind, but a cyclist certain does and gusty side winds make it hard to hold a straight line.
Q. Why cyclists ride on roads that aren’t suited for bicycles?
A. I hear this a lot and really wonder which roads they consider suitable for cycling. If cyclists only rode on roads with large, swept shoulders, there’d be very few available, to say the least. Almost no roads, if any, are designed for bicycles. Ditto for the rest of the world--no roads made for bicycles. In fact, American roads are more suited for cycling than roads in Europe and elsewhere. The rest of the world doesn’t even worry about it. Motorists there accept cycling as a legitimate use and have learned to share the roads--all roads--with cyclists. This is the greatest country in the world, so we can do the same.
Hopefully, this Q&A answers a few questions motorists have, but I’m also sure I missed some, so if you want to put a question in the comment section, I’ll try to answer it for you.
For more NewWest.Net coverage of this issue, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Education like your article and other places would prevent most conflicts. Here is another article from the Practical Pedal about give and take.
http://practicalpedal.com/issue_5/feature1.php
There are bad and rude cyclists out there too. Those that continue to ride two, three or more, side by side without caring whether they are blocking traffic or not (on Old Stage last month there was a mob of over 30-40 bikers going slow up the hill and blocking up the entire road for more than a block, preventing any passing). Many that don't stop at stop signs (I have noticed that many motorists just wait at stop signs anymore, assuming the oncoming biker is going to ignore it - and usually they are right). Those that get angry and yell at cars when they pass (safely and legally). Those that stop and hang out in the middle of the road in mountain towns talking to their friends causing traffic to maneuver around them.
Yes, there certainly are many rude and impatient drivers, I will never deny that, but there are also rude and inconsiderate bicyclists and it might be best for all if an article was written for them too. Simply continuing to place the blame on drivers will never remedy the issue since not all of the problems are with the drivers.
If you are one of the safe and courteous bicyclists or drivers, thank you so much - and if you know those who aren't, maybe you should remind them how we can all be better on the road.
Thanks!
I agree--and have said many times--that cyclists are partially to blame and need to ride safely and courteously without inconveniencing drivers if possible. Frankly, I hear all these stories in the comment sections, but I really don't see it out on the roads. I commonly ride in large groups, and most of the time--but definitely not all of the time--the group is very aware of this situation and rides in a way that doesn't inconvenience motorists. It's still a problem, though, and obviously, if every cyclist always road like they were an ambassador for the entire sport, we would all be better off.
Bill
You said exactly the view on the road from our two wheels. Thanks for the clarifications and easy to understand communication. Hopefully a lot of people will read this, motorists and cyclists alike. There are so many instances that we're right (or not), but it's deadly to insist on the point while on the road. I feel it is really important not to react with a hand signal or other angry gesture to anyone--mainly motorists--because the danger to you might have passed but the next cyclist will be a target in that person's mind, lumping us all together. I have had people "gunning" for me and threatening to run me down, or throw things at me. We've all experienced those things. Just keep a straight face when faced with rage and try to get out of the situation as soon as possible.
Thanks again for an excellent article that will help keep us safe.
Reine Wiley
Please let me expand a bit on my answer posted in the other thread. As I said, at times I do pull over to let a group of vehicles pass me. Having a rear view mirror is essential in my opinion because I can often anticipate situations better. In most cases though it's going to need to be a lot more than two vehicles-and they will have to be following me for more than a few seconds. There are a lot of factors involved.
If the road is narrow, there usually isn't a suitable place to pull over. The edge just beyond the pavement is a dangerous place, rocks, debris, ditch. Going from 15 or 20 mph on pavement to a non-paved surface can be really scarey-especially with skinny road bike tires. If I need to pull over I look for a driveway where the pavement has been extended into the driveway a little ways. It's harder than you might expect.
Going up hill is hard work. But it's made easier by keeping your momentum. Cyclists can be greedy about keeping their momentum-sometimes to a fault I admit. Stopping and then starting again on really steep hills can almost be impossible-you'll tip over before you can turn the pedals over. You have to start by going across the road or even down to get up enough speed to stay upright. Thus when going up hill a cyclist is probably less likely to pull over-especially if the hill is really steep unless there's a wide turnout available in which they can get going again.
Randomly pulling over whenever a few cars come behind is almost impossible for a group of cyclists. Slowing and stopping a large group of tightly bunched cyclists has to be a very gradual process or it will be one big wreck. The upcoming stop has to be communicated to all the riders well in advance, and there has to be a place wide enough for everyone to get over. If one guy decides to pull over and the guy right behind didn't get the message-well it's not pretty.
No shoulders? If the road is busy, stay the heck off.
Sidewalks? I agree, I've been mowed on the sidewalk by bikers. If you have to ride on the SW, do what I do, use it like a scooter. Keeps you low, keeps you slow, but WAY faster than walking.
Bikeways? Sorry, but bikeways have rules. If "real" bikers get miffed about rolling roadblocks, what the heck is the difference if motorists get miffed at, yep, rolling roadblocks? Head on collisions? Aw gee, but if on the ROAD some guy moves over after a surprise on a blind curve or hill, that's just part of the game? Cheeze.
Signals? Come on, plan ahead. It's much safer to do your braking before the turn anyway. A little suggestion MIGHT be to switch levers so the front brake is where it BELONGS, on the LEFT. Then you can death grip with the right and not die.
Left Lane? A block is not the law. As long as you occupy the lane and straighten out (rest) before completing the change, it's not a ticketable, multiple shot. If you still don't wanna, then either turn RIGHT at the controlled light, sneak a U-ie into the stopped line, and cross THAT way.
Descents? Okay, I'll let you live since you worked so hard to get to the top. But move the heck OVER on the straight and wave me through. More fun to speed up in the corners anyway.
Doors? To a point. But I suggest you take a street over where the traffic might not be so heavy, especially if you can't maintain the flow speed.
Pace lines? Drafting? This sounds like RECREATION and therefore should be in a velodrome, eh? Looking at somebody's butt isn't watching for the road hazards.
Stops and clips? For town riding, drop the purist Tour De France puckey and get yourself some jungle clips. Uncool, but much more practical.
Potholes? Again, forget the Lance Armstrong special and ride something that can take the hits of your regular route.
Riding areas....
Why in the heck does this have me noticing a strange parallel with the motorcycle access issue on trails? Never mind the prior discussion about how bike paths stinketh for bicyclists...
As for road cycling in general, I dropped the idea a long time ago. I have a mountain bike so I can pick whatever route I can clean without getting run over from behind.
Finally, I have been a two-wheeler since day one, dirt, street, gas and meat. I have left a lot of blood on the pavement and on various rocks. Fortunately, I have not left any blood on painted metal surfaces...but I came darn close too many times, enough to know when and where it is a good idea to ride and when it is a bad idea.
Go ahead, nurse your sense of entitlement, Bill, but the fact is, bikes of all kinds are vulnerable and there are risks, including the risk that someone didn't read your column and will pancake you anyway.
The vulnerability is bad enough. Almost all motorists don't like the idea of pancaking anyone...but when you are naked out there on the road, being a nuisance as well just makes people grumpy.
The thoughtless rider that rationalizes the hazard he or she creates is just as bad as the RVer who slugs up Giant Hill at three MPH past 28 consecutive turnouts in front of everyone and their dog.
Oh, but the RV is ENTITLED to that lane. Same deal, different dolt.
Ah, I feel much better now.
Sincerely,
Reine Wiley
On my 30 mile ride last weekend through city streets, bike lanes, joint use trails and country roads without sholders there were several cars that went out of their way to wait at intersection, slow when passing and provide blocking.
The point is that as bikers we need to do a better job of acknowlegeing when a car does allow us the right of way. All it takes is a head nod or a wave of appreciation. The more we show respect for them and thank them for what curtisies they provide the better it is for everyone on the road.
Give a wave of thanks and it will make their day too.
As someone who operates both "Vehicles," I would like to approach this topic through a couple of questions as I don't always understand the thought process that goes on in someone's head. They are both "vehicle" and as such have a right to use the road. Courtesy, patience and yielding on both sides can go a loooooong way.
As I continue, I believe part of the discussion is remembering that four- or multiple-wheel vehicles have an engine with an accelerator that can easily get going; while the engine on a two-wheel human-powered vehicle is two piston-like legs where momentum, or lack thereof, is huge. Additionally, two-wheel vehicles are operating on tires that have a contact point of about 1/2 to 1 inch wide and are easily punctured by glass, sharp rocks and debris that oftentimes occupies much of the right side of the road outside of the traffic lane. When you add in the rumble strips which regularly take up the little bit of a shoulder on the right side of the white line, there is no where else to ride but near the right wheel track of the lane.
As for those who think two-wheel vehicles should ride only on roads that have plenty of room for them - well that just isn't always practical or possible. As an example, if a biker is on a summer trek and wants to visit our great national parks, such as Yellowstone...There are no four-lane roads or wide-shouldered roads available to access it from any direction. Bicycles are a vehicle and as such by law the owners have the right to use the road so they can enjoy our national treasures too. Plus, it is an environmentally friendly way to travel this great country.
So now for my questions:
1) The law says that a vehicle should not cross over a solid yellow line in the middle of the road. As a four-wheel vehicle coming up on a bicyclist with no on-coming traffic in sight, common sense would say it is safer for all involved to create more space between both vehicles and for the four-wheel vehicle to move over to the left to create a safety cushion, even if it means crossing over the solid yellow line - especially if the bicyclist is already close to the right edge. Why won't some people take this simple safety precaution?
2) A four-wheel vehicle can accelerate and get going much easier and faster than a two-wheel human-powered vehicle. Are a few seconds or maybe even a minute or two to allow for the on-coming traffic to clear so a safe pass with some cushion space can be made going to make that big a difference in arrival time?
Impatience for a few moments can create a lifetime of pain and suffering for everyone involved, or even death. It is one thing to be involved in an accident in a four-wheel vehicle, it is quite another life and limb threatening situation to have an accident on a two-wheel vehicle.
This is not meant to be confrontational but rather a survey to try and understand the conflict that exists between these two legal vehicles with the right-of-way to use the roads. We can't occupy the same space, but with a little patience we can safely share the space.
Please provide constructive input so we all walk away from this with a better understanding and care for each other.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Certainly it is past time for cyclists to be licensed, for income for the roads system and for reporting and id when they break the law. I must say it sounds like most of you obey the law when it is convenient and will not slow you down.
It really does not matter how fast or how slow they can get going, cyclists need to obey all of the laws and accomodate drivers when necessary as well as the reverse. You are not special you have just chosen to ride a bike for recreation or transportation.
Drivers cross a double-yellow line frequently for many reasons. I just did it a few minutes ago when a guy pulled his boat trailer over to check something. He had is hazard lights on, and there was no on-coming trafffic, and I slowed and pulled over the double-yellow for maybe 1.5 seconds.
This could have easily been me on my bicycle, and I'm sure the guy with the boat appreciated me giving him 5 feet of space instead of blowing by him in the same lane at 60 mph.
Crossing a double-yellow for a second is much safer than trying to share the lane with a cyclist, especially at high speed, assuming, of course, there is no on-coming traffic.
Bill
Have any of you heard the maxim "Lead, Follow, or Get the Heck Out of the WAY?"
If motorists, cyclists, path users, et cetera followed this maxim, we wouldn't have issues now, would we?
And that might have a lot to do with why Europe doesn't have such conflicts.
But the railroad was bought and paid for by the RR, except when it was stolen through land grants. And highways are, you bet, bought and paid for more so by gas and fuel taxes from motorized users.
And on dirt roads in the woods, the rules are that the downhill log truck has the right of way and if you are trying to be Malcom Smith you better have a handle on it. That also works for single-tracks. Only go as fast as you can see, and if you are slower, move over, BEFORE you are asked.
And when we evil motorcycles come up on horse stock or pedestrians or wildlife, the goal is to make a safe and courteous pass, period.
Finally, there's protocol on the open road. Lots of roads in Montana are awful for pedestrians and bikes. And even though I suppose I'm ENTITLED to walk or bike on the fog line, or in the lane, whatever, for reasons of safety, courtesy and survival I will watch the traffic and if I see a "bite" coming, I step away, even into the ditch. I lose time, but if I'm walking or biking, then time really isn't the criteria.
So, Joe,
You have it completely wrong. I'm all for sharing as long as the various users take steps not to interfere with one another, and/or to facilitate one another's passage.
This is a really great, short, to the point Q&A;. I grew up in the Boise area, but learned to bike commute in Seattle - which, despite its own issues and cycling deaths, in my opinion is far advanced in cycling/motorist "rules of the road." Since I moved back in January, I have realized much to my discontent, that Boise is a kindergartner in this area. I felt safer riding in rush hour traffic in downtown Seattle with busses and the like.
I can understand, however, some of the road rage that drivers have here toward cyclists, and I have come to realize it is because of a lack of understanding & education.
So, thank you for your start in this area! We need to keep it coming!
Nicole
I think bicyclists should have their own bike paths anywhere there is a highway. Tax em. Ride em. Keep pedestrians and cars off the bike path.
Otherwise, like those of us who bike on motorcycles, you take your chances on the road. It's part of the deal. Always. Owls, humans, coke cans, all of it. No whining, for crissakes. Cant make heaven for you on two wheels just cause you would like to have it.
Dont even get us started on bicycle rudeness to bikers on the road. Not sure why so many bicyclists think it's all just what they alone face. My experience with most who are not biking because it's their only form of transportation? They are stuck on personal issues like having their little workouts and such, that have nothing to do with what have always been the rules of the road for the biggest, fastest vehicles.
Deal with it, and quicher bellyaching. You all sound like you oughta be wearing lace cuffs instead of gauntlets.
dis could rock de motorist world there. Humm investment??
Gidduy=up Slow light'n
der snow n MONTANA!!
U find de Colonel here..
http://www.withoutglory.com
Your answer was short and to the point. Kudos for keeping it civil. The rhetoric bothers me only because outrageous behavior ends debate. As you said: Safety is the issue!! Not right or wrong, you can be "dead" right, and still not ever be able to get up again to write anything about your experience. Awareness is the first condition that helps cyclists survive. Keeping a cool head when confronted with challenges, including misunderstood responsibilities and rules for the cyclist and the motorist. Let's "all get along" and watch out for each other, we've only got each other on this earth. Patience and caution will surpass most difficulties. Reine
I did something similar to your piece on my blog awhile back, Bill. 'Cept I used questions and comments that were posted on the (Boise) daily newspaper website's reader board (similar to this one). It's <a >HERE</a>.
(I'm always disappointed when someone who claims to be a motorcycle rider "disses" bicyclists. As a person who does a considerable amount of both, I point out that the hazards for the two modes of transportation are similar. How often do you hear somebody who just plowed a bike rider or motoryclist say, "I didn't SEE him!"?)
Ride safe, everyone, and as Clancy said up-front, try to be a good ambassador for the cause!
"Bicycling 101 for non-cyclists":
http://bikenazi.blogspot.com/2007/12/bicycling-101-for-non-cyclists.html