11/2/09 at 5:07pm
Recent Reviews
-
I grew up skiing here, and at Keystone resort. This is known around Summit County as the resort for locals, evidenced by its consistent first place rank among Summit County...
-
I learned to ski at Kirkwood as a kid. Every time I go back I have a great time, and remember why I miss living nearby. You gotta love the bluebird powder days available in the...
-
There are no Starbucks here, no condos, no village complex, PERFECT for powderhounds. Sierra-at-Tahoe is most loved by day skiers due to their wind-protected acres and 46 runs. Enough powder for...
What Barking Bears Want
-
114
-
52
-
46
-
41
-
38
GUILTY!
11/2/09 at 6:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic 
Justice is served!
http://www.velonews.com/article/99800/dr-thompson-is-found-guilty-of-all-counts-in-la-road-rage
Justice is served!
http://www.velonews.com/article/99800/dr-thompson-is-found-guilty-of-all-counts-in-la-road-rage
I am playing devils advocates cause its cool to see someone get charged for this but....
If the cyclists were farther away from the back of the car, this guys couldnt pull this stunt. I am one to push a point when I need to, but never give people a chance to do shit like this.
"Trading the future for the moment, one powder turn at a time"
pbfootnit.blogspot.com/ <<< the start of something good!
11/2/09 at 6:10pm
FKNA!
He passed them in order to slam on the brakes. This was nothing other than deliberate targeting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA
I am playing devils advocates cause its cool to see someone get charged for this but....
If the cyclists were farther away from the back of the car, this guys couldnt pull this stunt. I am one to push a point when I need to, but never give people a chance to do shit like this.
I am playing devils advocates cause its cool to see someone get charged for this but....
If the cyclists were farther away from the back of the car, this guys couldnt pull this stunt. I am one to push a point when I need to, but never give people a chance to do shit like this.
He passed them in order to slam on the brakes. This was nothing other than deliberate targeting.
Now on Mondays.
11/2/09 at 6:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA
I am playing devils advocates cause its cool to see someone get charged for this but....
If the cyclists were farther away from the back of the car, this guys couldnt pull this stunt. I am one to push a point when I need to, but never give people a chance to do shit like this.
I am playing devils advocates cause its cool to see someone get charged for this but....
If the cyclists were farther away from the back of the car, this guys couldnt pull this stunt. I am one to push a point when I need to, but never give people a chance to do shit like this.
Read a few of the many articles. As Comprex said, he passed them pulled over and brake-tested them. He told the police he did it to "teach them a lesson".
11/2/09 at 6:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic
Read a few of the many articles. As Comprex said, he passed them pulled over and brake-tested them. He told the police he did it to "teach them a lesson".
Read a few of the many articles. As Comprex said, he passed them pulled over and brake-tested them. He told the police he did it to "teach them a lesson".
ah
only read the one, like I said the guy had it coming now hopefully the courts make the right choice.
"Trading the future for the moment, one powder turn at a time"
pbfootnit.blogspot.com/ <<< the start of something good!
11/2/09 at 9:05pm
It sounds like they are going to try to charge him with the other incident that was declined prosecution . Those guys were luckier. What a jerk .
11/3/09 at 6:31am
Yep, he was a jerk.
I live in Boulder County, where we have a very active cycling community. Recently, we've been seeing a lot more incidents between cyclists and motorists. These incidents were prompted, in part, by changes in state law that provided more protection to cyclists and allowed riding two abreast. The problem is that some cyclists are very incosiderate. We get peolotons of recreational cyclists who take over the road and obstruct traffic. As a result, a bunch of folk who live in the Mountains or canyons are fed up.
While it's due justice that this guy got his due, I encourage all of us cyclists to ride considerately. Just because the law may say that you can ride 2 abreast doesn't mean that you should, particularly when it is obstructing traffic and creating confrontations. After this past summer, I've been concerned that a backlash may very well start in Colorado that bans cyclists from certain roads. That wouldn't be to our benefit.
Mike
I live in Boulder County, where we have a very active cycling community. Recently, we've been seeing a lot more incidents between cyclists and motorists. These incidents were prompted, in part, by changes in state law that provided more protection to cyclists and allowed riding two abreast. The problem is that some cyclists are very incosiderate. We get peolotons of recreational cyclists who take over the road and obstruct traffic. As a result, a bunch of folk who live in the Mountains or canyons are fed up.
While it's due justice that this guy got his due, I encourage all of us cyclists to ride considerately. Just because the law may say that you can ride 2 abreast doesn't mean that you should, particularly when it is obstructing traffic and creating confrontations. After this past summer, I've been concerned that a backlash may very well start in Colorado that bans cyclists from certain roads. That wouldn't be to our benefit.
Mike
11/3/09 at 7:46am
Wahoo! Makes me proud to be a retired prosecutor.
11/3/09 at 8:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by habacomike
Yep, he was a jerk.
I live in Boulder County, where we have a very active cycling community. Recently, we've been seeing a lot more incidents between cyclists and motorists. These incidents were prompted, in part, by changes in state law that provided more protection to cyclists and allowed riding two abreast. The problem is that some cyclists are very incosiderate. We get peolotons of recreational cyclists who take over the road and obstruct traffic. As a result, a bunch of folk who live in the Mountains or canyons are fed up.
While it's due justice that this guy got his due, I encourage all of us cyclists to ride considerately. Just because the law may say that you can ride 2 abreast doesn't mean that you should, particularly when it is obstructing traffic and creating confrontations. After this past summer, I've been concerned that a backlash may very well start in Colorado that bans cyclists from certain roads. That wouldn't be to our benefit.
Mike
Yep, he was a jerk.
I live in Boulder County, where we have a very active cycling community. Recently, we've been seeing a lot more incidents between cyclists and motorists. These incidents were prompted, in part, by changes in state law that provided more protection to cyclists and allowed riding two abreast. The problem is that some cyclists are very incosiderate. We get peolotons of recreational cyclists who take over the road and obstruct traffic. As a result, a bunch of folk who live in the Mountains or canyons are fed up.
While it's due justice that this guy got his due, I encourage all of us cyclists to ride considerately. Just because the law may say that you can ride 2 abreast doesn't mean that you should, particularly when it is obstructing traffic and creating confrontations. After this past summer, I've been concerned that a backlash may very well start in Colorado that bans cyclists from certain roads. That wouldn't be to our benefit.
Mike
after my uninformed post I went back and read the dozen or so articles on this guys, this guy was a jerk and good to get him off the road for at least a couple of year. I hope he learned his lesson and wont do it again when he gets out but I doubt it.
Riding 2 a breast on climbs is a dick move though with cars behind you.
"Trading the future for the moment, one powder turn at a time"
pbfootnit.blogspot.com/ <<< the start of something good!
11/3/09 at 8:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by habacomike
Yep, he was a jerk.
I live in Boulder County, where we have a very active cycling community. Recently, we've been seeing a lot more incidents between cyclists and motorists. These incidents were prompted, in part, by changes in state law that provided more protection to cyclists and allowed riding two abreast. The problem is that some cyclists are very incosiderate. We get peolotons of recreational cyclists who take over the road and obstruct traffic. As a result, a bunch of folk who live in the Mountains or canyons are fed up.
While it's due justice that this guy got his due, I encourage all of us cyclists to ride considerately. Just because the law may say that you can ride 2 abreast doesn't mean that you should, particularly when it is obstructing traffic and creating confrontations. After this past summer, I've been concerned that a backlash may very well start in Colorado that bans cyclists from certain roads. That wouldn't be to our benefit.
Mike
Yep, he was a jerk.
I live in Boulder County, where we have a very active cycling community. Recently, we've been seeing a lot more incidents between cyclists and motorists. These incidents were prompted, in part, by changes in state law that provided more protection to cyclists and allowed riding two abreast. The problem is that some cyclists are very incosiderate. We get peolotons of recreational cyclists who take over the road and obstruct traffic. As a result, a bunch of folk who live in the Mountains or canyons are fed up.
While it's due justice that this guy got his due, I encourage all of us cyclists to ride considerately. Just because the law may say that you can ride 2 abreast doesn't mean that you should, particularly when it is obstructing traffic and creating confrontations. After this past summer, I've been concerned that a backlash may very well start in Colorado that bans cyclists from certain roads. That wouldn't be to our benefit.
Mike
Same in Durango/La Plata County, Mike. Share the road goes both ways and often mutual consideration lacks on both side of the issue......and there are jerks on both sides.
One guy got so upset, he threatened bicyclists with a gun clearly visible at his side. Here's a local article questioning whether this is uniquely an American issue and paints it as a blue/white collar issue.
Having been a 'mirror tag' target as well as 'inconvenienced' by riders taking up more of the road than they need to, I can clearly see both sides.
I didn't find the CO law description on a quick search, but I believe the intent was to give the rider the right to use the road as necessary for safety (at their discretion'), but move aside and single file if practical and vehicles need to provide 3' ft. clearance for safe passing.
I remember being very impressed in the late 70's moving to Boulder and seeing the bike lanes making it easy to get around as I did. It is still a mixed around here where bike lanes are increasing as are paths, but they aren't everywhere and some places the cyclists needs the road and the shoulders that exist are not swept forcing cyclists into the road.
It's also a planning issue where when road improvements occur, wider shoulders need to be included in the planning. A friend, an avid mountain biker was a County engineer. When we were under yet another season of major road improvements on our road (a major cycling road) which cost bazzillions of dollars, I asked him why they can't include a couple more feet of width/per lane as they go. I basically got the 'yeah, whatever' response.
A lot has to change before this conflict goes away.
Edited by Alpinord - 11/3/09 at 8:54am
11/3/09 at 12:10pm
- Joined: February 2006
- Post Count: 1,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord
Same in Durango/La Plata County, Mike. Share the road goes both ways and often mutual consideration lacks on both side of the issue......and there are jerks on both sides.
One guy got so upset, he threatened bicyclists with a gun clearly visible at his side. Here's a local article questioning whether this is uniquely an American issue and paints it as a blue/white collar issue...
Same in Durango/La Plata County, Mike. Share the road goes both ways and often mutual consideration lacks on both side of the issue......and there are jerks on both sides.
One guy got so upset, he threatened bicyclists with a gun clearly visible at his side. Here's a local article questioning whether this is uniquely an American issue and paints it as a blue/white collar issue...
the blue collar/white collar and red/blue political overtones are definitely there, and there are definitely jerks on both sides. I've had a chance to ride with a diverse group of people recently, and it's interesting to see the overlap between people who are jerks on the road, pricks about right of way MTBing, and socioeconomic status. Even the correlation between what someone is wearing and the type of bike they're riding and this type of behavior is quite strong.
11/3/09 at 12:30pm
Couldn't agree with you guys more about the need to widen shoulders. I work in Jefferson County, and ride my bike at lunch sometimes. The road is so narrow, you are taking your life in your hands to do the climb to the top of the mesa. It's ridiculous, and the county just repaved the road. Stupid.
I'm not a fan of cycling on multi-use paths. I think they are dangerous, particularly where they cross roads. I much rather to be on the road, in traffic, where the traffic has a better chance of seeing me. And given that my average speed is close to 20 MPH, I don't think I mix very well with pedestrians on a MUP.
A little foresight in transportation planning can go a long ways. Currently, Boulder County is running a task force to try to resolve some of the vehicle/cyclist conflict. In fact, they are supposed to issue a report this evening -- I wonder what it will say?
Mike
I'm not a fan of cycling on multi-use paths. I think they are dangerous, particularly where they cross roads. I much rather to be on the road, in traffic, where the traffic has a better chance of seeing me. And given that my average speed is close to 20 MPH, I don't think I mix very well with pedestrians on a MUP.
A little foresight in transportation planning can go a long ways. Currently, Boulder County is running a task force to try to resolve some of the vehicle/cyclist conflict. In fact, they are supposed to issue a report this evening -- I wonder what it will say?
Mike
11/3/09 at 4:19pm
I do not share the lane and I do not ride on the shoulder. If you don't like it, run me over. You won't be the first. Or change lanes to pass me.
11/3/09 at 7:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15
I do not share the lane and I do not ride on the shoulder. If you don't like it, run me over. You won't be the first. Or change lanes to pass me.
I do not share the lane and I do not ride on the shoulder. If you don't like it, run me over. You won't be the first. Or change lanes to pass me.
Ill easily change lanes but when there is no risk of being doored why take the lane on a country road going uphill where there is no cars.
you climbing at 10 mph while the car drive 50mph seems like something I would rather just avoid.
"Trading the future for the moment, one powder turn at a time"
pbfootnit.blogspot.com/ <<< the start of something good!
11/3/09 at 10:26pm
Here's the road rage article in our area.
And the synopsis of the new CO bicycling law from the article:
IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong) the change also allows motorists to cross a single or double yellow line to provide the clearance for bicyclists if there isn't oncoming vehicles.
And the synopsis of the new CO bicycling law from the article:
Quote:
The law requires drivers to leave at least 3 feet when passing cyclists. And it requires cyclists to ride as far right as possible. Cyclists can use their own judgment in determining how far to the right is considered safe.
The law requires drivers to leave at least 3 feet when passing cyclists. And it requires cyclists to ride as far right as possible. Cyclists can use their own judgment in determining how far to the right is considered safe.
IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong) the change also allows motorists to cross a single or double yellow line to provide the clearance for bicyclists if there isn't oncoming vehicles.
11/4/09 at 3:27am
Alpinord, How would one know whether or not there is oncoming traffic? The unbroken yellow line usually means you can't see down the road far enough to safely pass.
Bushwacker, If you pass me, unless I'm in the gutter or on the shoulder or sidewalk, you will need to go a little bit into another lane. If I ride to the right of the lane, I get people trying to go into the other lane as little as possible. Drivers prefer to be dangerously close to a cyclist than to cross a painted line and if they feel like they "have" to cross a painted line, for example to pass a slow moving vehicle, they prefer to cross it by as little as possible.
I don't think the roads I ride have room for my vehicle and another to be in the same lane with three feet between us.
Bushwacker, If you pass me, unless I'm in the gutter or on the shoulder or sidewalk, you will need to go a little bit into another lane. If I ride to the right of the lane, I get people trying to go into the other lane as little as possible. Drivers prefer to be dangerously close to a cyclist than to cross a painted line and if they feel like they "have" to cross a painted line, for example to pass a slow moving vehicle, they prefer to cross it by as little as possible.
I don't think the roads I ride have room for my vehicle and another to be in the same lane with three feet between us.
11/4/09 at 3:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15
Alpinord, How would one know whether or not there is oncoming traffic? The unbroken yellow line usually means you can't see down the road far enough to safely pass.
Bushwacker, If you pass me, unless I'm in the gutter or on the shoulder or sidewalk, you will need to go a little bit into another lane. If I ride to the right of the lane, I get people trying to go into the other lane as little as possible. Drivers prefer to be dangerously close to a cyclist than to cross a painted line and if they feel like they "have" to cross a painted line, for example to pass a slow moving vehicle, they prefer to cross it by as little as possible.
I don't think the roads I ride have room for my vehicle and another to be in the same lane with three feet between us.
Alpinord, How would one know whether or not there is oncoming traffic? The unbroken yellow line usually means you can't see down the road far enough to safely pass.
Bushwacker, If you pass me, unless I'm in the gutter or on the shoulder or sidewalk, you will need to go a little bit into another lane. If I ride to the right of the lane, I get people trying to go into the other lane as little as possible. Drivers prefer to be dangerously close to a cyclist than to cross a painted line and if they feel like they "have" to cross a painted line, for example to pass a slow moving vehicle, they prefer to cross it by as little as possible.
I don't think the roads I ride have room for my vehicle and another to be in the same lane with three feet between us.
yeah I am ok with passing in the other lane giving enough distance between me and you. At the same time though you have forced the driver now to "break the law" whether you like it or not crossing the double yellow is against the law and some people can only see black and white nad not gray. Like I said I am ok with it. Other people arent ok with it. I would rather break a law and be safer than follow the law and endanger someone.
"Trading the future for the moment, one powder turn at a time"
pbfootnit.blogspot.com/ <<< the start of something good!
11/4/09 at 4:15am
- Joined: February 2006
- Post Count: 1,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord
...
It's also a planning issue where when road improvements occur, wider shoulders need to be included in the planning. A friend, an avid mountain biker was a County engineer. When we were under yet another season of major road improvements on our road (a major cycling road) which cost bazzillions of dollars, I asked him why they can't include a couple more feet of width/per lane as they go. I basically got the 'yeah, whatever' response.
A lot has to change before this conflict goes away.
...
It's also a planning issue where when road improvements occur, wider shoulders need to be included in the planning. A friend, an avid mountain biker was a County engineer. When we were under yet another season of major road improvements on our road (a major cycling road) which cost bazzillions of dollars, I asked him why they can't include a couple more feet of width/per lane as they go. I basically got the 'yeah, whatever' response.
A lot has to change before this conflict goes away.
Those wide shoulders cost $$ and get very little use relative to the "real" lane. All sorts of recreational groups get subsidies from government @ the public's expense, so it's natural for cyclists to do the same. But, there'd probably be a lot more shoulder if the people who would be using it were willing to pay for it.
11/4/09 at 4:23am
The roads I ride generally have two or three lanes, so it would be going across a dashed white line rather than a solid yellow, but people still don't want to cross it, and will rarely give 3 feet when passing a rider who is trying to 'share the lane'. No thanks, the lane to the left needs to be clear before you can safely pass, at which point, change lanes. I don't want cars trying to squeeze between me and a lane of traffic.
Anyway, I'm glad the doctor was found guilty. I haven't encountered that degree of hostility, but I don't ride next to another guy bent over with our lyrca clad asses held up in the air, haha, just kidding.
Anyway, I'm glad the doctor was found guilty. I haven't encountered that degree of hostility, but I don't ride next to another guy bent over with our lyrca clad asses held up in the air, haha, just kidding.
11/4/09 at 4:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15
The roads I ride generally have two or three lanes, so it would be going across a dashed white line rather than a solid yellow, but people still don't want to cross it, and will rarely give 3 feet when passing a rider who is trying to 'share the lane'. No thanks, the lane to the left needs to be clear before you can safely pass, at which point, change lanes. I don't want cars trying to squeeze between me and a lane of traffic.
Anyway, I'm glad the doctor was found guilty. I haven't encountered that degree of hostility, but I don't ride next to another guy bent over with our lyrca clad asses held up in the air, haha, just kidding.
The roads I ride generally have two or three lanes, so it would be going across a dashed white line rather than a solid yellow, but people still don't want to cross it, and will rarely give 3 feet when passing a rider who is trying to 'share the lane'. No thanks, the lane to the left needs to be clear before you can safely pass, at which point, change lanes. I don't want cars trying to squeeze between me and a lane of traffic.
Anyway, I'm glad the doctor was found guilty. I haven't encountered that degree of hostility, but I don't ride next to another guy bent over with our lyrca clad asses held up in the air, haha, just kidding.
gotch ya, on 2 lane road around the burgh I ride to the Far left of the 'slow' lane. So I guess me and you are in the same boat here except you message and I just use my bike to get around for fun. I have found totally taking the lane stops people from 'buzzing' me around here.
In the city bikes are king, we can move much faster than a car there and the people that have given me shit about normally get caught soon enough by me and ask the simple question "why" to which they have no real response and they seem quite embarrassed at that point in time.
"Trading the future for the moment, one powder turn at a time"
pbfootnit.blogspot.com/ <<< the start of something good!
11/4/09 at 6:32am
Here's
Here's an article on the new law which states:
I think common sense rules on this one. Depending on circumstances (blind corners, traffic, etc) Telerod, at 50 mph, weaving over the yellow line to pass a cyclist doing less than 20 is a different issue than passing a longer and wider vehicle doing 45. There are plenty of sections where visibility is good and 'sliding over and back' is neither unsafe nor foolish. Other sections the driver will have to wait or take a dumb chance. I live in a rural area and endless times I've gotten passed by vehicles very closely because the driver stayed in their lane and it was blatantly obvious they could have easily moved over and back safely to provide clearance. For other areas it's gray and others the option isn't there. It's not like continual winding, narrow lanes in the woods of the east and NW, etc., all the time. Metro riding is it's own animal.
It's a mixed bag and it gets down to mutual understanding, discretion and sharing the road no matter what you are driving or riding.
Edited by Alpinord - 11/4/09 at 6:45am
Colorado Statute 42-4-1412
which includes:Quote:
(6) (a) PERSONS RIDING BICYCLES UPON A ROADWAY SHALL NOT RIDE MORE THAN TWO ABREAST EXCEPT ON PATHS OR PARTS OF ROADWAYS SET ASIDE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF BICYCLES.
(b) PERSONS RIDING BICYCLES TWO ABREAST SHALL NOT IMPEDE THE NORMAL AND REASONABLE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC AND, ON A LANED ROADWAY, SHALL RIDE WITHIN A SINGLE LANE.
(b) PERSONS RIDING BICYCLES TWO ABREAST SHALL NOT IMPEDE THE NORMAL AND REASONABLE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC AND, ON A LANED ROADWAY, SHALL RIDE WITHIN A SINGLE LANE.
Here's an article on the new law which states:
Quote:
The new law requires motorists to give a 3 foot buffer when passing a bike even if they have to cross a double yellow line. Any driver caught violating it faces a $110 fine.
I think common sense rules on this one. Depending on circumstances (blind corners, traffic, etc) Telerod, at 50 mph, weaving over the yellow line to pass a cyclist doing less than 20 is a different issue than passing a longer and wider vehicle doing 45. There are plenty of sections where visibility is good and 'sliding over and back' is neither unsafe nor foolish. Other sections the driver will have to wait or take a dumb chance. I live in a rural area and endless times I've gotten passed by vehicles very closely because the driver stayed in their lane and it was blatantly obvious they could have easily moved over and back safely to provide clearance. For other areas it's gray and others the option isn't there. It's not like continual winding, narrow lanes in the woods of the east and NW, etc., all the time. Metro riding is it's own animal.
It's a mixed bag and it gets down to mutual understanding, discretion and sharing the road no matter what you are driving or riding.
Edited by Alpinord - 11/4/09 at 6:45am
11/4/09 at 10:14am
- Joined: February 2006
- Post Count: 1,133
I spend roughly half my time now in a place with a lot of bike tours and some dedicated bike lanes on "scenic" routes. This am I was driving back from riding my own bike elsewhere and reflected as I passed another group of roughly 20 riders, riding 2 abreast and not in the bike lane, directly into a low sun, i.e. a car could legitimately have trouble seeing them. Of course, at each light and stop sign they passed me again, as traffic was light and they zoomed through every intersection without stopping. This is typical, not aberrant, for these groups. Maybe the answer would be to require them to buy a "two abreast" permit to help pay for some of the social costs created by this type of behavior. Figure it's worth maybe 10 cents of hassle to every car they interact with while doing this, maybe 400 cars per ride...maybe price it at $2/rider per ride for the privilege to be side to side and able to look into your buddy's eyes. Nttawwt.
11/4/09 at 11:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord
It's a mixed bag and it gets down to mutual understanding, discretion and sharing the road no matter what you are driving or riding.
I think common sense rules on this one. Depending on circumstances (blind corners, traffic, etc) Telerod, at 50 mph, weaving over the yellow line to pass a cyclist doing less than 20 is a different issue than passing a longer and wider vehicle doing 45. There are plenty of sections where visibility is good and 'sliding over and back' is neither unsafe nor foolish. Other sections the driver will have to wait or take a dumb chance. I live in a rural area and endless times I've gotten passed by vehicles very closely because the driver stayed in their lane and it was blatantly obvious they could have easily moved over and back safely to provide clearance. For other areas it's gray and others the option isn't there. It's not like continual winding, narrow lanes in the woods of the east and NW, etc., all the time. Metro riding is it's own animal.
It's a mixed bag and it gets down to mutual understanding, discretion and sharing the road no matter what you are driving or riding.
Good answer and yes it's better to cross the yellow line than to get within three feet of a bicycle. I wish more drivers would consider on occasion not to pass, just sit in, but most seem hell-bent to get ahead of the bike no matter what it takes even if the light a half block ahead has just turned red. If you try that move on me, yes of course I am going to split lanes to get ahead of you at the light, and position myself directly in front of your car, so don't bother.
11/4/09 at 12:02pm
Ctkook, paying riders 10¢ for every driver they hassle sounds like a great idea!
Why do you need to repeatedly pass riders you can't stay ahead of? If they are able to maintain the same average speed as you, why not follow along at a safe distance, perhaps with your flashers on? Wouldn't that be a way to enhance the safety of the riders? You might save a little gas. What is the downside?
Why do you need to repeatedly pass riders you can't stay ahead of? If they are able to maintain the same average speed as you, why not follow along at a safe distance, perhaps with your flashers on? Wouldn't that be a way to enhance the safety of the riders? You might save a little gas. What is the downside?
11/4/09 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord
IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong) the change also allows motorists to cross a single or double yellow line to provide the clearance for bicyclists if there isn't oncoming vehicles.
Here's the road rage article in our area.
And the synopsis of the new CO bicycling law from the article:
IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong) the change also allows motorists to cross a single or double yellow line to provide the clearance for bicyclists if there isn't oncoming vehicles.
I don't read it that way.
I read it as: "Do not use a single or double yellow for an excuse to come closer than 3 feet"
Now on Mondays.
11/4/09 at 12:59pm
- Joined: February 2006
- Post Count: 1,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15
Ctkook, paying riders 10¢ for every driver they hassle sounds like a great idea!
Why do you need to repeatedly pass riders you can't stay ahead of? If they are able to maintain the same average speed as you, why not follow along at a safe distance, perhaps with your flashers on? Wouldn't that be a way to enhance the safety of the riders? You might save a little gas. What is the downside?
Ctkook, paying riders 10¢ for every driver they hassle sounds like a great idea!
Why do you need to repeatedly pass riders you can't stay ahead of? If they are able to maintain the same average speed as you, why not follow along at a safe distance, perhaps with your flashers on? Wouldn't that be a way to enhance the safety of the riders? You might save a little gas. What is the downside?
In this case it was a 2 lanes each way rd with a 5th turn lane. Assuming they managed to stay within the right lane -- and given the way some riders weave this is not always a fair bet -- passing them has zero safety risk. If I ran every red light and stop sign they wouldn't have the same average speed as me...of course, I'd within the year be facing serious legal consequences for doing this in a car, and they will not for doing the same while riding bikes.
I actually have no problem with, say, bike messengers if they do this in a low-profile, low-impact way that flows with traffic rather than disrupts it (I have no problem with cops ticketing them if they want, either). The key phrases being low-profile, low-impact, which a large group not even slowing down @intersections and taking a whole lane definitely is not.
11/4/09 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook
The key phrases being low-profile, low-impact, which a large group not even slowing down @intersections and taking a whole lane definitely is not.
The key phrases being low-profile, low-impact, which a large group not even slowing down @intersections and taking a whole lane definitely is not.
A large group of cyclists taking a whole lane represents a large group of road users.
The same coping methods apply whether stuck behind cyclists or stuck behind rush hour auto traffic. Both cyclists and rush hour auto traffic are equally entitled to be on the road.
Now on Mondays.
11/4/09 at 1:33pm
Quote:
FTR, there also is a relatively new law on the books (finally) to the effect that if a vehicle is traveling less than the speed limit and more than 5 cars stack up (ie, are IMPEDED) behind and cannot pass, they are required to pull over and allow the others to pass.........seems only fair that this would also apply to cyclists who are also supposed to adhere to traffic laws........common courtesies.
Conversely, years ago a big frustration riding the Ironhorse Classic from Durango to Silverton over two passes was it was illegal to cross a solid yellow line to pass a white knuckled motorist on the descents. After climbing for almost 3 hours, you earned the right to drop fast into Silverton, dammit! They now close off the the Million Dollar highway for a few hours during the race which removed that issue. A good compromise that I see as progress.
Edited by Alpinord - 11/4/09 at 1:57pm
Originally Posted by comprex
A large group of cyclists taking a whole lane represents a large group of road users.
The same coping methods apply whether stuck behind cyclists or stuck behind rush hour auto traffic. Both cyclists and rush hour auto traffic are equally entitled to be on the road.
A large group of cyclists taking a whole lane represents a large group of road users.
The same coping methods apply whether stuck behind cyclists or stuck behind rush hour auto traffic. Both cyclists and rush hour auto traffic are equally entitled to be on the road.
FTR, there also is a relatively new law on the books (finally) to the effect that if a vehicle is traveling less than the speed limit and more than 5 cars stack up (ie, are IMPEDED) behind and cannot pass, they are required to pull over and allow the others to pass.........seems only fair that this would also apply to cyclists who are also supposed to adhere to traffic laws........common courtesies.
Conversely, years ago a big frustration riding the Ironhorse Classic from Durango to Silverton over two passes was it was illegal to cross a solid yellow line to pass a white knuckled motorist on the descents. After climbing for almost 3 hours, you earned the right to drop fast into Silverton, dammit! They now close off the the Million Dollar highway for a few hours during the race which removed that issue. A good compromise that I see as progress.
Edited by Alpinord - 11/4/09 at 1:57pm
11/4/09 at 2:02pm
- Joined: February 2006
- Post Count: 1,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex
A large group of cyclists taking a whole lane represents a large group of road users.
The same coping methods apply whether stuck behind cyclists or stuck behind rush hour auto traffic. Both cyclists and rush hour auto traffic are equally entitled to be on the road.
A large group of cyclists taking a whole lane represents a large group of road users.
The same coping methods apply whether stuck behind cyclists or stuck behind rush hour auto traffic. Both cyclists and rush hour auto traffic are equally entitled to be on the road.
No.
20 cyclists is a very small group of users relative to overall roadway usage, but if they take up a whole lane can inconvenience thousands of other road users.
The entitlement mentality that makes them feel they can do that on a regular basis is interesting,
Not all roadies do this, and groups of, say 2, are far less likely to do this than larger groups. The "strength in numbers" dynamic says a lot by itself of course.
11/4/09 at 2:28pm
I hope a version of the 2-abreast law in CO gets passed here in NY. We're lucky enough to have a law giving cyclists the right to a lane, which works very well in NYC, but once I go up the Palisades into upstate NY there are some nasty country drivers there. To be fair, there are also some nice country drivers, too.
More Ovaltine, please!
