(Photos: Marcus Griffith)
For the third time this month, an unauthorized road sign has been discovered in the greater Portland metro area; and the trend has now hopped across the Columbia River into Vancouver.
Earlier this month, someone installed an official looking, “Bikes required to stop” sign on a street in Sellwood. After being made aware of the sign, city crews removed. Then we shared news of a stenciled pavement marking that exclaimed “Vehicle’s Only!” [sic] that had been painted on streets near the Mt. Tabor neighborhood.
This time, a ‘Share the Road’ sign on a popular bike route in Vancouver was modified by adding “Need to” between the bike symbol and the sign’s original wording. The modification results in the sign reading “Bikes need to share the road.”
The modification was painted to match the original sign and could be easily mistaken as an official part of the sign. However, closer inspection revealed the letters were hand painted.
The sign is located at NW Lower River road just south of the entrance to Frenchman’s Bar Park on the edge of the Columbia River.
According to City of Vancouver spokesperson Brooke Peter, the modification was not authorized and was removed last week after I contact the city about it. It’s unknown how long it had been up.
The road adjacent to the sign lacks a shoulder, which means people on bikes have nowhere else to ride but in the lane. Despite the design issues of the road and this person’s message for bicycle operators, the City of Vancouver says there’s only been one reported bike/car collision at this location between 1999 and 2010 (and it was minor, records show).
If this summer is any indication, rogue road signs are a budding problem in the Portland area. So far, it seems the best solution is to report suspect signs for removal.
— Marcus Griffith is a veteran of the US Navy, a cycling advocate and freelance writer for The Vancouver Voice (which closed operations this month). Browse his past BikePortland articles here.
Wait, why isn’t this cyclist on the right side of the white line?
What I’m wondering about is if there is truly a problem with “rouge” road signs or if the problem is “rogue” road signs? This sign was yellow and black.
Kudos to “Over and Doubt” for noting this first in his comment below. Well done.
as the article clearly states, there is no shoulder and bicyclists share the driving lane in this location (which is also obvious in the photo)
Either you’re joking or you’ve never ridden this stretch of road.
These “Share the Road” signs are a pointless directive; nobody seems to know how that actually translates to safe practice. Replace them with “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” to help educate the ignorant. (I would have added “As Vehicles” but then again I don’t work for the FHWA).
Of course “Don’t pass the bicyclist while speeding over the double yellow line and then slam on the brakes for the sharp curve that he’s taking much faster than you” doesn’t fit… oh wait, flashback.
I wish we ambassadors of cycling could convince our compatriots to:
-Stop riding in the middle of the road or wear a rearview mirror so you can move when cars are coming.
-Stop blowing stop signs in front of politely stopped cars at 4-way stops. Or pedestrians trying to cross the street.
-Stop riding in car lanes when you have a bike lane without yielding to the vehicles in the car lane.
-Stop riding down the middle of bike boulevards without trying to move over when cars need to share the road.
It would make all our lives better. Just sayin’. Courtesy goes both ways.
About your first bullet point: Have you considered why a person would ride like this? It isn’t necessarily arrogance or being bad at sharing. It may actually be a result of previously having tried to share the road, but the person was spooked by a dooring or a motor vehicle buzzing by them on the left when trying to squeeze by at a high speed.
Also, I think you may not understand sharrows. (The arrow markings in the middle of the neighborhood greenway streets.) They not only remind everyone that people on bikes are allowed to ride on the road, but they also serve a positioning function. They are placed where the city recommends riding. Notice they are not placed dangerously far to the right, which you suggest. They are placed where bikes are safest, most visible, and legally allowed to ride.
Going by the things you have listed, I think your priorities are messed up. *Safety for everyone comes first*, not placing yourself in danger or overcompensating to placate others that can’t handle having to slow down.
I don’t have a problem with your other points, but I feel you’re suggesting the impossible. I can’t monitor and lecture every bad rider to change their behavior just like I’ll never stop motorists from speeding or drunk driving. These problems are much bigger than “please tell your friends to stop doing this.”
I most certainly WILL NOT slide right when there’s no room for a car to safely pass me. In that case, “as far to the right as practicable” is right smack in the middle of the lane.
Patty – sometimes it is very dangerous to not take the lane! My most frequent example is the Sellwood bridge. There are no bicycle facilities and the lanes are very narrow. The first time I rode on the bridge I rode close to the right side of the road. This apparently encouraged a truck to pass within inches of my handle bars in his/her efforts to get around, despite having no room because of the narrow lanes and oncoming traffic.
Every since then, I have wisely taken the lane to prevent motor vehicles from endangering my life and theirs by attempting an unsafe pass.
Why would you ride the Sellwood bridge????
It’s clear to any real cyclist that the Marquam is a way better option for crossing the river
You surely must realize that “not riding in the middle of the road” can be incredibly unsafe in a lot of situations. Not riding in “car lanes” and taking the lane on bike boulevards also can put a rider at risk. I can’t disagree as far as stopping for stop signs, but the other behaviors your describe are often what is defined as “safe and proper riding.”
” Blowing” a stop sign means disregarding it.
To me it sounds like ‘disregard-at-a-high-rate-of-speed,-not-looking-left-or-right.’ I think the distinction/definition is important because to some anything short of foot-on-the-ground-look-both-ways is disregarding the sign, i.e., blowing it.
@Patty So, in this picture, where would the rider move when a car was coming behind them? I’m interested.
perhaps closer to the white line instead of 3 feet away.
You realize that when you invite cars to squeeze past you and you are that close to the side of the road, it’s extremely dangerous, right?
But hey, who cares if someone riding a bike is safe, as long as it saves the fat guy in a truck 12 seconds. Fair trade.
You have a point about inviting cars to squeeze past being unsafe, but you also just illustrated a personality flaw that I think a lot of bikers have… you think because you are on a bike you are better than the fat guy in the truck, and thus don’t have to follow the rules of the road. I frequently look out for cyclists, fearing that I might inadvertently hurt them when they blow past a stop sign or light. I need to be able to tell if the cyclist is acting as a car or a pedestrian, because I really don’t want to hurt anyone, regardless if it is just some jerk on a bike.
I don’t think a of bikers hold those views, if that’s any consolation.
To a finer point of your concerns, Patty: I take the lane when I ride unless it’s unsafe because I don’t relish the idea of getting doored, as has happened to many I know. The same goes on bike boulevards. I don’t wear a mirror, but I frequently check for cars and other cyclists at my back.
I don’t know many people who blatantly flout the laws while riding. It happens, as it happens with people I see who drive cars.
But finger-pointing wastes time. Let’s just build safer cycling infrastructure and quit hemming and hawing. People who primarily drive will thank us for it.
I think Patty’s was a general comment, not a specific one about this case or section of road. I also agree that some cyclists’ attitudes and behavior do cause an increase in animosity toward all of us.
A few weeks ago while cycling home from work, I witnessed a cyclist make a U-turn on a moderately busy street to talk with a friend going the opposite direction. The motorist proceeding in the same direction as the cyclist was now going gave a polite tap on the horn to indicate ‘I’m here, I hope you’re not planning to make a complete circle and cut in front of me.” Again, it was a tap, not a blast that says “you interfered with me and I don’t like that.” Anyway the bicyclist’s response was the one-fingered salute. When I asked the cyclist why he did that, he responded that it didn’t concern me. I explained that it made an enemy of another motorist who will someday be in a position to help or hinder some other cyclist as a juror, a witness or just a good Samaritan.
When a motorist is a jerk, we shouldn’t hesitate to call him on it, but as a group, we can do better with our behavior.
Calling out is a problematic way of “correcting” others’ behaviors. Is is theoretically problematic in that you are indirectly flouting your “superior” behavior over another person’s, and it puts people into a defensive position where they feel the need to defend against a perceived assault on their person. People are less likely to hear the recommendation and/or advice despite its good intentions when they feel assaulted or cornered.
Here’s a quote from George Lakey on the problems of “calling out” (which I realize I’m doing myself here in a fashion)…
“My pet peeve is a technique for interrupting racism called “calling out.” Say if you say something that’s sexist, I say “Betsy, that’s sexist” right there in the group. That’s what some young middle-class people do, and they see it as a mighty blow for freedom. It’s the norm in some groups, calling out. It chills the groups’ environments; people are more scared, have less trust.
“It comes from academia, where middle-class people are trained to maintain hierarchy in the society. Even if working-class children start out thinking they’re equal, the teachers’ and preachers’ job is to remind them that they’re not. So rating people on scales is common in schools. And it is brought to diversity work by college-educated people. In middle-class families, too, people are tested and found wanting, and sometimes excluded. Working-class people at our best are about acceptance, not testing each other.
“I asked [working-class diversity trainer] Felice Yeskel about it. She said that if your goal is ranking people, calling people out works, but if your goal is helping people learn and grow, it’s dysfunctional.
“I had five people from the calling-out subculture in a workshop. They sat warily, waiting for someone to say something wrong so they could call them out, or waiting to be called out. It was Day 14 of a 17-day training before they could relax enough to learn anything. If we’re aiming to build a movement […], we need people who can put their attention on learning.
“I know that when someone is inviting me to change my behavior about something, what works is when they approach me as a friend and I know they’re caring about me rather than only about some political point they’re trying to make. The missionary stuff reminds me of fundamentalists trying to save me, so I react defensively. I’d rather that a comrade simply approach me with the attitude of a friend who knows that we teach each other and give each other a hand.”
So what is the proper way to correct selfish people who are completely discourteous and rude?
Exactly–that lady has NOWHERE to go. Lower River Road has NO shoulder. Exactly what are we supposed to do on roads like that? **portion of this comment deleted by moderator – JM***
I’m not convinced that Patty is an ambassador for cycling.
Patty, be carefull when suggesting courtesy among cyclists here. They don’t take to kindly to suggestions as you will soon find out.
There’s a difference between suggesting courtesy and being patronizing.
None of the things she criticizes people on bikes for endanger others. The ‘blowing stop signs’ is a fun horse to kick in this town, but show me a statistic that suggests it actually harms anyone. Some day we’re going to need a definition of ‘blowing stop signs’ so we can be done with the broad brush strokes.
While bad behavior by folks on bikes isn’t a good idea (see Mia Birk’s article) and I agree it occasionally deserves mention, most of the time the inspiration seems to be about something else, a way to take a whack at a group someone doesn’t identify with, resents, or otherwise finds irksome. Luckily the similar gripe about jaywalkers never gets much traction, but it has the same inflated let’s-all-jump-up-and-down-about-nothing quality to it.
And yes, perceptions matter if we’re talking about sentencing/jury trials, infrastructure funding priorities, and so forth, but really.
So as long as I don’t hit anyone, I shouldn’t have to stop at stop signs. You have no evidence that I have caused anyone harm, so it’s ok.
I don’t find it patronizing to be reminded that there are traffic laws that should be obeyed.
Pulling a stupid and illegal maneuver is one thing, but then flipping other roadway users off… really?
Speaking of horses:
I hear this one all the time: the tale of the cyclist who breaks a traffic law and then gives the finger to the kindly motorist who DARED to be troubled by it. Thing is, though, I’ve NEVER SEEN IT ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
Urban legends do not constitute “typical cyclist behaviour.”
See J-R’s comment above. Unless he is lying about what he witnessed…
Or we could dismiss him by saying he is obviously not an ambassador for cycling.
Not an urban legend. I’ve seen it happen and done it myself, regretfully.
Mike – I am a long time cyclist and I drive a car as well (minimally). I live in the Hawthorne district and so I see a lot of cylists. More than once I have had a cyclist blow a stop sign in front of me while I was driving a car (with the right of way). While the cyclist did not hit anything nor did I hit the cyclist, it scared me big time. I say this to make the point that it’s not just about the bottom line of whether or not someone got hit. Our actions, as cyclists, peds, auto drivers, etc. have many possible ramifications.
I got hit by a biker recently who blew a stop sign. My bike was damaged, and they seemed incredulous that I was upset.
So you are a “statistic” showing that cyclists blowing through stop signs can cause harm to others. 9watts – you reading this?
Can we agree that stop signs do exist for a reason and perhaps, while not always the ideal traffic calming device, they should be obeyed?
I am reading this, yes.
My question is Are you reading this?
(posted below by Joe C late last night)
Hard for me to get my panties in a wad over bikes disregarding stop signs when 47,700 pedestrians were killed by automobiles over the course of a (distressingly recent) decade here in the US, and a further 688,000 were injured by cars during that time.
I was in Amsterdam last week where, within 48 hours, watched first hand 3 cyclist on pedestrian accidents. Cyclists ran stop signs or red lights and hit pedestrians. Most of them were low speed. Did you hear about them?
Mike, it’s not that “cyclists” don’t take kindly to suggestions as much as that people who bike don’t have a moral imperative to educate their fellow riders any more than I, as a person who drives a car, should be expected to prevent others’ distracted driving. To think differently or to insist that people who bike–for fun, for exercise, for their commute, in order to run errands, etc.–are part of some monolithic secret society with leverage over all other members is both naive and intellectually dishonest.
to be fair, mike, most of patty’s “suggestions” were variations on “a cyclist should not assert the travel lane if the result would be to inconvenience even one motorist even slightly,” when in fact it is safer to assert the travel lane so that you, the cyclist, can control the question of when it is safe for the motorist to pass. some version of this thinking is routinely taught to motorists as “defensive driving.” you should never place yourself in a position in which your safety is subject to someone else’s unpredictable, careless behavior.
courtesy is when i signal my intention to assert the lane, and then when i arrive at a place where it is safe for the motorist to pass, i slide over and wave them on. the rest is just cowering on the edge of the road, hoping to appease the motorist overlord.
On that stretch of road, FRAPing is the safest way to bike because of the nearby turn (not shown) and lack of a shoulder. I ride out to Frenchman’s Bar park most weekends and cars are pretty accommodating. The glaring exemption are speeders and the occasional drag racers out by the lake.
Did we elect Ambassadors of Cycling? I didn’t get myt ballot. Can we have a re-count?
A lot of road users don’t seem to understand that “sharing” doesn’t just mean other people give them stuff.
Marcus: Thanks for the post, but “rouge” does not equal “rogue,” and that sign looks pretty yellow from here.
Thanks for catching the typo.
Perhaps an ambassador tries to see things from both perspectives on just that the cyclist is always right. And if you haven’t noticed, not everyone in this town things cyclists are the cats meow so a little give and take may go a long ways.
Despite the commonly agreed upon position that there are some denizens of this city, state, country who could hold a more favorable opinion of cyclists and the rights thereof, it does not change the fact that the roadway ends at the fogline. Operating ones bicycle as far to the right of the roadway as safe/practical still means in the roadway and not on the hard shoulder, should one exist (though one clearly does not exist in this instance).
This is a problem? Honestly who freakin’ cares. Someone made a sign, whoop-de-doo!
Its not like the sign promoted violence against cyclists, it said “bikes need to share the road”…which is true. And “bikes need to stop” which is also true.
Lighten up people, I would much rather have passive aggressive motorists like this than active aggressive motorists.
Bicycles don’t ride like idiots. People do.
A bicycle never killed anyone, it was the people riding them who did.
99% (ok well… maybe 97%) of people who ride bicycles (that’s for you JM, no bicyclist nomenclature here) ride respectfully, and we forget most of them.
It’s that darned 1-3% of people who ride bicycles that muck it all up for the rest of us.
Isnt that like the golden rule of life: 3% mess it up for the other 97%. Applies to everything.
Guns don’t kill people eihter, people using guns kill people. But you don’t see me lining up to give everyone an AK-47.
No one is offering me a free bike either. Really sad, I could use a long tail.
There might actually be more land in the state where I can shoot a gun than ride a bike.
Those “Share the Road” signs are always a bit ambiguous.
In 2009, the MUTCD authorized use of a new sign which is much more clear —
“Bicycles may use full lane”
(Sign # R4-11)
If you’re riding on a narrow road and drivers don’t seem to understand that the “share the road” signs mean that cars need to *share with bicycles*, call your local jurisdiction and ask for them to install a couple R4-11’s.
It could save your live. Or the life of someone important to you.
thanks for the link. Fascinating. I’ve always assumed the ‘share the road’ signs were meant symmetrically: everyone make nice. But if as you say the ’09 sign is a replacement for the one above, heck. That’s (to me) a completely different message.
This blog and all you commenters – I learn so much here. Thanks.
Glad you appreciated the info.
As we’ve all noted, in some cases, it’s not safe for a bicycle and car to “share” the road at the same time. To use some roads road safely on a bicycle, you need to “hog” the road, not “share” it.
I’m not certain on the story behind the “Bikes May Use Full Lane” signs, but I first saw them in San Francisco in about 2002 and thought they were the best new sign I’d seen in a while. I’ve always seen the “Share the road” sign as being weak in protecting a bicycles’s right to use the road.
It’s not necessarily a replacement — in some circumstances, the “share the road” signs are probably fine. But if it’s a road that can’t be used safely by bicyclists if they’re expected to “play nice” then the new R4-11 is the correct sign to communicate safe behavior to motorists and bicyclists.
Note that most new signs in the MUTCD aren’t automatically adopted. If we want to see these signs cropping up in places where its now dangerous to ride a bicycle, we’ll need to ask for them. My guess is that if any given city gets a request for them in a handful of places, it will start putting them up. So if you like them, get the requests moving.
When is the last time anyone “shared” a game of monopoly with friends? Played Poker? Asked your child to “share” a toy? What was the result of these kinds of sharing? Did it involve everyone rolling the dice/drawing cards/etc. at the same time? Or was there a system of “taking turns” that caused the sharing experience to turn out well for all?
We need to understand and communicate that simultaneous usage is not the only kind of “sharing” that is possible, despite what everyone seems to think. Asserting/taking/controlling a lane of traffic is not “hogging” the road, it is taking one’s turn (on a first come, first served basis) until it is safe for others to take their turns.
Here’s a snippet from the blogosphere that is probably repeated many times a day across the US.
“The driver behind me then guns her engine, moves left to pass then cuts right with me right next to her, pushing me into the curb!
“I squeeze the brakes to avoid becoming road pizza, then pull around to the driver’s side window to explain (politely) that she should wait until it’s safe to pass. Her smug, snotty response? “Bikes are supposed to share the road.“”
You’re not going to get that response with an R4-11
Another snippet from the Blogosphere —
“Join your fellow bicyclists for a group ride to demand the City Council support “Bike May Use Full Lane” signs on Mission Street…
“Two experienced cyclists have been killed on Mission Street in the last year… Both of these deaths could also have been avoided if the cyclists had felt safe riding in the middle of the right hand lane.
“According to California Vehicle Code Section 21202, cyclists may use the full right lane when the lane “is too narrow for a bicycle to safely ride to the side of a motor vehicle.” Two deaths occurred while cyclists were riding along the curb. It’s outrageous for anyone to claim that these lanes are wide enough to ride safely side-by-side…
“Caltrans is ready to cooperate with the City. Now it’s up to us to convince the Council to follow through!
Take the lane when a car has no safe place to pass, othewise share the road. Patty’s concern (and certianly mine) regards persons on bicycles who toodle down the middle of the road, chit-chatting with fellow toodlers, oblivious that some people use roads for transpotration.
I personally bike because I need to be somewhere (typically my place of employment or to medical appointments more often than not).
Also applies to 3 & 4 abreast walkers and joggers meandering along the bike lane and sidewalk simultaineously.
then that’s what she should say
As a pedestrian dog walker I just want to say – keep your bikes on the road and off the sidewalk. I share the road gladly. I refuse to share the sidewalk with vehicles other than wheelchairs.
While you may feel that way, it’s only the law in parts of downtown Portland to keep bikes off the sidewalk. Everywhere else, it’s perfectly legal. Usually it’s not a good idea to ride on the sidewalk, but sometimes it’s the ONLY safe way to proceed. If you cannot maintain control of your dogs well enough to share the sidewalk, that’s something you need to address.
you and your bike on the sidewalk is akin to being a car on the roadway. You are the more hazardous of the people on the sidewalk.
Take your myopic and self-centered view and project it to how a motorist views you in the road.
The scale of danger is in no way comparable (and what’s worse–you know it is). I walk everywhere, and have felt threatened by a person biking only once or twice, at most, in the last two years. As for people driving, just two days ago I was nearly run over in a crosswalk by a woman in a Hummer, whose passenger decided to open his door, lean out and yell “F*** you!” as they sped by. You know. Just to make sure I got the message.
If people on bikes killed and seriously injured people walking with as much frequency as people driving do, you’d have an argument. But they don’t, so neither do you.
tell your motorist friends to quit chasing cyclists off the road and onto the sidewalks
Just keep your dog off my lawn, I’m tired of cleaning up its crap…
That sign and a couple others have been along Vancouver Lake for at least a couple months now.
Personally, I think it’s great that even people in Vancouver recognize that bikes need to share the road with cars, since there are few (if any) separate bike lanes.
Vancouver has a good system of bike lanes and multiuse paths. They’re rated bronze by the League of American Bicyclists. And where they don’t have shoulders, they’ve gone to the effort to install “share the road” signs.
It’s not Portland, but it’s still a good city to ride a bike to work, to school or for pleasure.
Try it, you’ll like it.
Bike maps and LAB ratings here
Yo Gabba, Gabba!
Us and Them.
…Such a tiring theme.
If I don’t have someone to denigrate how can I have any self-worth?
It’s happened to me personally on several occasions. In fact, I’ve only had one occurrence where someone screwed up, put me or another rider in danger and actually apologized for it. I don’t know what the whole ‘I’m too hip/fast/cool/whatever to apologize’ thing is all about, but it’s hella tiring to see.
So why are this unauthroized signs showing up all of a sudden? Something with the weather or have they just been unnoticed until now? How many more are our there?
looks like she has 3 feet to me.
Your handle is ironic in this context, but I digress… As has been pointed out a couple of times above: on a narrow, shoulderless road, hugging the right side can give motor vehicles a false message that it’s safe to pass you when it is not. I learned that lesson the hard way on Sauvie Island last year.
My friends and I have only been riding for a couple of years, so we like to find quiet places that are relatively car-free, and we’ve been out to Sauvie Island several times. Just recently, someone driving one of those “as big as a house” RVs blew by me so close that I almost got pulled into the side of it by the wind. No oncoming traffic, no excuse; just stupidity beind the wheel.
Sometimes it seems that a little yellow paint is more important than a person’s life and limb.
I just wonder how many replies to this comment Jonathan has had to censor…
To me, “blowing” implies a particularly high level of disregard. Can anything other than “a complete cessation of forward movement” be considered “disregard” of a stop sign? If I disregard one stop sign at 2 mph and another at 17, did I “blow” them both? Or am I only “blowing” a stop if I take someone else’s right-of-way without stopping? Nit-picky, I know–it’s all illegal, but there is a certain level of scoff-law-ish-ness that is imposed on someone accused of “blowing” stops; it seems to imply the person exercised no caution whatsoever.
ooOOOOHHhhh. I get it now. You guys are naughty.
I used to adore the city for it’s bike ethic, but as a pedestrian I can tell you that all the complaints bikes have about cars has taught them nothing in how to treat pedestrians. I get buzzed by bikes, they run stop signs as I cross the street, I had one yell at me that I should be crossing in a crosswalk (I was crossing at a corner, no crosswalk in sight).
When bikes treat pedestrians as they wish to be treated, I’ll have more sympathy for them about their issues with cars.
Tell the next yelling bicyclist that you are in a crosswalk, an unmarked one!
I’m stealing this from an earlier comment. “Hard for me to get my knickers in a knot over bikes disregarding stop signs when 47,700 pedestrians were killed by automobiles over the course of a (distressingly recent) decade here in the US, and a further 688,000 were injured by cars during that time.”
“I had one yell at me that I should be crossing in a crosswalk”
Wow, a talking bike? Cool! 😛
I’m not just nitpicking your grammar just for the sake of humor though. Your language is completely dehumanizing. Those are HUMAN BEINGS riding the bikes you’re accusing of bad behavior.
You are also guilty of assuming that because SOME bicyclists are disrespectful towards pedestrians, we must ALL be. Apparently ALL cyclists have to behave perfectly before we can demand that motorists not endanger us?
Like others in this thread, I’ve found that calling out rogue cyclists does NOT work. You really think that the scofflaws will stop running red lights and cutting too close to pedestrians if other cyclists yell at them? Really? Maybe I should go down the street and ask my (suspected) neighborhood juvenile delinquent to stop breaking into cars, vandalizing signs and shooting off fireworks at 4am. I’m sure he’ll stop if I just call him out. Maybe I should start honking at speeders on the road, and morons who fail to signal lane changes. I’m sure that will stop them.
I actually used to call out rogue cyclists, but in EVERY single case the culprit has turned out to be either incredibly defensive … or mentally ill. In one case I had my life threatened, by a small group of individuals who appeared capable of executing the threat. So I just mind my own business now, quietly obeying the law. Of course the the average citizen, deluded by both availability and confirmation biases, rarely notices. They only notice the scofflaws.
What we really need is better law enforcement, but unfortunately when the cops do bother enforcing bike laws, they don’t end up enforcing the laws that really matter.
OMG, it’s called a pronoun. The commenter wasn’t implying you are less than human when you are on a bike. The point is that cyclists demand respect and yet pedestrians and drivers alike have valid complaints about how scary cyclists are. And, I am sorry, it is totally okay to say something to someone who is doing something wrong. You don’t have to get into a confrontation to say “hey, please don’t do that.” I like your argument though… Any rude cyclist is mentally ill, and telling (or “calling out”) rude cyclists to be more polite might cause a rogue group of thug cyclists to beat you up. That’s rich.
When the thugs threatened my life, I had asked nicely.
And I didn’t say all rude cyclists were mentally ill. I have, however, on a couple of occasions encountered rogue cyclists who did, in fact, turn out to be mentally ill. At least they weren’t behind the wheel!
If you want to try, go for it. I’m done. I’ve never encountered a red-light-running, pedestrian-dodging cyclist who could be reasoned with. They already know they’re breaking the LAW … they certainly aren’t going to respond to the toothless pleas of a fellow citizen. It just doesn’t work.
And despite how I might come off on the interwebs, I was always quite polite about it.
This sign is ripped down (sometimes just broken off and other times totally removed) and replaced on a weekly basis.
Based on the lack of pavement to the right of the white line I would consider that road too dangerous, except for a Sunday morning ride when car traffic is significantly lighter.
The other option is to ride on the white line and give as much room as possible.
As a frequent bike commuter I am always amazed at how bikers will hog a lane and stay to the left of the white line when there is ample room to the right. Not sure what their intent is. Possibly trying to keep off the crud that can puncture a tire..??
It’s not called “hogging the lane”. It’s called “taking the lane”.
There are instances where it’s in a cyclists’ best interests to take the lane. One of which is a roadway with little, to no shoulder. The number one thing I believe you can do, as a cyclist, to avoid an accident is BE SEEN. Taking the lane on blind right corners, areas with no shoulder, roadways with traffic running at a speed you are capable of pedalling is good practice to ensure you are SEEN by motorists.
All that said, it’s courtesy to move over at the first SAFE opportunity to let said motorists pass. Riding 3 abreast on a 45mph roadway at 14mph is inconsiderate. Heck, I think it’s inconsiderate to do that on a 25mph bike boulevard. Besides, if you’re riding side by side with your riding partner, one of you is sandbagging. Get the lead out! 😉
It’s usually–usually–safest to be in front of or behind other vehicles rather than beside them. Drivers have the greatest awareness of what is literally right in front of them. Move even slightly to the side and you disappear.
DK speaks the truth.
I think the constant terror of being repeatedly and narrowly missed the whole time by screaming loud 2-ton behemoths, is sufficient to remind me that I need to share the road.
Give way to tonnage.
Will covering the signs encourage more people to put them up?