Bicycle riders and riding ethics

[stylinexpat]

I ride a bicycle myself and also ride a scooter/motorcycle. Aside from that I also drive but when I am on my bicycle or scooter I sure don't ride like a lot of people do. In this video from the store attached you see only the front rider but you don't see where the riders behind him were riding. You can see that the first car that passed in the first place the car had to get into other land to pass them and then get back over into its own lane which means riders behind him could have been far over to the left of the white line on their right side. Realistically they should be within that lane/line and the car within the other or otherwise they would be forcing all cars to pass in land of cars heading in opposite direction just because they chose to ride to the left of the white lane instead of to the right of the white lane. If it was me I would have rode my bike to the right of the white land or inside it instead of to the left of it where cars drive as there was enough space to ride inside it.
When cars are at a dead stop or in traffic they pass by often within inches of the cars next to them but when someone else does it to them then they get upset (not all of course are like this).

'Stay the F*** Off The Road': Cyclist Captures Confrontation With Driver

A cyclist captured an altercation between himself, a fellow cyclist, and a motorist just off the A1A in Palm Beach, Florida, on July 7.Diego Broglia was cycling along the A1A when a driver in a white SUV came close to him and the group of cyclists he was with. Broglia followed the SUV into a...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Puonti]

I'm not familiar with traffic laws in Florida, so I can't really comment on that. I can't however help but look at the video and see that the white SUV owner was an uneducated motorist (unlike the other driver shown earlier in the video who gave wide berth to the cyclists).

Here's why:

1) The area outside of the edge line often has debris on it, either pushed outwards from the lanes by passing traffic and road cleaners, or inwards from outside of the road by winds and rain. There's cracks and uneven sections where the edge of the asphalt is worn. Stuff that a driver would not even notice driving over. Cycling through debris however, especially at high speeds, is hazardous

2) It is safest for everyone if drivers and riders behave in a predictable manner. A cyclist riding outside of the edge line and unexpectedly entering the nearest lane to avoid debris (since they can't dodge it in the other direction, where it's usually gravel, grass or a curb) is hazardous. Drivers are not mind readers and they can't see what a cyclist can see. It's better for everyone if the cyclist rides where they can expect to maintain the cleanest, most predictable path, and usually cyclists know their favorite routes well enough to choose that path

3) Even if a cyclist is riding outside of the edge line, motorists should leave a sufficient gap between their car and the cyclist. This often means crossing the centerline partially or fully - the more the bigger the vehicle is to avoid buffeting the cyclist - exactly because a cyclist might suddenly have to avoid something the driver can not see from their vantage point. If a driver can't cross the centerline because there's oncoming traffic, they should slow down

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The level of potential hazard that car drivers and cyclists face on the road is not the same, for, it is far more hazardous for cyclists to have an unfortunate encounter with a car, than the other way around. The cyclist could get killed, the car (or van, or lorry) merely scratched.

Therefore, to my mind, there is (or ought to be) a greater duty of care on motorists when driving when & where cyclists are present, than on cyclists, although cyclists, for reasons of both road courtesy, and self-preservation, would do well to keep to the rules, also.

 

[stylinexpat]

The level of potential hazard that car drivers and cyclists face on the road is not the same, for, it is far more hazardous for cyclists to have an unfortunate encounter with a car, than the other way around. The cyclist could get killed, the car (or van, or lorry) merely scratched.

Therefore, to my mind, there is (or ought to be) a greater duty of care on motorists when driving when & where cyclists are present, than on cyclists, although cyclists, for reasons of both road courtesy, and self-preservation, would do well to keep to the rules, also.

I wish we saw how many cyclists were behind the first one and how they were riding their bicycles. I feel that we saw only a part of the story. At the beginning of the video we saw him pass 2 which were to his left. The first one was further out to the left. The street looked pretty clean overall.

Me personally if I saw a one way lane in each direction I would not ride my bike to the left of the white line or 3 feet to the left of the white line and force all people passing to have go head on with oncoming traffic from opposite direction.

The city should create a bike lane there to the right of the White line on the right. They have grass there. Looks like they can arrange a 3-4 feet wide bike lane there.

City does not want to spend the money, riders don't want to keep right and a mid aged man does not want to drive against oncoming traffic for what he feels like insensitive bike riders. End result is bad argument and risk of injury or death for bike riders. I personally would not risk injury or death if I was on a bicycle and ride 3 feet to the left of white line on a one lane street.

If you drive your car on PCH between Newport Beach and Dana Point you will see that bike riders will ride in packs and come within inches of your car and mirror when traffic is slow or stopped but if you did the same it would be the end of the world. Their argument is cars can park on right side and if someone opens the door they would be at risk so they often ride their bikes in the middle of the lane to right (there are two lanes and they pretty much turned that lane into a bike lane because City did not want to create a bike lane for them). In some parts though there are bike lanes while some parts there aren't any.

Last night I was driving home late at night and there wetr pretty much no streets lights. As soon as I came around the corner there was a cyclist riding his bike with ko rear flashing red light. I saw him only when I was really close. Any cyclist who rides a bike at night and does not invest in buying a small red flashing light that is good for half a mile or mile pretty much has a death wish or does not care about dying or his own life. Same for for people who walk late at night on dark spots that don't carry flashing lights. California is horrible for street lights at night. One of the worst I have seen is Palos Verdes area. At night the whole city is pitch black and they collect over $10K in property taxes minimum from each house upwards to $60K in property taxes from each house per year depending on property price.

 

[Puonti]

The city should create a bike lane there to the right of the White line on the right. They have grass there. Looks like they can arrange a 3-4 feet wide bike lane there.

Absolutely, many cities would do well to invest in well-designed bike lanes that make useful connections and keep pedestrians (and pedestrian-equals), cyclists and drivers safe. Notably even some of the most biking-forward cities in the world don't always get it right, case in point Copenhagen:

I personally would not risk injury or death if I was on a bicycle and ride 3 feet to the left of white line on a one lane street.

It's a tough choice, because on the surface it can be simplified to "do you as a cyclist value your life or not?" but deep down it's a matter of promoting cyclists as a normal part of traffic that needs to be considered, rather than rats with wheels that should scatter whenever a motorist comes around.

Their argument is cars can park on right side and if someone opens the door they would be at risk so they often ride their bikes in the middle of the lane to right (there are two lanes and they pretty much turned that lane into a bike lane because City did not want to create a bike lane for them). In some parts though there are bike lanes while some parts there aren't any.

I imagine the law in Florida states that if there's a biking lane available, even if it's a badly designed one (some biking lanes are narrow and to the left of parked cars, making them bad exactly for the reason you mention above), it should be preferred over riding on the road.

But certainly when there is no biking lane and assuming we're not talking about a highway, a cyclist should take their place in the traffic just like a car does. Why?

1) Cyclist safety. A door suddenly opening in front of a cyclist is, as you mention above, a Really Bad Thing

2) As said before, predictability. You don't want a cyclist suddenly having to swerve into traffic because they're dodging a door

3) Presence. A cyclist straddling lane markings invites drivers to try and get past them even when it leaves the cyclist with no safety margin around them. A cyclist in the middle of the lane is just another vehicle in traffic, albeit a slower one. If there's a slow car in front of you, you either slow down or you switch lanes to pass them. Same thing with a cyclist

Last night I was driving home late at night and there wetr pretty much no streets lights. As soon as I came around the corner there was a cyclist riding his bike with ko rear flashing red light. I saw him only when I was really close. Any cyclist who rides a bike at night and does not invest in buying a small red flashing light that is good for half a mile or mile pretty much has a death wish or does not care about dying or his own life. Same for for people who walk late at night on dark spots that don't carry flashing lights.

That is indeed foolish and dangerous, and not just for the person without lights. If you can't be seen and you need to interact with traffic, you're not making yourself a predictable part of said traffic and there's no telling how that traffic will react and what side effects their reactions will have. It's bad enough if a pedestrian or cyclist that wasn't spotted in time gets run over by a motor vehicle, but they might not even be the only thing the vehicle crashes into while having to suddenly react.

It's just like the behavior the white SUV owner displayed - uninformed and / or inconsiderate of others in traffic.

 

[stylinexpat]

Absolutely, many cities would do well to invest in well-designed bike lanes that make useful connections and keep pedestrians (and pedestrian-equals), cyclists and drivers safe. Notably even some of the most biking-forward cities in the world don't always get it right, case in point Copenhagen:

It's a tough choice, because on the surface it can be simplified to "do you as a cyclist value your life or not?" but deep down it's a matter of promoting cyclists as a normal part of traffic that needs to be considered, rather than rats with wheels that should scatter whenever a motorist comes around.



I imagine the law in Florida states that if there's a biking lane available, even if it's a badly designed one (some biking lanes are narrow and to the left of parked cars, making them bad exactly for the reason you mention above), it should be preferred over riding on the road.

But certainly when there is no biking lane and assuming we're not talking about a highway, a cyclist should take their place in the traffic just like a car does. Why?

1) Cyclist safety. A door suddenly opening in front of a cyclist is, as you mention above, a Really Bad Thing

2) As said before, predictability. You don't want a cyclist suddenly having to swerve into traffic because they're dodging a door

3) Presence. A cyclist straddling lane markings invites drivers to try and get past them even when it leaves the cyclist with no safety margin around them. A cyclist in the middle of the lane is just another vehicle in traffic, albeit a slower one. If there's a slow car in front of you, you either slow down or you switch lanes to pass them. Same thing with a cyclist



That is indeed foolish and dangerous, and not just for the person without lights. If you can't be seen and you need to interact with traffic, you're not making yourself a predictable part of said traffic and there's no telling how that traffic will react and what side effects their reactions will have. It's bad enough if a pedestrian or cyclist that wasn't spotted in time gets run over by a motor vehicle, but they might not even be the only thing the vehicle crashes into while having to suddenly react.

It's just like the behavior the white SUV owner displayed - uninformed and / or inconsiderate of others in traffic.

The other day I was driving on the freeway 405 South bound in the carpool lane driving in the middle of it. I saw the motorcycle in my rear view mirror and moved a little to the left. Maybe about 30% more to left so I was at about the 80% mark instead of the 50% mark and motorcyclist rode by within maybe 2 inches of my passenger mirror on right side when he could have moved to his right as it was empty but the MTF had to drive within 2 inches of my mirror. As I thought to myself what an A hope with a death wish he passed the car in the front the same way and that car did not see him coming so as he passed by he gave that driver the middle finger. To his right there was no car and he could have passed to the right but he was insistent that he share the same lane with the others in the carpool lane and that they all yield to the right for him. Those kind of motorcyclists are what one calls A holes. I ride on freeways too and never would ride my scooter or motorcycle within 2-3” of ones right mirror and then flip them off after especially when I enter to share the lane with them and have room to right. What many riders don’t realize is when you enter the space the car is in you must enter with consideration of others not just yourself. Just because one is on a bicycle or motorcycle does not mean that they can enter and space and make it their own and assume that they have the right of way for any path that they enter. Many riders are inconsiderate. Some drivers are too but one would be surprised at how many riders and drivers are inconsiderate towards others.

 

[edvj]