I don't have a problem with packs of serious bicyclists sharing the road with cars. What I do have a problem with is the following: Yesterday I cut south on 283 to get from 98 to 30A. I quickly came upon a line of cars three deep going about 8mph. In front was a green minivan with hazards blinking, limping along...I figured the van had a blowout or mechanical problem. Then the two cars ahead of me blew by the van over a double line. I had to travel behind the van for a few minutes, then I passed. As it turned out, the van was tailing a crew of maybe 6 people on bikes (piloted by the serious types in spandex). The van was running interference so the bikers could bike in peace. That is wrong. I understand the concept of sharing the road, but if bicyclists choose to use the roads (which were designed for cars), then I think they need to accept the risks of such and proceed with caution as close to the shoulder as possible.
OK, I am off my soapbox, slings and arrows welcome.:roll:
Replies
50
Beach Fanatic
I totally agree. Someone needs to point out to them that THEY need to share also. Just because Florida is a bike friendly state doesnt mean that we cancel everything so they can ride in peace.
SoWal Expert
coming from a road biker, I completely agree. I've even been in 50K and 100K fun races and when we are out on the open road, we may be five across, but people will yell up the line as a vehicle approaches and we will shrink down to no more than two wide, and that is without having to establish such in advance. It's just what you do, if you are a decent person.
SoWal Expert
Just had a question -- Was there a guy driving the van, and the bikers all girls? That would give the guy driving the van an excuse.
hmmmm......can't remember
Just had a question -- Was there a guy driving the van, and the bikers all girls? That would give the guy driving the van an excuse.
:nono1: :bicycle:
Beach Fanatic
I think the culture around here is great and the bike paths a tremendous concept. I have noticed 'serious' bicyclists riding in the road here along 30a. When traffic is a bit heavy, it stacks up at times. I can understand riding in the road when there is no alternative, but I just don't undertsnad why the bike path isn't used, when it's like, 4 feet away from where the road is. I'm still not sure what I am missing about them using the path made for, well, bikes.
Beach Fanatic
On a completely different note... something else that ticks me off is people that pull out into MY lane of traffic to pass a bicycler forcing ME to stop when the bike is in THEIR lane. I have almost had countless head on collisions due to this. Do the other drivers not realize that THEY are required to stop until it is SAFE TO PASS and come over into MY lane of traffic?
Beach Fanatic
I think the culture around here is great and the bike paths a tremendous concept. I have noticed 'serious' bicyclists riding in the road here along 30a. When traffic is a bit heavy, it stacks up at times. I can understand riding in the road when there is no alternative, but I just don't undertsnad why the bike path isn't used, when it's like, 4 feet away from where the road is. I'm still not sure what I am missing about them using the path made for, well, bikes.
We go over this about every 6 months. The standard answer still applies:
You can't ride a short-wheelbase, nervous road bike on the bumpy and poorly paved bike path at 20 MPH while dodging walkers, runners, and casual pedalers on cruiser bikes. Dangerous to you, dangerous to the other folks.
If 30A isn't a good place for a road bike, one doesn't exist. Flat, no trucks, slow speed limit, limited through traffic.
Why is everyone resentful of cyclists, but supportive of stopping at the crosswalk for beachgoers?
hmmmm......can't remember
We go over this about every 6 months. The standard answer still applies:
You can't ride a short-wheelbase, nervous road bike on the bumpy and poorly paved bike path at 20 MPH while dodging walkers, runners, and casual pedalers on cruiser bikes. Dangerous to you, dangerous to the other folks.
If 30A isn't a good place for a road bike, one doesn't exist. Flat, no trucks, slow speed limit, limited through traffic.
Why is everyone resentful of cyclists, but supportive of stopping at the crosswalk for beachgoers?
I'm not resentful of them at all, but I expect them to share the road, too. Single file in traffic, and we're good. I passed a solitary biker on the backroads (of Georgia) today who was at least 2 feet to the left of the white line. I don't even have a problem with that--I know that the area around the white line can be treacherous in places. But what is the excuse for riding 4 deep with a pace car behind them? That's not "sharing," that's hogging.
SoWal Expert
Hey, Skunky, don't drive the back road through WaterCooler. You will have a heart attack when you see the kids on slow bikes weaving back and fourth across both lanes of the road, eight people wide in some packs.
SoWal Expert
maybe the pace car wasn't with them. Maybe that driver was scared to pass, and put on the hazards to avoid getting rear ended while driving so slowly.
SWGB
Personally I'm not resentful of the bikers at all. I am resentful of the ones on $2000.00 bikes, full spandex, Lance Armstrong wannabes that scream from the roof tops about responsible driving in regards to bicyclists, but don't feel that they need to follow road rules/traffic laws.
These are the ones that will ride 3, 4, or 5 abreast and not merge as SJ described above. Or the ones that will blow thru a stop sign without pausing or looking first. Of course the ones that actually insist on using the bike path and going 15-20 mph and put pedestrians in danger.
rant over
These are the ones that will ride 3, 4, or 5 abreast and not merge as SJ described above. Or the ones that will blow thru a stop sign without pausing or looking first. Of course the ones that actually insist on using the bike path and going 15-20 mph and put pedestrians in danger.
rant over
Beach Fanatic
Personally I'm not resentful of the bikers at all. I am resentful of the ones on $2000.00 bikes, full spandex, Lance Armstrong wannabes that scream from the roof tops about responsible driving in regards to bicyclists, but don't feel that they need to follow road rules/traffic laws.
...."55 year old Lance Armstrong wannabe's" is the way I always describe that phenomena....you're right on target swgb.
SoWal Expert
My bike didn't cost quite $2000, but is was more than the Walmart $100 bikes, I do wear lycra shorts, I leave all of those expensive ad jerseys in the store, but do enjoy the feel of the material of a plain bike jersey (the pockets on the back make for good storage), and never once have I dreamed of being like Lance Armstrong. I have no desire to focus 100% of my attention on any one thing for so much of my life.
Beach Fanatic
Why is everyone resentful of cyclists, but supportive of stopping at the crosswalk for beachgoers?
The current law requires you to stop at crosswalks. And if I am not mistaken, current law states those bicyclist are suppose to be at the extrememe right in single file. But hey, I am not a candidate for Sheriff of Walton County, maybe one of the seven that monitor this list of various drive by names will jump in here and set me straight.
Beach Fanatic
$2000 is pretty much entry level for a serious road bike. You out to see what a custom Serotta goes for.
As for lycra & jerseys, the bike shorts really are for comfort, because they sure aren't about fashion. And brightly colored cycling jerseys make a person more visable to drivers and other cyclists on the road, which is a Very Good Thing.
Though one should never wear a yellow jersey unless they themselves won it, or it was a gift from friend/family who won it. It's tacky.
As for lycra & jerseys, the bike shorts really are for comfort, because they sure aren't about fashion. And brightly colored cycling jerseys make a person more visable to drivers and other cyclists on the road, which is a Very Good Thing.
Though one should never wear a yellow jersey unless they themselves won it, or it was a gift from friend/family who won it. It's tacky.
SoWal Expert
GOP, the current law is no more than two wide, not single file, and as long as you are moving at the normal traffic flow speed, you can take up the entire lane if you want.
As for the yellow jersey, I don't have one, but even if I did, it would be for the bright color, not because it is the leader jersey of the Tour. I cannot believe that people actually think it is sacrilegious or something. Too much thought given to it.
As for the yellow jersey, I don't have one, but even if I did, it would be for the bright color, not because it is the leader jersey of the Tour. I cannot believe that people actually think it is sacrilegious or something. Too much thought given to it.
SWGB
My bike didn't cost quite $2000, but is was more than the Walmart $100 bikes, I do wear lycra shorts, I leave all of those expensive ad jerseys in the store, but do enjoy the feel of the material of a plain bike jersey (the pockets on the back make for good storage), and never once have I dreamed of being like Lance Armstrong. I have no desire to focus 100% of my attention on any one thing for so much of my life.
Well see I don't resent you.
Beach Fanatic
GOP, the current law is no more than two wide, not single file, and as long as you are moving at the normal traffic flow speed, you can take up the entire lane if you want.
As for the yellow jersey, I don't have one, but even if I did, it would be for the bright color, not because it is the leader jersey of the Tour. I cannot believe that people actually think it is sacrilegious or something. Too much thought given to it.
Thanks. The only time we have to deal with bicyclist up here is when they are doing the Knox Hill loop. A couple of times each year it seems, and usually have deputies escorting them cause we all drive to fast.
Beach Fanatic
GOP, the current law is no more than two wide, not single file, and as long as you are moving at the normal traffic flow speed, you can take up the entire lane if you want.
SJ, you know I feel like I am pretty okay with admitting I am wrong, but I did go to the law enforcement academy at OW. Just was fortunate to find something else to do. But after thinking about it, I seem to remember that the two abreast thing is for roadways set aside specifically for bike use not regular roads that cars use.
The reason I say that is a bicycle is a non-motorized vehicle and must obey the same laws and stay as close to the right as pratical not to impeded traffic. Now they will not let cars ride side by side, so I am not seeing where they would let bicycles ride the same way. Again, I am probably wrong on this, maybe one of those Sheriff candidates will set me straight. Many of them have decades of experience so I am sure they would know.
SoWal Expert
Motorcycles can ride two wide. I may be wrong on the two wide for the bicycles, but I seem to recall reading that in the laws when the issue came up in the past.
hmmmm......can't remember
GOP, the current law is no more than two wide, not single file, and as long as you are moving at the normal traffic flow speed, you can take up the entire lane if you want.
As for the yellow jersey, I don't have one, but even if I did, it would be for the bright color, not because it is the leader jersey of the Tour. I cannot believe that people actually think it is sacrilegious or something. Too much thought given to it.
Motorcycles can ride two wide. I may be wrong on the two wide for the bicycles, but I seem to recall reading that in the laws when the issue came up in the past.
I think the difference here is in "traffic flow speed." Two motorcycles can ride side by side at the speed limit without impeding traffic. In most areas, bicycles are not going 30-55 mph.
However, when I took the motorcycle test, I was told that riding side-by-side is not encouraged. Singin' Chicken may want to weigh in about legality versus common practice, but I was told that a group of bikes should ride in a staggered line. Side-by-side and single file is dangerous with motorcycles...
SoWal Expert
Roadway position
(Section 316.2065(5) and (6), F.S.)
arrow Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway, except under any of the following situations:
* when passing another bicycle or [other] vehicle proceeding in the same direction
* when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway
* when reasonably necessary to avoid any hazardous condition, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or substandard-width lane, that makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For the purposes of this subsection, a "substandard-width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
Since the law requires that an auto driver give cyclists three feet of room when passing, I'd say that by this law, a single bicycle could legally ride in the middle of the right hand lane, when traveling on most of 30A. Glad I looked that one up.
Found the other, and you are right. Here it is:
"Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane."
(Section 316.2065(5) and (6), F.S.)
arrow Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway, except under any of the following situations:
* when passing another bicycle or [other] vehicle proceeding in the same direction
* when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway
* when reasonably necessary to avoid any hazardous condition, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or substandard-width lane, that makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For the purposes of this subsection, a "substandard-width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
Since the law requires that an auto driver give cyclists three feet of room when passing, I'd say that by this law, a single bicycle could legally ride in the middle of the right hand lane, when traveling on most of 30A. Glad I looked that one up.
Found the other, and you are right. Here it is:
"Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane."
hmmmm......can't remember
SJ...you don't even need us...;-)
SoWal Expert
NoHall, back to your motorcycle question
(link)
Motorcycles operating two abreast in same lane 316.209 - Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.--
(1) All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane.
However, you are right about riding staggered (not staggered drunk). It is preferred and safer than riding two abreast.
(link)
Motorcycles operating two abreast in same lane 316.209 - Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.--
(1) All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane.
However, you are right about riding staggered (not staggered drunk). It is preferred and safer than riding two abreast.
Edited
hmmmm......can't remember
NoHall, back to your motorcycle question
(link)
Motorcycles operating two abreast in same lane 316.209 - Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.--
(1) All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane.
However, you are right about riding staggered (not staggered drunk). It is preferred and safer than riding two abreast.
Two a breast? It's back to girls on bikes for you, isn't it?
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.