Bikes or cars - who rules the road?

I totally agree- I wouldn't mind sharing the road with cyclists if they can share properly. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a cyclist blow a stop sign, try to pass a car with a turn signal on, and blaze through the roads with many other traffic violations. I certainly do not want to injure anyone, but cyclists need to meet us motorists half way.

Why should cyclist be any different than motorcyclist, i get cut off all the time on
my motorcycle! People need to pay attention, get off the dam cell phones,& checking
your email while you drive.

I have to ride like i'm invisible, so i don't get killed & i wear a safety orange vest
& ride with my head lights on, & people still say i didn't see you. WTF

I agree though alot of cyclist don't follow the rules of the road like stopping
for stop signs.

I will refute here the best set of arguments by those who do not want to share the road.

You can't argue that cyclists are saving the world because they are not using gas, but I would argue the opposite. On a road with a speed limit of 45, a cyclist is not going to come anywhere close to that speed, but yet they will ride enough in the way to slow down a line of cars behind to about 20 mph. So for the next mile, you have cars (let's say 5) with their engines running for twice the amount of time. Seems to me that any good that cyclist is doing was quickly canceled out.

First, this idea that a line of cars develops behind riders is mostly fiction. Drivers pass very quickly, because riders generally do not ride out in the roadway except when they are in a place where it would be dangerous not to, with few exceptions.

Second, mileage for automobiles is a matter of wind resistance. The square plate area increases as the square of the vehicle's speed. (Which is why bicyclists have so much trouble going faster than 20-25 MPH, because the same is true for them.) That means that the resistance to movement at 45 MPH is 5.06 times that of a car going 20 MPH. Ultra-mileage is accomplished by driving no faster than 20 MPH, generally, around 15 MPH. The reality is that by going slower, you will use less gas. A lot less gas, with 15-20 MPH being the sweet spot.

Third, in city driving, the majority of the cost of moving an automobile is due to stopping, then re-accelerating the tons of mass of the car up to a higher speed. If you accelerate to a lower speed before slowing down again at the next stop sign or red light, you will use a lot less gas. (This problem is why regenerative braking into a capacitor bank works for extending mileage. You can retrieve about 30%-50% of the energy as you come to a stop that was stored in the moving mass of your car. About half of that can be gotten back when you re-accelerate. But you are actually doing better than this, because if you have a hybrid, the nice thing about electric motors is that their power curve is very high at zero. So you don't waste energy gunning the engine and slipping the clutch.)

I would also offer that any cyclist on the road is no different than a car without registration. They should be fined for not paying taxes; they don't contribute to road tax through fuel purchase or registration fees. These are the taxes that pay for those roads (well, if they don't steal them for schools) and what would they do without the roads being created by taxes collected from gas? I would agree with another comment in this forum that any road using cyclist should also maintain insurance and the same legal setup as a motorcycle (light, signals, helmet).

First, the cyclist is a lot different because a bicycle causes virtually zero wear and tear on the roads. Automobiles and trucks cause most of it, with weather another factor.

Second, prior to automobiles, roads were for horses, carriages and foot traffic. The history is that the bicycle was the the first major freedom machine, and helped spark the development of better roads. (Another was the railroad, but that's another story.)

Third, it is a common misconception that roads are paid for by fuel taxes. In some jurisdictions, fuel taxes pay for some of it. But the interstate system is pretty much entirely paid for by federal dollars. Yes, those highways that bicycles are banned from unless there is no other route, are not paid for by fuel taxes. Upkeep is paid for by fuel taxes, but not construction. So, by your logic, bicyclists have a right to ride on the freeways, but they do not have a right to ride on local roads in jurisdictions where the road was constructed using fuel taxes. (Which is darn few roads.)

Fourth, those riders, unless they are children, are taxpayers, and virtually all of them also have automobiles. They have paid into the fuel taxes as well as every other kind of taxes for many years.

Separate lanes for cyclists is not the answer either - those lanes are made one of 2 ways. Either they narrow an existing road to make way, which in turn causes more problem for drivers of cars or they widen the road usually enough to have added a real lane of traffic for cars. If they were to use that lane for cars, they again would reduce emissions far greater than those saved by cyclists, just be getting cars to their locations faster. Not to mention that just about every rider I see rides to the most outside part of the lane (closest to cars) because the inside of the lane has too much debris (rocks and trash) and it causes problems for the cyclists; so now they are so close to traffic that the cyclist lane doesn't do much good anyway. The only way to solve this problem is to have a street cleaner clean the lanes everyday, which would cancel out any good being done by the cyclists.

First, it is true that bicycle lanes in towns that build them are used by homeowners to store their leaf and branch litter as well as trash. However, that is because of contempt by the homeowners for the law and safety of the cyclists. That does not an argument make. That there is glass and rock sometimes is a problem, but it is no more of a problem than it is for any other part of the road. To say that it requires daily cleaning is ridiculous. It doesn't. Just have the street sweeper cover the bike lane as well as the auto part of the roadway.

Second, it is false to think that by adding lanes if a roadway is widened that you will produce fewer emissions because commuters can get where they are going faster. The opposite is true, for the reasons cited above. The faster you go, the more gas you use per mile, with 15-20 MPH being the highest mileage sweet spot.

The best answer would be to have them use the sidewalks, let's face it, no one walks anywhere anymore anyway. Why not widen the sidewalk into the grass patches that the cities can't afford to maintain anymore and let them use that. Then they can pay a separate tax to maintain the sidewalk and all is fair. The chance that a pedestrian might be hit by a cyclist is a much better one that a cyclist being hit by a car.

Actually, people do walk places, and kids skateboard on sidewalks, and people go running on sidewalks. They aren't filling the sidewalks, no, but they do use them. If one were to do a study of number of people moving on a sidewalk on a street versus number of people moving in cars on a street, in many suburbs it would be about equal in a 24 hour period.

Regarding sidewalks, it has been shown that bicyclists using sidewalks raises accident rates for bicyclists. It is safer for them in the road where cars see them better and they see cars better. This is because of the transition from the sidewalk to the road to cross intersections. If you are ever involved in the design of bikeways that are, say, through parks, you can let people know about this. All too often, there are these weird transitions where a bikeway dumps out into the middle of a block over a curb. These cause lots of accidents for the same reason. People go riding down the sidewalk, and come to an intersection, with a green light, going 15-20 MPH. They hit the crosswalk at that speed and get nailed by someone turning left or right.

I am not against cyclists, I am one and I ride my bike every night and weekend (over 100 miles a week), but you have to make it close to fair and not punish people who still need to drive cars for their commute. You have to separate the cyclists into 2 groups - those who cycle for fun or exercise(cyclists) and those who cycle as an alternative to cars (commuter cyclists). The later is causing a bad name for the rest of us and by far causing more harm than they do good.

First, with this entire thing you wrote being against cyclists, I have trouble believing you aren't against cyclists. But leaving that aside, this idea that cyclists are punishing people who "still need to drive cars for their commute" is bizarre. Because you feel you need to drive your car (and I'm not arguing with you) you think punishing people who cannot afford to drive one is ok? What kind of elitism is that? What is this, "Let them eat cake if they have not bread?"

Second, this business of separating cyclists into 2 groups, recreational and commuter, and claiming they do more harm than good leaves no room for commuters to exist. I have shown conclusively that your arguments that they are doing harm are all false. Commuter cyclists are not doing harm.

Basically, what you are saying here is that if you are doing something then it is fine and dandy. But if you are not doing something, then you make up reasons why it isn't.

Bicycles as transportation vehicles are non-damaging to roadways and traffic mitigating when provided with appropriate facilities. Translation: to have people bicycling for transportation improves the usefulness of roadways while providing for additional motor vehicles decreases that usefulness or increases roadway cost or both. That's why it makes no sense to tax bicycles. However I do believe state-wide registration of bicycles is warranted for statistical and ownership verification purposes.

right on

I agree but you forgot , they should be required to carry some sort of insurance also. I'm sure they're cause for a few auto accidents for there stupidity.

I suggest everyone obtain a copy of your state's motor vehicle laws. Every state I've lived in and been a registered driver in (7 total) clearly states in their motor vehicle laws that except where their use is specifically prohibited, bicycles have the same rights to the road as motorized vehicles. You can discuss the semantics of registration fees if you want to, but the law is the law. If someone doesn't like the law he/she should discuss it with their state legislator and try to get it changed.

I've been a cyclist and have raced bicycles for as long as I have been a licensed driver....22 years now. I have also commuted to work part time for the past 10 years. Between commuting and just riding for fun I ride about 6,000 miles per year.

I take a slightly longer route to work on smaller roads and avoid 4 lane highways. With a little work I believe most cyclists will be able to find a good route to work and this usually means a route with fewer stop signs and traffic lights.

Gas prices are a matter of supply and demand. As a country we have done little to decrease our demand by driving less, buying more efficient, smaller cars, taking mass transit, living closer to work, etc Since demand has remained the same or increased and the supply is decreasing prices will remain high.

Whether you like it or not, there will be more bicycles on the road in the future and drivers should thank them.....cyclists are the ones who are taking a step to reduce demand for gasoline and keep prices just a little bit lower.

John, why WOULD the fees you pay for registering your automobile, and for having it smogged entitle you to more of the road than bicycle riders? (It doesn't.)

There is a reason they are called 'public roads'. Even though a lot of them are in very sad shape, they are provided and maintained for the public, not just for the larger, heavier, more polluting, and more dangerous wheeled vehicles.

There are good points on both sides of the argument, but Mr. Al Popp has pointed out the best. Anyone opposed to sharing the road with non motorized devices needs to contact there legislator to have them banned as I have just done (Thank you for the suggestion). My congressman did agree with the challenges and offered to keep the idea open and welcomes others to contact his office.

You can't argue that cyclists are saving the world because they are not using gas, but I would argue the opposite. On a road with a speed limit of 45, a cyclist is not going to come anywhere close to that speed, but yet they will ride enough in the way to slow down a line of cars behind to about 20 mph. So for the next mile, you have cars (let's say 5) with their engines running for twice the amount of time. Seems to me that any good that cyclist is doing was quickly canceled out.

I would also offer that any cyclist on the road is no different than a car without registration. They should be fined for not paying taxes; they don't contribute to road tax through fuel purchase or registration fees. These are the taxes that pay for those roads (well, if they don't steal them for schools) and what would they do without the roads being created by taxes collected from gas? I would agree with another comment in this forum that any road using cyclist should also maintain insurance and the same legal setup as a motorcycle (light, signals, helmet).

Separate lanes for cyclists is not the answer either - those lanes are made one of 2 ways. Either they narrow an existing road to make way, which in turn causes more problem for drivers of cars or they widen the road usually enough to have added a real lane of traffic for cars. If they were to use that lane for cars, they again would reduce emissions far greater than those saved by cyclists, just be getting cars to their locations faster. Not to mention that just about every rider I see rides to the most outside part of the lane (closest to cars) because the inside of the lane has too much debris (rocks and trash) and it causes problems for the cyclists; so now they are so close to traffic that the cyclist lane doesn't do much good anyway. The only way to solve this problem is to have a street cleaner clean the lanes everyday, which would cancel out any good being done by the cyclists.

The best answer would be to have them use the sidewalks, let's face it, no one walks anywhere anymore anyway. Why not widen the sidewalk into the grass patches that the cities can't afford to maintain anymore and let them use that. Then they can pay a separate tax to maintain the sidewalk and all is fair. The chance that a pedestrian might be hit by a cyclist is a much better one that a cyclist being hit by a car.

I am not against cyclists, I am one and I ride my bike every night and weekend (over 100 miles a week), but you have to make it close to fair and not punish people who still need to drive cars for their commute. You have to separate the cyclists into 2 groups - those who cycle for fun or exercise(cyclists) and those who cycle as an alternative to cars (commuter cyclists). The later is causing a bad name for the rest of us and by far causing more harm than they do good.

If you really ride your bike 100 miles a week, i seriously doubt that you ride it on the sidewalk. Any rider with significant mileage knows that sidewalks are significantly more dangerous than riding the street.

Cars simply do not look for bikes coming off the sidewalks to cross side streets. If they do see you, they refuse to yield the right of way to you. I have been bike commuting for the last 5 years... i feel pretty confident in my judgement here.

Sidewalks are NOT the answer. Sharing the road is.

krep, nobody checks to see why motorists are driving anywhere we want to, cyclists do not need to be monitored as to why they are on the road.

Cyclists AND motorists need to follow the rules of the road and common sense. I would wish for perhaps just a drop of compassion for each other (obviously that is not required, but...it would be nice.)

The whole world (or that motorist or cyclist in your way) doesn't exist to thwart your plans and wishes, but it isn't actually their job to get you where you want to go as if you are the ONLY Being in the world. Peaceful coexistence is not just a myth or a joke. As more than one poster has noted, it actually exists in some places.

In most states, adult sized bicycles are required by law to operate on the roadways except where prohibited by official signage. Only child-size bikes may be on sidewalks. Therefor bicycles have every right to be on the roads as motor vehicles. One of the most common type of accidents involving bikes and cars is when a car fails to yield to yield to a person operating a bicycle on a sidewalk that enters a driveway or crosswalk zone.

"I'm sure they're cause for a few auto accidents for there stupidity. "
Yea, same goes for the a$$holes on cell phones driving the cages with no regard for anyone else on the road whether it be a bike rider, motorcycle rider, walker, or another car driver.

Registration is not the same as USING the road. I disagree with your hpothesis.

Registration is to collect taxes, insure compliance with insurance mandates. I bicycle is not usually reported killing someone by running them over, or damaging a home by punching a hole in a brick wall.

Licensing is there to make sure someone CAN drive a car so they are not a hazard on the road. There is a lot of metal and plastic moving here!

Both vehicles have to stop at a stop sign, the car travels much faster and has much more "weight" (mass) to stop than a bike. But both are served well by not running the stop sign into oncoming traffic.

The size of the vehicle is not important (unless you live in California). You could imagine a large box around the bike and see it as another metal and plastic vehicle......might help.

Cars put out pollution, bikes don't. Tanker Trucks are used to bring oil in.
Plus the cost of damage cars cost, like using the Police, or Fire Dep. to clean up accidents, direct traffic, catch stolen cars. I always see a huge pile of bikes in the Police Compound when I watch the news, seems no one really minds loosing a bike to theft, but a car is much different.

We have to pay Police to catch speeders, you wont find a speeding biker.

My tax money doesn't need to go to a bike lane...follow the rules of the road and you will be fine. I don't have a problem with bikes on the road until they stop following the rules. In addition when you hold up traffic you cause a hazard.

Boy you really aren't kidding about the exhaust pipe thing! When I first started commuting on my bike I really had to get used to smelling the nasty exhaust from cars around me. I'm quite sure it's unhealthy:-)

Other song options are: "I pedal the metal" "Jump the curb" and that down home favorite " I bike the line, ignore the signs"

I've almost got a whole album.

I feel incredibly smart that I sold my car a year ago and started commuting with my bike. I have a lot of extra spending money as I'm not spending it filling up my tank. Also, I have no problem keeping weight off because cycling is such good exercise. When my friends are spending hours looking for parking I just lock my bike up at the nearest safe place and get to my destination. In addition, during rush hour on busy streets me and other cyclist get home much faster because we can use the bike lane and several bikes fit in the width of one lane. It's really great! I feel sorry for those people who are stuck on having cars as a way of transport. I even see motorized bikes as a solution to the elderly or less physically able folks who with to join the class of cyclists. When I'm on the road I look around me and realize that it's the smarter more progressive types who are cycling to work everyday.
Cheers.

You don't think automobile or truck drivers are "targeting" cyclists? What about this doctor in California (story posted in the LA Times on July 12, 2008)
"A Brentwood physician charged Friday with stopping his car suddenly in front of two cyclists was investigated earlier this year in another case of road rage against bicycles, the Los Angeles Police Department said.
Christopher Thomas Thompson, 59, was charged with two felony counts each of reckless driving causing injury and battery with serious bodily injury in connection with a July 4 crash.
The LAPD said that Thompson was involved in a similar crash March 11.
Prosecutors allege that on July 4, Thompson slammed on the brakes of his red Infiniti sedan in front of two cyclists riding downhill on Mandeville Canyon Road. Authorities said the impact flung one cyclist through the car's rear window and the other to the pavement."

drivers arent targeting cyclists? have you heard of the doctor in California who has been brought up on these charges Twice?

You also cause a hazard by using a whole lane

We have the legal right to take an entire lane if the lane is too narrow for both a car and a bike. This prevents a car from trying to dangerously squeeze by us in the lane. In many states, drivers must keep three feet away from bikes when passing, but many drivers will slide right up alongside us, risking accidents due to the car clipping the bike handle, potholes, etc. If you, as a non-cyclist, dislike these laws, take it up with your local government or state legislature, but please don't take it out on us.

In many states, drivers must keep three feet away from bikes when passing, but many drivers will slide right up alongside us, risking accidents due to the car clipping the bike handle, potholes, etc

We have a lot of two-lane roads with hills and blind curves. The speed limit is 50 on these roads. There have been so many close calls due to drivers rounding a curve and then having to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting a cyclist - and considering that the hills and curves mean there are very few passing lanes, a cyclist can hold up traffic for a couple of miles because you can't squeeze by him if you obey the 3 foot rule. Minimum speed limits should be enforced on roads like this for safety.

No the cyclist should choose somewhere safer to ride!

Like I said, it's the law. I think it's interesting how drivers on here keep criticizing cyclists for not following traffic laws while insisting on disregarding the laws themselves.

I don't disregard the law - I slow down to 15 mph and mutter under my breath and wonder why cyclists are allowed on roads where speed limits are higher than 25 mph.

First time poster.
I drive Honda CRV and a motorcycle and ride a pedalbike. I don't think my bike and I cause potholes. A bridge to carry bikes and pedestrians would be cheaper to build. Yes, the police will pull you over for runnimg a red light in California. They have pulled over a friend for speeding. I quote " If I should happen to hit one of them" this is your fault, open your eyes. If the bike rider hits you, then it isn't your fault. Yes, we are difficult to see @ night. I try to ride away from traffic @ night and I have front and rear lights and reflectors. Why is it you can spot the babe eating a corndog 100 meters away, across the street, in the shade. Yet you can't see my ugly bike and me with my yellow/blue jersey? To quote Critical Mass "We are the traffic" Yes, some dumb bikers do ride 3 abreast and gab causing me to slow down for 30 seconds. But how often do dumb drivers on cell phones or poorly skilled drivers cause me grief. Car drivers on the whole are a more inconsiderate lot. Motorcycle riders are more attentive than any other group. Your anger shows you need to drink more Irish stout beer(Guiness Book Of World Records). Relax, ride once in a while. You will feel better.

In my comment above I'm not referring to motorcycles, taxi's, etc....just bikers who pedal their a— — all over town....the "un-licensed ones".....if I hit one of them like you said, it's my fault, even though 9 out of 10 times it would be caused by the biker....if they hit me, I most likely would end up somehow getting sued by them....they have no insurance, so who do you think would end up paying for the damage to my car? Why is it that I can spot a babe 100 meters away and not an ugly bike with ugly spandex in front of me....it's because she has headlights!!!
I also drive a motorcycle....I'm licensed, have insurance, and pay registration fees, and had to take tests for my right to be on the road........and yes, car drivers are inconsiderate....along with the taxi drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, motorcyclists, and bicyclists.....and that's another problem you mention....too many imported products in the U.S.A.....Irish Stout Beer among one of them....Bud soon won't even be owned here....just give me a good ole' U.S.A. beer....the one I drink....YUENGLING....America's oldest brewer!!!!! Thanks for responding though....

Tex commie
Ok, they need registration so they may be identified when they do the wrong thing.
Perhaps you don't like that.

Your paying taxes on your cars Idiot. All others who own cars also have to pay for each recreational vehicle they want to use on the road. A bicycle is a recreational vehicle and if you want to ride it on the road, then it should be licenced and insured!

Very good Texas Commie. We certainly don`t need anymore taxes. You got my vote.
Just remember my horn is broke. Watch for finger. : )

Number of fingers displayed denotes either number of friends or IQ.

; )...Life is too long to take everything seriously.

You are 100% right. Cyclists should never touch a car. We should unclip and wait just like everyone else. Please do write the tickets for the ones that run the stop signs, but also please be supportive of cyclists complaints of road rage and harassment. If we all obey the laws, everyone should be safe.

Bike messengers are the worst at obeying the laws. I've seen plenty of them run right into cars, and often they run over pedestrians as well. I'd like to see a lot more enforcement of these. They don't seem to have anywhere near the courtesy that a regular cyclist does.

I have also lived in Germany, the laws concerning cyclists are the same as motor vehicles and the laws are strictly enforced. There are also a ton of bike lanes in well traveled areas.

Whoever leans their bike on a car at a stop light or sign is an idiot. What about the other 99% of cyclists, mr jeepcop.

percentage is probably off a lot

and they are and can be, if they obey the law

Whose taxes pay for bike lanes? Let bike registration fees do that.

I live in Mississippi and it is scary how little room there is for bikes and other pedestrians. Most roads have NO shoulder, 2 inches from the white line to the edge of the road, and worse yet, a two foot ditch on either side. Even the roads in town are built the same way.

What is sad is that in this environment, we don't even need bike lanes. We could have bike trails built for a fraction of the cost but we maybe have like one in the entire town I live in.

Bikers and joggers frequently slow down traffic where I live. I don't mind if they are commuting but half the time they are just the "look at me, I'm exercising" crowd that have to be in high traffic area so everyone can see.

Just a point. Why would a biker need insurance to pay for an accident that would've been your fault?

In general though, I think the idea of bikes on the sidewalk is dangerous because it creates a new traffic interface that people aren't used to checking.

You bring up an interesting talking point when you mention insurance coverage. What does happen when a cycler causes an accident resulting in damages to another? Earlier this summer I had a green light on a 4 lane road with additional left turn lanes, crossing a similar road. Made sure the cross traffic was obeying their red light, start moving forward, and had to slam on my brakes to avoid a cycler running the red light and crossing my path. Fortunately the car behind me also stopped in time - yet who would have been responsible for the expense had he hit me, or had I hit the cycler, who clearly would have been responsible? The cherry on top was watching him 'flip me off' as he rode by.

I'm also weary of the sense of entitlement groups of cyclers display on 2 lane roads, using the entire lane and backing traffic up, then wondering why drivers get frustrated. I can't always choose to leave my car at home, and don't think I should have to burn additional fuel waiting for cyclers to show a bit of common courtesy. We have miles and miles of bike trails for use, yet deal with inconsiderate cyclers on 2 lane country roads every time we are on the road. Dedicated lanes would be a great solution, but bike registration should bear the expense.

Then again maybe they wouldn't be a solution at all; even when dedicated pavement is available, many cyclers choose to ride in or close to traffic - perhaps some of our 'road ragers' have traded one rage for another?

Why would a biker need insurance to pay for an accident that would've been your fault?

Why would it have been the driver's fault when the cyclist was riding illegally on the sidewalk?

Why were they illegally on the sidewalk? So you dont want bikes to travel on the road and it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk. Where exactly would you suggest they ride?

In the case above they say there was a bike lane but and I agree the person should have been there but had there been an accident you cant blame it on the cyclist because someone was fishing for their glasses and crept forward into an intersection.

You display the problem. You want them to ride on the sidewalk and the streets.
We want them to obey the law and not react with arrogance when questioned.
We would want them covered with insurance because they do hurt people.
We want them to know that they are subject to the law and not cry when stopped by police that It's a bike.

you cant blame it on the cyclist because someone was fishing for their glasses and crept forward into an intersection.

As I understand it, the car wasn't in the intersection yet.

I'm sure that the female drivers are impressed with your reference.

Word!

Certainly Holland, but also Germany, France, Italy. They each have a slightly different system of incorporating bikes and cars on the road but it works.