[Roscoe]

@Mark Blacknell 10033 wrote:

You know what else is annoying, Roscoe? Self-centered people who whine about the self-centeredness of other people, all the while without an ounce of self-awareness.

People in front of you annoy you. We get it. We really do. We just don’t really care.

Another thing that is annoying is people that post on internet forums without the slightest modicum of comprehension. People in front of me don’t annoy me. People that intentionally, and FOR NO GOOD REASON, cause a backlog for dozens of motorists and unsafe passing conditions annoy me. I’d have thought you would comprehend that by now, but apparently not.

I’d have also thought that perhaps you (and/or others) might care about showing courtesy to other motorists and cyclists. Perhaps not.

I get your lack of reading comprehension. I really do. I just don’t really care.

[Roscoe]

@washcycle 10019 wrote:

And this, I think, is the fundamental problem. You’re coinvinced that you know WHY they are doing what they do. Think about that for a minute. That requires amazing insight. Empathic, mind-reading like insight. The fact is that you don’t know why they’re doing it.

You make a good point and I accept it. It is indeed near impossible to know the motives of others without asking them.

What i DO know however, is that for whatever the reason, they are taking actions that not only inconvenience others, that make both others and themselves LESS SAFE…..by forcing traffic to both be delayed unnecessarily and need to pass in a more dangerous manner. This is clearly both RUDE and DISCOURTEOUS….in addition to being unsafe and simply unintelligent.

But I applaud your giving people the benefit of the doubt. I suppose if someone deliberately takes your newspaper from your porch every morning you give them the benefit of the doubt also. There may be a very good reason….you SIMPLY DONT KNOW. And it’s but a minor inconvenience to you, just a few minutes to go buy another and a buck or two. I’m sure you wouldn’t be upset by this very minor inconvenience, and would give them the benefit of the doubt. Right ? I didn’t think so….

You can decide that when people steal your newspaper, they are doing it as a personal attack on you. They are doing it to hurt YOU. They hate YOU. Not how I would go through life, but it is an option.

[Roscoe]

@washcycle 10020 wrote:

People have given you good reasons. But you won’t accept them.

This is not intended to sound rude, just right to the point since we’ve got so much verbage here.

But once again, you are simply wrong.

People may have certainly given reasons why it can be beneficial or even necessary to ride 2-abreast…..BUT NOT WHERE I AM REFERRING TO. Why that is lost on you is…..fascinating.

These riders probably ACTUALLY SEE other riders riding on the right with no problems whatsoever. Common logic requires one to believe that there’s a pretty good chance many of them have actually SAFELY ridden these very roads themsleves solo on the right, since I have NEVER seen a single rider taking the whole lane here. In fact it is quite likely that even as they ride abreast, they see pairs of riders in file. In short, it is PERFECTLY CLEAR that these roads do not require riders to either take the entire lane or ride 2-abreast.

So you just continue to create the strawman argument…that I am trying to assert that there is NEVER the need for a cyclist to take the entire lane.

[Roscoe]

@dbb 10001 wrote:

…this has become something of a Talmudic discussion (how many angels can actually ride on a given bike?). While it has been fun to offer an opinion or two, the conversation seems to have deteriorated to something along the lines of “I’m right because you are wrong” Like most disputes, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle…..

Yeah you make some real good points, not just the quoted part here.

I’ve vented, so I’ll let it go. And I agree that this is probably not an audience chock full of rude offenders. But I’m also pretty sure it struck a little close to home with a few. Hence their trying to put words into my mouth and assert that I’m trying to say one should NEVER take the entire lane. So it is.

But I’ll try to put a positive spin on it the next time I’m going 10-15 mph on Jones Mill Rd while behind a couple guys side by side who by appearances could plausibly pass as pro riders and who can clearly see cyclists safely riding to the right not too far in front of them…..and with traffic backed up behind me because, while I know from experience that it’s perfectly safe to pass a rider who is on the right, it’s more dangerous to swing 100% into the oncoming lane and so I don’t.

Or if I’m driving the mile or so down Beach Drive near where the Rock Creek Park is closed to traffic on weekends and I’m behind the pack of (other) middle-aged professionals who probably aren’t even going 10 mph as they take the entire lane, just so they can bull***t with eachother while riding before they get to where there aren’t even going to BE any motorists.

Or….well, I’m pretty sure you get the point.

And I know, it’s only a few minutes here and a few minutes there and it’s realistically probably only a couple to a half-dozen times per weekend at most that ones get’s inconvenienced like this for no good reason. So sure I can deal with it. And hey…maybe I’m wrong – maybe my idea that if people actually TRIED to be courteous to other people, then travel around here would be a little more pleasant is just….a bad idea. I’ll try to explore the possibility that maybe the solution isn’t to try to show others the courtesy and respect we all would appreciate……but rather just to deal with the rudeness. I’m sure everyone else takes that approach to rude people in other similarly recurring situations…….

[Roscoe]

@Mark Blacknell 10000 wrote:

Roscoe, you should get out and ride more. Perhaps even with all these awful people who make you sick/disgust you. Might help alleviate some of that frustration. If the weather’s not nice enough for that, I’d suggest a review of our local laws and a cycling safety class.

Hey thanks, I think I will !! In fact I got just over 20 miles in today which isn’t too bad for a weekday.

Give me a wave if you see me – I’ll be the one that’s only a fairly decent cyclist wearing pretty old and shaggy catalog clothes, but lucky enough to have an awesome 2nd-hand Scattante at a good discount from a friend who races.

Oh, and I’ll also be riding in a manner that’s as courteous as possible to you if you’re driving, cuz I’m pretty sure you’ll be returning the favor. And if I’m with a buddy and we want to chat and BS while we ride…….we won’t be riding side by side when it’s not necessary, backing up and inconveniencing traffic like a couple of inconsiderate pricks. We’ll wait until we’re in a neighborhood for that. 😎

[Roscoe]

@vvill 10004 wrote:

Roscoe – are you basically saying you should never ride two abreast or take the lane because it makes it harder for cars to pass? Or do you mean only in certain roads and conditions?

I think it’s pretty much accepted that there are times when you should take the lane because you want to make sure cars don’t try to pass. Ever tried riding through a multi-lane traffic circle on the right edge of a lane?

In short, I’m saying that I live around roads that are probably among the most heavily cycled in Montgomery County MD, including by me, and I constantly see people riding 2-abreast when it is CLEARLY not necessary or warranted. This happens ALL THE TIME, and it doesn’t make the cyclists any safer than if they rode on the right, as I do and as courteous cyclists do. They cause a lot of backlogs and inconvenience on the roads and they cause cars to have a more difficult time passing, which makes everything less safe for EVERYONE, themselves included.

There are a lot of people here who either lack basic reading comprehension, or want to create a strawman argument – they are trying to put words into my mouth, and argue that I am saying a cyclist should NEVER take the whole lane, or ride 2-abreast. Which is clearly not what I’m saying. Again, in short, I’m just saying that when it’s clearly not warranted, it is EXTREMELY ANNOYING AND RUDE to not ride on the right.

Now, we’ve gotten a lot of talk about whether the cyclist feels safe, or who am I to be the judge…..but these people on weekends can SEE OTHER CYCLISTS safely riding on the right, even cyclists in file. They know damn well it’s perfectly safe to ride on the right and let people pass easily. There’s a pretty good chance they’ve done it themselves when riding the same road solo. But they instead choose to be rude.

[Roscoe]

@jabberwocky 9991 wrote:

T I think where we disagree is expecting cyclists to facilitate passing at (potentially) their own expense.

And I think the reason we disagree is because it is PERFECTLY CLEAR that there is no “expense” of safety to cyclists on these roads by neither riding 2-abreast nor in the center of the lane. I say that not only from the experience of having logged hundreds of miles on these very roads but from having passed an innumerable number of cyclists who have NO problem showing motorists the courtesy of safely cycling while not taking up the entire lane.

I can’t quite tell if you’re trying to establish the strawman argument that I am somehow saying that it is never appropriate for a cyclist to not be on the right. When obviously that is not what I’m saying.

Have you ever seen these roads,though, or been on them ? It’s simply preposterous to think that accomplished riders on the weekend can actually certainly see and probably actually pass other riders safely who are riding on the right…..yet think that THEY need to be riding two abreast or in the center of the lane.

And not only that…..in my years of cycling and living here I have NEVER seen a solo cyclist anywhere but on the right. NEVER. So the odds are that many of these people choosing to go 2-abreast when they’re with a friend have ridden these very roads while solo…..and not felt that safety dictated they be anywhere even NEAR the center.

There’s just no other way to describe it but simply discourtesy, or these rude people seizing their opportunity to thumb their nose at motorists, and inconvenience others in the process. It’s either that or they are saying to themselves “I’ve (probably) ridden this road safely while solo…..and i (almost definitely) can actually see others safely riding on the right…..but i really need to NOW be ridign 2-abreast with my friend because of this sudden new safety concern that apparently applies to me and no others.” It’s just not possible. It’s rudeness and discourtesy, plain and simple.

[Roscoe]

@jabberwocky 9988 wrote:

I’m a fast driver, dood. But I sure as hell don’t expect to go fast on a road with a 25mph speed limit. Roads generally have low speed limits for a reason.

Whether you believe taking the lane increases safety or not, the right to do is enshrined in law (for a reason), its taught and encouraged by pretty much every cycling organization in the country (again, for a reason) and is even encouraged by state departments of transportation (as linked earlier in the thread, and again, for a reason). Cyclists by and large aren’t doing it to piss you off, they’re doing it because it increases their safety.

Is it unreasonable to expect to go the speed limit, or to be able to pass cyclists while everyone exercises responsible caution ?

So maybe I have it all wrong, maybe I have been cycling improperly for quite a few years. Perhaps we should ALL take the center lane. ALWAYS. After all it makes us all safer and it’s the law, right ?

If that’s the case, why don’t we hear from more people (anyone, actually) advocating THAT ?

[Roscoe]

@jabberwocky 9982 wrote:

Anyone complaining about being held up on a road with a 25mph speed limit deserves a smack with a wet fish. Roads with 25mph speed limits are small, neighborhood roads. They are not, by and large, commuting arteries. You should absolutely expect slow traffic on them. If slow traffic bothers you, do not commute on small roads with low speed limits.

Who ever mentioned commuting. And unless you voluntarily drive 15 mph in a 25 zone as a rule…..wouldn’t you consider this post a bit hypocritical ? Or is discourtesy and inconveniencing other people acceptable so long as it doesn’t happen to YOU ?

How about someone that wastes your time in a check-out line while they play on their I-phone for several minutes ? How about if that happened to you on a VERY REGULAR BASIS ? Would you be annoyed by it or would you say that it’s cool for them to inconvenience you solely for their own pleasure because….you should expect check-out lines to be slow ? My guess is that you’d expect them to show you some courtesy – the SAME courtesy you show them.

Yup, that’s what I thought. You’d eventually take offense to rudeness and discourtesy from others that wastes your time at no gain to them except personal satisfaction. (And yes, AGAIN, I’m well aware of people trying to assert that these roads are safer when the whole lane is taken. The vast numer of solo riders or riders in file SAFELY not taking up the entire lane proves that WRONG.)

[Roscoe]

@mstone 9974 wrote:

Note: I have never been on the roads under discussion. I have been on a number of roads where it’s unsafe to ride near the edge, and am offended by the idea that nothing but rudeness can explain not wanting to do so.

It’s good of you to at least admit your ignorance as to the roads I refer to, that sheds some light on why you don’t seem to know what I am referring to.

@mstone 9974 wrote:

Taking the lane has nothing to do with how many riders there are next to each other; I can do it alone or I can do it with someone. The assertion made earlier is that if you’re taking the lane anyway, riding two abreast doesn’t change the situation for following traffic.

It’s hard to understand why you don’t seem to comprehend what I’ve written. But to make it even simpler; NOBODY (at least that I have ever seen) takes the entire lane in these areas when they are solo. So why is this situation suddenly so dangerous when there are two riders that THEY need to take the entire lane….when multitudes of others have no problem not doing so.

@mstone 9974 wrote:

It is advocated quite often, as in the language you misread above from the MD manual, safe cycling training, etc. I’d guess that more people would do it in unsafe situations if they didn’t have misguided notions about “being courteous” that makes them hesitate to take the safest option.

So you’re trying to assert that MORE people should be taking the entire lane while riding solo in Montgomery County Maryland ? I haven’t heard that yet, but please just come out and say it if that’s what you mean. Perhaps I just misunderstand and I should actually be grateful that cyclists EVER ride on the right side on 25mph 2-lane roads ? Do I really just misunderstand that my own (apparently unwarranted and extraordinary) courtesy as a cyclist actually needn’t be shared by anyone else ?

@mstone 9974 wrote:

And there you go again. Since you’re completely convinced that you know what they’re thinking and that they can’t possibly have any thought of what’s safest for themselves, why continue the conversation? Everybody you disagree with is obviously wrong.

And there YOU go again…simply ignoring the FACTS. Specifically that if these roads are so consistently and easily traversed by cyclists keeping on the right side……that it is not logical that they are suddenly astoundingly dangerous for just a discourteous few, who need to take the entire lane, but only when with a friend.

@mstone 9974 wrote:

Again, I’d rather it be dangerous for them than for me.

Yes, that seems apparent. Unfortunately what doesn’t seem apparent, to YOU anyways, is that these riders force traffic into frequently making passing moves that are less safe than if the cyclists were on the right. I know, I know….you’ll try to say it’s really just me driving like that. Which is a pretty senseless thing to either assert or believe. When it’s well-known that drivers will frequently react without patience, why put them in a situation where it’s dangerous when they do so ? For NO GAIN.

[Roscoe]

@Mark Blacknell 9953 wrote:

Roscoe, do you ever drive on the Beltway in rush hour? If so, do you get the same sense of capital letter rage and sickness and disgust at the drivers in front of you that cyclists seem to inspire? Or is that just reserved for people on bikes?

No, I usually don’t. Just the standard displeasure most probably get when the roads are extremely crowded.

And do you miss my point entirely ? I don’t have any sickness, rage or disgust for people on bikes. Just the ones that think it’s their time to ride side by side to chat while going 15mph in a 25 zone. Or who congest the roads by riding abreast ostensibly for “safety reasons” that are quite obviously specious, since the cyclists solo or in file have no safety problems in these areas.

By the way, ever ride the section of Rock Creek Park where the roads are closed on weekends ? If you approach it from the north there’s fully a mile of Beach Dr. that is open to traffic before the road is closed. Ever seen the crowds of what appears to be seasoned cyclists that just lollygag in that road with their buddies as they apparently approach where they are to begin their ride, probably not even going 15 mph ? It’s astoundingly discourteous. They just seem to think they can take over the road because they have numbers. They abuse other peoples’ concern for their safety by inconveniencing everyone else, just so they can selfishly gab while they approach their ride. No courtesy whatsoever.

[Roscoe]

@mstone 9960 wrote:

Well, if you’re not trolling you would have noticed by now that what you consider “discourteous”, others consider “essential for safety”.

Perhaps if you weren’t trolling you’d notice the glaring inconsistencies implicit in your reply, or you’d notice several facts that you either didn’t comprehend or choose to ignore.

First, the majority of cyclists on the MD roads I refer to are riding singly. Or in file. So for you to suggest that there are no accidents because they are taking the lane is…..perhaps wrong. Since most are not.

Second, If what you advocate is so “essential for safety”, why is it not universally, or even by majority, advocated ? It’s a provable fact that the vast majority of cyclists in the area do not consider taking the entire lane essential for safety….since if they did, they would DO SO !!

It’s simply an astonishing amount that DO choose to ride abreast for solely an increase in discourtesy, but no gain in safety whatsoever. How can these apparently accomplished cyclists have no problem riding courteously on the right when they’re solo…..but then feel that the horrifying danger of a car spending several seconds more in passing two riders who are on the right, rather than just one, is some kind of tremendous elevation in the danger level ? It’s not just discourteous, it’s counter-productive – they force motorists who may not be very skilled to make the more dangerous move of passing in an entire oncoming lane.

[Roscoe]

@ronwalf 9947 wrote:

MDoT put that book out to educate cyclists on safe cycling. Their recommendations have nothing to do with conveniencing drivers. When I take the lane, I do it for safety reasons, not out of ego or to provoke drivers behind me.

You make an interesting point, and I’m interested in hearing those in addition to venting.

So I guess ALL cyclists EVERYWHERE (in MD, that is) should ride in the center of the lane at all times then ? Because it’s both lawful AND increases safety ?

[Roscoe]

@mstone 9942 wrote:

I’d much rather have these uncertain and nervous drivers inconvenienced by having to slow down than to have them attempt a pass, chicken out when they see oncoming traffic, and hit the cyclist as they swerve back into their lane. That scenario is extremely common, which is why it is sometimes essential for the cyclist to position himself in the lane in a manner which precludes someone from “squeezing past”. Drivers tend to flatten the cyclist rather than risking a sideswipe by another car. There’s a difference between “courtesy” and self-preservation. If there’s not enough well-maintained shoulder to have an escape route on the right of the white line, the escape route needs to be the right several feet of the lane.

Yeah, sure. SOMETIMES it makes sense. But it sure doesn’t in the majority of cases I see near where I live – where single riders and riders in file are doing just fine……but some feel the need to ride abreast and slow everyone down for no gain whatsoever.

I have NEVER seen a cyclist hit in years of living right next to some of the most heavily cycled roads in Montgomery County. But EVERY weekend I see traffic backed up and travelling at 15 mph (if that) on many roads near here because some cyclists show courtesy, while an astounding number revel in their opportunity to flex their ego and achieve their small victory against motorists by slowing them down unnecessarily.

Which of course doesn’t even factor in the fact that many motorists are not very skilled and most of the “swerving back into their lane” occurs when they have to pass riders abreast by going 100% into the oncoming lane. So not only are these riders being deliberately rude, they’re causing a more dangerous situation for everyone, since most motorists will swerve out to see if they can pass, then often swerve back to not do so.

What’s the problem with the bikers just showing a little courtesy in the first place ?

[Roscoe]

@ronwalf 9939 wrote:

Since the state of Maryland says cyclists should be taking the lane on the roads described, and riding two abreast doesn’t change the passing dynamics, you are specifically advocating against the recommendation of experts.

Not exactly.

First, most cyclists (at least right near me) are only moving “at the speed of traffic” because they have in fact slowed down the traffic. It’s clearly a very small minority of riders that maintains a pace at or near the posted speed limit.

Second, according to this definition, there are almost NO roads in the state (at least absolutely none that I’ve ever seen) in which a car can safely pass a bicycle without leaving the lane whatsoever. Is that not what would constitute a lane that is not large enough for cars to pass safely ?

So these rules are interesting. They’re kind of a self-fulfilling definition for the cyclists – bikes are entitled to the entire lane unless it’s somehow abnormally wide enough for cars to pass entirely within the same lane…..AND the slower bikes then dictate the pace and are thus ALWAYS moving at “the speed of traffic.”

I certainly won’t dispute that these rules you post are apparently factual. But neither can you dispute that following them as written would cause situations of total traffic backlog and demonstrate a complete lack of courtesy on the part of cyclists, who would be CHOOSING to make no effort whatsoever to convenience the traffic. Just as the 2-abreast riders do.

[Author]

Posts