1. Live and let live. 

2. Single file.  Riding Two up or more on a busy road, unless you're in a pace line, makes the cyclists the ass_holes.

3. Be predictable, if you randomly swerve, expect to be run over.

4. Be seen.  If you ride without lights, reflectors, etc, don't be surprised when you get run over.  Yeah it sucks, but drivers aren't looking out for you.

5. Pedestrians own the side walk, walk it if you're in their way, and say excuse me.

6. Don't make someone pass you twice.  When a car passes a bike once and then the cyclist lane cuts to get to the front of the line at the next red light, they have to pass the cyclist again, and the drivers aren't the ass_holes for being frustrated.

7. Rolling intersections:  If you're first in the lane and zero cross traffic, it's empty, who gives a sh1t.  Just don't make someone double pass you just so you can run the light.  The drivers that cry about rolling an empty intersection are the same ones who cried to the teacher when they were kids about fairness.  It's not fair and they hate it,  only now they're piloting a ton of steel on wheels, so be mindful that they may act on this imagined slight.

8. People honk because they're angry at their sh!tty lives and feel compelled take it out on someone happy, get used to it.  It's not personal, but if you fly the bird be ready to back it up, because some of them really need to have a daily conflict.

9. Most people don't have a second thought about you or your bicycle.  They don't care about you or me, and they don't owe you anything. 

Great stuff! 

 

In particular, stop lights are stop lights for everyone.  By forcing cars to pass them over and over again, often swerving into oncoming traffic to do so, bikers can make the roads considerably less safe for everyone.  In my experience the vast majority of city bikers blow stop lights.  Please obey our most basic traffic laws, regardless of your choice of vehicle.

Welcome to Urbanohio.

 

This post started out positive, then................

I'm supposed to take cycling suggestions from a dude named DrunkCyclist?

:-o

He speaks the truth.

I'm supposed to take cycling suggestions from a dude named DrunkCyclist?

 

I know, right?

I noticed some cyclists like to ride dead center in a lane. I always try to ride as close to the sidewalk as possible so that cars can easily pass me. Bikes inevitably impede the flow of traffic but cyclists should do what they can to mitigate it.

Making an effort not to make people pass you twice takes away one of the biggest advantages of cycling, which is not getting snagged by traffic. If it's a significant problem on a given stretch of road, that road needs a bike lane.

I noticed some cyclists like to ride dead center in a lane. I always try to ride as close to the sidewalk as possible so that cars can easily pass me. Bikes inevitably impede the flow of traffic but cyclists should do what they can to mitigate it.

 

In a narrow lane, you should take the lane/ride in the center. Hugging the curb gives motorists the signal that it's okay to pass you, but if they don't have a few feet of clearance within the lane, they shouldn't be given that signal.

Making an effort not to make people pass you twice takes away one of the biggest advantages of cycling, which is not getting snagged by traffic. If it's a significant problem on a given stretch of road, that road needs a bike lane.

 

Are you saying that blowing red lights is an advantage of cycling?  That's actually a crime.  Even if there's a bike lane, red lights still count the same for everyone.  I'm not sure there's any other situation in which a car would have to pass the same bike multiple times.  Running red lights is a dangerous and illegal act.

Great stuff! 

 

In particular, stop lights are stop lights for everyone.  By forcing cars to pass them over and over again, often swerving into oncoming traffic to do so, bikers can make the roads considerably less safe for everyone.  In my experience the vast majority of city bikers blow stop lights.  Please obey our most basic traffic laws, regardless of your choice of vehicle.

 

Forcing the double pass is rude, but rolling the light when your first in the lane doesn't hurt anyone.  Laws like traffic laws are created for the safe efficient functioning of society.  When  a cyclist is first in the lane and rolls a red lights, the only thing that gets hurt are someone's feelings.

Making an effort not to make people pass you twice takes away one of the biggest advantages of cycling, which is not getting snagged by traffic. If it's a significant problem on a given stretch of road, that road needs a bike lane.

 

Are you saying that blowing red lights is an advantage of cycling?  That's actually a crime.  Even if there's a bike lane, red lights still count the same for everyone.  I'm not sure there's any other situation in which a car would have to pass the same bike multiple times.  Running red lights is a dangerous and illegal act.

 

If they're passing you twice, you're not making that much headway.  And running a redlight is not a crime like theft or assault, it's a moving violation.  Like I said, running a red light is not dangerous when the cross traffic doesn't exist.  The only caveat is that just because you can't see it, doesn't mean they aren't coming.  When I can see a quarter mile down the road and it's empty.  I'm rolling.

Fair enough, but I often feel this way in my car.  Can't I just go, if I'm in front?  No.  Part of the purpose of traffic lights is to make things predictable.  If the light is red, nobody is going through that intersection-- period-- until cross traffic has been stopped. 

 

Cross traffic can materialize out of thin air as long as their light is green.  Maybe they were parked, maybe they emerge from a hidden alley.  Regardless, they need to be able to trust that a green light means the intersection will be clear.  To others, a biker blowing a red light is a random occurrance injected into a situation that calls for minimal randomness.  That's why it's illegal.  We cannot have traffic laws that are optional for some but not for others.  Please do not ever run red lights in any vehicle.

Making an effort not to make people pass you twice takes away one of the biggest advantages of cycling, which is not getting snagged by traffic. If it's a significant problem on a given stretch of road, that road needs a bike lane.

 

Are you saying that blowing red lights is an advantage of cycling?  That's actually a crime.  Even if there's a bike lane, red lights still count the same for everyone.  I'm not sure there's any other situation in which a car would have to pass the same bike multiple times.  Running red lights is a dangerous and illegal act.

 

It's more likely to happen if the cyclist doesn't run red lights. Car passes cyclist. Both stop at red light, but cyclist gets to the front of the line. Car passes cyclist again...

 

If the cyclist runs red lights, there's a decent chance she will get past the next light before the car gets there and she won't be passed by the car left in the dust.

Fair enough, but I often feel this way in my car.  Can't I just go, if I'm in front?  No.  Part of the purpose of traffic lights is to make things predictable.  If the light is red, nobody is going through that intersection-- period-- until cross traffic has been stopped. 

 

Cross traffic can materialize out of thin air as long as their light is green.  Maybe they were parked, maybe they emerge from a hidden alley.  Regardless, they need to be able to trust that a green light means the intersection will be clear.  To others, a biker blowing a red light is a random occurrance injected into a situation that calls for minimal randomness.  That's why it's illegal.  We cannot have traffic laws that are optional for some but not for others.  Please do not ever run red lights in any vehicle.

 

Yet you probably would walk against a don't walk signal if no one were coming. I know cyclists aren't pedestrians, but they aren't motorists either. Take my example above with the double passing. Wouldn't you rather the cyclist get ahead than have to pass them multiple times?

Fair enough, but I often feel this way in my car.  Can't I just go, if I'm in front?  No.  Part of the purpose of traffic lights is to make things predictable.  If the light is red, nobody is going through that intersection-- period-- until cross traffic has been stopped. 

 

Cross traffic can materialize out of thin air as long as their light is green.  Maybe they were parked, maybe they emerge from a hidden alley.  Regardless, they need to be able to trust that a green light means the intersection will be clear.  To others, a biker blowing a red light is a random occurrance injected into a situation that calls for minimal randomness.  That's why it's illegal.  We cannot have traffic laws that are optional for some but not for others.  Please do not ever run red lights in any vehicle.

 

 

Ok David Copperfield,  Cars don't materialize out of thin air.  Maybe I wasn't clear enough.  I'm not talking about alleycat bike messenger races when it's a gamble.  I'm talking about clear visibility, zero movement from the cross street.  I can either see who's there or I can't see far enough down the road.  If I can't see, then I can't say there's zero traffic.  If there's zero traffic, then I and anyone else who wants to can roll.    If nothing gets hurt but someone's feelings about harmless random anomalies, it's going to be optional.

Fair enough, but I often feel this way in my car.  Can't I just go, if I'm in front?  No.  Part of the purpose of traffic lights is to make things predictable.  If the light is red, nobody is going through that intersection-- period-- until cross traffic has been stopped. 

 

Cross traffic can materialize out of thin air as long as their light is green.  Maybe they were parked, maybe they emerge from a hidden alley.  Regardless, they need to be able to trust that a green light means the intersection will be clear.  To others, a biker blowing a red light is a random occurrance injected into a situation that calls for minimal randomness.  That's why it's illegal.  We cannot have traffic laws that are optional for some but not for others.  Please do not ever run red lights in any vehicle.

 

Yet you probably would walk against a don't walk signal if no one were coming. I know cyclists aren't pedestrians, but they aren't motorists either. Take my example above with the double passing. Wouldn't you rather the cyclist get ahead than have to pass them multiple times?

 

@natininja

Some cyclist are fast enough to get through and stay ahead.  But some, like me, aren't fast enough, or there isn't enough gridlock to slow the cars down, so I'm trading passes with traffic.  Either way it's a judgement call for the cyclist.  And I really like your point that cyclist aren't pedestrians, but they aren't motorist either.  Don't know how long you've been in Cincy, but this town is known for it's rigid thinking.

 

It makes no sense for a vehicle with negligible horsepower to ever be "ahead" in traffic.  If a car has passed a bike once, there is no reason for that bike to end up in front of the car by the time the light turns green.  This is what forces repeated passing.  Ideally, all motor traffic should be able to pass a given cyclist once and only once.  The idea is to minimize incursions into oncoming traffic. 

 

If it bothers you that cars will get where they're going more quickly, you may want to reexamine your priorities in choosing a mode of transport.  Cars have engines and protective shells.  Bicycles have many advantages of their own, but speed and safety are not among them.  It isn't fair or reasonable to: 1) choose a vehicle that lacks speed and safety, then 2) expect to operate by your own set of laws in order to mitigate the overt drawbacks of that choice.  You would not like the result if everyone on the road adopted this approach.

1. Live and let live. 

2. Single file.  Riding Two up or more on a busy road, unless you're in a pace line, makes the cyclists the ass_holes.

3. Be predictable, if you randomly swerve, expect to be run over.

4. Be seen.  If you ride without lights, reflectors, etc, don't be surprised when you get run over.  Yeah it sucks, but drivers aren't looking out for you.

5. Pedestrians own the side walk, walk it if you're in their way, and say excuse me.

6. Don't make someone pass you twice.  When a car passes a bike once and then the cyclist lane cuts to get to the front of the line at the next red light, they have to pass the cyclist again, and the drivers aren't the ass_holes for being frustrated.

7. Rolling intersections:  If you're first in the lane and zero cross traffic, it's empty, who gives a sh1t.  Just don't make someone double pass you just so you can run the light.  The drivers that cry about rolling an empty intersection are the same ones who cried to the teacher when they were kids about fairness.  It's not fair and they hate it,  only now they're piloting a ton of steel on wheels, so be mindful that they may act on this imagined slight.

8. People honk because they're angry at their sh!tty lives and feel compelled take it out on someone happy, get used to it.  It's not personal, but if you fly the bird be ready to back it up, because some of them really need to have a daily conflict.

9. Most people don't have a second thought about you or your bicycle.  They don't care about you or me, and they don't owe you anything.

 

this list is bull@$*&.

 

3. Be predictable, if you randomly swerve, expect to be run over.

 

this is not true, riding unpredictably causes drivers to pay more attention to you not less. but you have to be consistently unpredictable.

 

4. Be seen.  If you ride without lights, reflectors, etc, don't be surprised when you get run over.  Yeah it sucks, but drivers aren't looking out for you.

 

If you are in  an area with streetlights there is no excuse not to be seen. 

 

if a driver can't see you how can they see a pedestrian?  should all pedstrians have lights too?

 

 

6. Don't make someone pass you twice.  When a car passes a bike once and then the cyclist lane cuts to get to the front of the line at the next red light, they have to pass the cyclist again, and the drivers aren't the ass_holes for being frustrated.

 

So if traffic backs up at a light you are not allowed to pass the cars twice?  It is possible and happens that bikes can be faster than a car, traffic and lights make it so. who cares if the car has to pass a cyclist 10 times, as long as the laws are being followed there is nothing wrong.

 

7. Rolling intersections:  If you're first in the lane and zero cross traffic, it's empty, who gives a sh1t.  Just don't make someone double pass you just so you can run the light.  The drivers that cry about rolling an empty intersection are the same ones who cried to the teacher when they were kids about fairness.  It's not fair and they hate it,  only now they're piloting a ton of steel on wheels, so be mindful that they may act on this imagined slight.

 

I agree, but it is still illegal

 

no one seems to care about speeding, yet it is just as illegal as running a light, but like speeding (within reason) , running a light on a bike rarely causes harm to someone else. 

 

It makes no sense for a vehicle with negligible horsepower to ever be "ahead" in traffic.  If a car has passed a bike once, there is no reason for that bike to end up in front of the car by the time the light turns green.  This is what forces repeated passing.  Ideally, all motor traffic should be able to pass a given cyclist once and only once.  The idea is to minimize incursions into oncoming traffic. 

 

If it bothers you that cars will get where they're going more quickly, you may want to reexamine your priorities in choosing a mode of transport.  Cars have engines and protective shells.  Bicycles have many advantages of their own, but speed and safety are not among them.  It isn't fair or reasonable to: 1) choose a vehicle that lacks speed and safety, then 2) expect to operate by your own set of laws in order to mitigate the overt drawbacks of that choice.  You would not like the result if everyone on the road adopted this approach.

 

cyclist have 1/4 horsepower, and some can  achieve speeds up 45 mph on level ground.  most good cyclist can average 17-22mph, more than enough to negate the advantage of cars moving in traffic and the stoplights they encounter.  try driving on Detroit ave at rush hour in Lakewood, you will be passed by people on bikes. 

All I can say is that if you insist on breaking fundamental traffic laws, you should not be surprised by any negative result that may occur.  This includes a lack of support from all those people at all those stop lights you're blowing.  You gotta admit, insisting on a separate set of rules for yourself is at least somewhat anti-social.

4. Be seen.  If you ride without lights, reflectors, etc, don't be surprised when you get run over.  Yeah it sucks, but drivers aren't looking out for you.

 

If you are in  an area with streetlights there is no excuse not to be seen. 

 

if a driver can't see you how can they see a pedestrian?  should all pedstrians have lights too?

If a pedestrian is on the street (for example in an area without sidewalks) at night they should have either a flashlight or at least bright clothing. I don't see a bike as being special, get a light.

 

My personal pet peeve with cyclists is riding against traffic. If you can't figure out that you're supposed to be going with traffic, you don't need to be on the road. (On a small road with light traffic in a residential area I suppose this might be ok, but it's a bad habit to get into.)

What an awful list.  Encouraging people to break laws not only makes a bad name for cyclists but it encourages people to be unsafe. The only time a cyclist should be going through a light is when it is green. Thats it.  Black and white issue here.

 

2. Single file.  Riding Two up or more on a busy road, unless you're in a pace line, makes the cyclists the ass_holes.

 

 

Since it hasn't been mentioned directly this one is overly simplistic. The width of the lane; number of lanes; visibility of oncoming traffic (hills, curves, buildings etc.); the type of roadway you're on; and you being courteous enough to let traffic through when the condition improves are all additional reasons enough to be variables on when you should and shouldn't double up, or for that matter ride the center of the lane.

"... rush hour in Lakewood ... "

 

 

Sorry, the little bit of traffic that occasionally clumps up on Detroit hardly qualifies as "rush hour" and I'm amazed how people huff and puff about a tempest in a teacup.

 

 

 

 

>Ok David Copperfield,  Cars don't materialize out of thin air.

 

But space shuttles:

50 of 50 Greatest Magic Tricks - Vanishing Space Shuttle

All I can say is that if you insist on breaking fundamental traffic laws, you should not be surprised by any negative result that may occur.  This includes a lack of support from all those people at all those stop lights you're blowing.  You gotta admit, insisting on a separate set of rules for yourself is at least somewhat anti-social.

 

You should be aware that sometimes following the road rules puts yourself at unnecessary risk.  It's just a fact of cycling that the playing field is not at all level; on the bike you are much more vulnerable to being killed. So I will jump a curb, run a light or cross a double line any time I feel it's safe and appropriate to do so. These actions, while illegal, will put me in a safer position.   

 

2. Single file.  Riding Two up or more on a busy road, unless you're in a pace line, makes the cyclists the ass_holes.

 

 

Since it hasn't been mentioned directly this one is overly simplistic. The width of the lane; number of lanes; visibility of oncoming traffic (hills, curves, buildings etc.); the type of roadway you're on; and you being courteous enough to let traffic through when the condition improves are all additional reasons enough to be variables on when you should and shouldn't double up, or for that matter ride the center of the lane.

 

In Cincinnati, at least, it's not only perfectly legal to ride two abreast, at times it is actually prudent.  Taking up a larger part of the roadway makes you more visible to drivers, and a larger group will encourage safer passing by motorists.

 

It's also clear here that he doesn't know what a paceline is.  A paceline is, by definition, single file (though you can do two-abreast pacelines, but if you're doing that in high-traffic areas you're looking for trouble).

Common sense and good judgement isn't always legal.

 

I feel people should be able to jay-walk as long as they're using good judgement. I crossed a street one time when I didn't have the signal to walk (but I could clearly see there was no traffic from the street perpendicular to me.) A police officer caught me as I almost got to the other side ans she made me walk all the way back and do it again once I got the signal to cross (ironically requiring me to jay-walk again.) Well, the problem was that I almost got killed relying on that stupid green walk signal when I got back because while I had the right to walk, a car which I didn't see creep up to the left of me at the intersection, also had the right to turn right on red and since he wasn't paying attention--had I not jumped back, he would have hit me.

 

Also, the more your vehicle has the potential to do damage, the more responsibility you need to take on, on the road. Cyclists should look out for pedestrians, cars should look out for cyclists and semi-trailers should look out for cars, etc.

Let's just forget everything Drunk Cyclist said and go to a reputable source.  Here's an article written by a professional cycling coach published today in a reputable newspaper:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/what-drivers-should-know-about-sharing-the-road-with-bicyclists-and-vice-versa/2012/09/15/4b8c9426-fe72-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html

 

 

what's the general consensus by all of you about bikes in the Metroparks? I really don't get why they don't have a bike lane there. The visibility for coming into the other lane in order to safely pass a biker is often pretty bad, especially with the randomness of oncoming cars, and so you end up trailing bicyclists for like half a mile til you can safely pass (and then there's another, and another, and another), but I hate hate hate it when bikers are on the walking path. If it's a biking path, shouldn't there be another path for walkers? I seem to recall the Strand in LA having a separate path just for bikers, and the walking path was for walkers or rollerbladers. This would make much more sense.

 

 

^that might depend on the park. In North Chagrin most cyclists take the "multipurpose" path and I've never seen anyone have an issue with it. Most people taking a walk are on one of the unpaved trails so it's just bikes and the occasional mom with a stroller on that path. No one has ever given me a dirty look or said anything to me for riding on it. (Though I'll admit to being kindof an a-hole to a group of people on Segways on it.)

 

2. Single file.  Riding Two up or more on a busy road, unless you're in a pace line, makes the cyclists the ass_holes.

 

 

Since it hasn't been mentioned directly this one is overly simplistic. The width of the lane; number of lanes; visibility of oncoming traffic (hills, curves, buildings etc.); the type of roadway you're on; and you being courteous enough to let traffic through when the condition improves are all additional reasons enough to be variables on when you should and shouldn't double up, or for that matter ride the center of the lane.

 

In Cincinnati, at least, it's not only perfectly legal to ride two abreast, at times it is actually prudent.  Taking up a larger part of the roadway makes you more visible to drivers, and a larger group will encourage safer passing by motorists.

 

It's also clear here that he doesn't know what a paceline is.  A paceline is, by definition, single file (though you can do two-abreast pacelines, but if you're doing that in high-traffic areas you're looking for trouble).

 

 

I know what a paceline is.  And neither one of us is wrong.  During the time when the lead is coasting back to the tail, that's two abreast.  I also agree with the concept of "taking the lane" to prevent drivers from squeezing themselves into the same lane to pass.  Taking the lane by riding two abreast is one way to do it, but I would not recommend it.

Let's just forget everything Drunk Cyclist said and go to a reputable source.  Here's an article written by a professional cycling coach published today in a reputable newspaper:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/what-drivers-should-know-about-sharing-the-road-with-bicyclists-and-vice-versa/2012/09/15/4b8c9426-fe72-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html

 

I don't believe there's a conflict between what I said and what the article says.  And 2000 commuting miles this year should count for something.

I love it when newbies join, jump off the counter, bypass the frying pan and fire and go right to the broiler!  :clap:

I'm not really feeling the heat, just trying to let other riders know what to expect, and trying to let drivers and traffic cop wannabes know how it works.

A motorist that passes a cyclist more than once demonstrates that in an urban setting driving in a car is not significantly faster than being on a bike. Therefore, you're proven most likely to be an idiot for driving if you're able bodied, hence getting upset and honking upon realizing that you're going as fast as, not faster than, a bike. And paying much more for the privilege.

 

As far as a suggestion to live by I'd say take an alternate route to fast busy roads where there is only one narrow travel lane in each direction. At least with a busy road that has two travel lanes motorists have a passing lane. Another would be for cyclists to cut other cyclists a break, namely the ones who stop and then ride through an intersection once traffic clears simply because motorists run red lights all the time: let's not pretend it's less illegal to run a light that turned red 3 seconds ago vs. 30. On that note don't think for a second that cycling and following traffic laws to a T will ever earn the motoring public's respect. If you do follow all traffic laws, do it for yourself because you want to.

Another would be for cyclists to cut other cyclists a break, namely the ones who stop and then ride through an intersection once traffic clears simply because motorists run red lights all the time: let's not pretend it's less illegal to run a light that turned red 3 seconds ago vs. 30. On that note don't think for a second that cycling and following traffic laws to a T will ever earn the motoring public's respect. If you do follow all traffic laws, do it for yourself because you want to.

 

Good points, but I would never suggest running a red light because some cars do it.  99 percent of motorist break the speed limit law, but that's not why I speed.  I pedal through red lights only when there is no reason to wait for the light to change.  i.e. no one's going to get hurt or hassled.

 

Cheers,