this is likely an unpopular opinion (bad decisions)...

[AngryScientist]

which is why i started a new thread so as not to derail the current one.

CST rider just posted a story about being harassed by a pickup truck driver on a colorado highway. later in the thread a satellite shot was posted of the area.

IMO, this road should be illegal to cyclist traffic. i'm all for cyclists rights, and sharing the road, but on a highway like this with 55 mph speed limit, no shoulder, and a fast downhill descent; forget-about-it.

i mean, c'mon people! there are lots of fun, secluded roads to ride, doing loops where this descent is part of a route you do multiple times per day is plain crazy in my view. even the most patient, good natured driver would get frustrated trying to yield 3+ feet to a cyclist on a descent here, especially with lower visibility and oncoming traffic.

let's pick our battles and stay off of roads like this one!!

http://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1697857149&stc=1&d=1363015319

[christian]

With all due respect, the western United States is not all as replete with multiple uni-directional road options as suburban New Jersey.

[sc53]

If my ride took me on a 2 or 3 mile portion of a non-shouldered road where the speed limit is 55 mph, I would walk that portion over on the grass or dirt. No way would I tangle with traffic going 55+. Not that you can't be killed/maimed by cars going 25, of course.
The OP of the thread Angry referenced said he is an ex-racer and very experienced riding in traffic. But none of this will help if one of those 18-wheelers passes too close or its draft drags him over to the left. Bad news.

[Gummee]

With all due respect, the western United States is not all as replete with multiple uni-directional road options as suburban New Jersey.

+1

That road, while not as nice as all the ones surrounding it, does have a little bit of shoulder in spots AND is a very fast downhill AND gets ridden lots in both directions. Least I know *I've* ridden it a bunch in both directions.

You can't just hop on it during rush hour, but for most of the rest of the day, its not actually that bad.

M

[Mr Cabletwitch]

If the driver of the truck had the time and space to "smoke out" the cyclist he had the time and space to pass safely.

I know from riding here in the North east I would never ride down a 55mph road since there are plenty of other options but I also know from riding in the south sometimes you don't have a choice.

[Gummee]

If the driver of the truck had the time and space to "smoke out" the cyclist he had the time and space to pass safely.

I know from riding here in the North east I would never ride down a 55mph road since there are plenty of other options but I also know from riding in the south sometimes you don't have a choice.
If you zoom out on the google earth pic that was posted, there ARE no other N-S roads between there and Lafayette (where the OP just came from)

Just to the west is an open space/park and then the Flatirons. To the east is an open space/park and grassland.

That's THE road. Sometimes ya gotta ride em.

M

[ultraman6970]

When a driver wants to be an a-hole no matter how wide the road is. It is a thing of attitude IMO.

[bluesea]

In this situation I leave it to the individual rider to have their own opinion and make their own decision.

[pbarry]

Tough road, and only riders with the skill of the OP in the harassment thread have any business riding on 93. It's far less bucolic than it used to be, and is used by thousands of commuters each day who use it to avoid congested Hwy 36, and cut a straight line to US-6/I-70/C-470. DOT has widened many stretches and added some passing lanes on hills. I avoid it like the plague now and wonder how I survived weekly training rides between Golden and Boulder 30 years ago. :eek:

[laupsi]

in this situation i leave it to the individual rider to have their own opinion and make their own decision.

+1

[gdw]

"If you zoom out on the google earth pic that was posted, there ARE no other N-S roads between there and Lafayette (where the OP just came from)
Just to the west is an open space/park and then the Flatirons. To the east is an open space/park and grassland.
That's THE road. Sometimes ya gotta ride em."

Not quite. The only reason anyone rides that section of 93 on the weekend is for recreation. There are plenty of other options in the area which are much safer.

[ergott]

Sucks that you even have to consider riding on a road like that.

[thirdgenbird]

Sucks that you even have to consider riding on a road like that.

Here in Iowa my only option is riding on the MUP or 55mph roads with no shoulder.

[rugbysecondrow]

If you zoom out on the google earth pic that was posted, there ARE no other N-S roads between there and Lafayette (where the OP just came from)

Just to the west is an open space/park and then the Flatirons. To the east is an open space/park and grassland.

That's THE road. Sometimes ya gotta ride em.

M

If I am riding for fun, I don't gotta do anything...recreating is one thing, playing with the big boys going highway speeds is something else. This is not to give the jerky driver a pass either.

Somebody else said it, leave it to the OP to decide, but there is an assumption of risk.

[jimmythefly]

IMO, this road should be illegal to cyclist traffic. i'm all for cyclists rights, and sharing the road, but on a highway like this with 55 mph speed limit, no shoulder, and a fast downhill descent; forget-about-it.


let's pick our battles and stay off of roads like this one!!


I'm reading two very different opinions from what you wrote above.

1. This road should be illegal to ride on.
2. It is unwise to ride on this road, for reasons of personal health and general vehicle/cyclist relations.


Illegality:
I personally do not believe that road should be illegal to ride a bicycle on. I refuse to give up any rights as far as riding non-interstate routes goes, to be it would be a horrible precedent and places blame/responsibility on the wrong set of users.

Whenever somebody says "It's dangerous to bike there, I might hit you with my car" I like to respond "You're right, you're a danger to society in that machine, please give me your license and quit driving. And thanks for being willing to admit how unskilled you are behind the wheel."

It should be illegal to build a road like that with so small a shoulder, and to allow it to have that speed limit. (I wonder if it originally was a simple 2-lane with shoulder, then modified to the three lanes shown?)


Wisdom of riding that road:
Yep, that looks like a dangerous spot of road. I see people doing dumb/dangerous things all day. And other people see me do dumb/dangerous things I'm sure. I'm not afraid to call them on it if I think it's warranted, but I'm not about to restrict anyone's ability as a free person to be as dumb as they want within the law.

[pbarry]

IMO, this road should be illegal to cyclist traffic. i'm all for cyclists rights, and sharing the road, but on a highway like this with 55 mph speed limit, no shoulder, and a fast downhill descent; forget-about-it.



Boulder County has hundreds of miles of roads like this. If you want to ride Left Hand Canyon, parts of Nelson Road, Highway 7 to Estes Park, et al, high motor vehicle speed and less-than-optimal proximity with cars is what you'll encounter. Part of the risks we take as cyclists is evaluating terrain and the inherent dangers vs. the desire to get out in the middle of open spaces and enjoy the speed and pleasures we get from riding. Be safe out there! :beer:

[FlashUNC]

I've ridden some rural highways in NC that are arguably more dangerous. Rolling hills with blind spots, trucks and folks ticking along at 55 or so.

As others have mentioned, sometimes those roads are the only option. I knew the risks I was taking, and understood what an outcome could be.

I'd like to see more done to protect riders rights on those roads than barring them.

[Gummee]

If I am riding for fun, I don't gotta do anything...recreating is one thing, playing with the big boys going highway speeds is something else. This is not to give the jerky driver a pass either.

Somebody else said it, leave it to the OP to decide, but there is an assumption of risk.You want to ride the Morgul-Bismark loop for fun, this is the western-most N-S part of it. Its truly a challenging ride. The Wall you heard about in American Flyers IS a wall. Tough hill to get up.

As Denver has expanded westwards and NW (and every other point of the compass!) the once rural roads aren't any more. Along the front range, there's only so much real estate before you hit mountains. Those rolly grasslands from American Flyers? Housing developments and shopping centers. :nod

...and those same shopping centers and housing developments = more traffic = more chances for someone to be an idiot. You have to accept certain levels of risk just being on the same road with them regardless of where you're riding.

20+ years ago when Mom-n-Dad moved from the eastern part of Prince William Co (VA) to the western part, we were in the boonies. NOTHING of any note till you hit Manassas. Worst traffic I had to deal with was farmer Brown in his 'farm use' truck on the way to feed his cows. Now? 5min up the road's a strip mall and even before that, a housing development of mixed townhouses and SFRs where there used to be a horse barn/farm. ...AND they're building another one opposite THAT development! It sucks, but that's life.

M

[thirdgenbird]

It should be illegal to build a road like that with so small a shoulder, and to allow it to have that speed limit. (I wonder if it originally was a simple 2-lane with shoulder, then modified to the three lanes

It was likely built that way. Many states don't have shoulders. That particular road actually looks to have more pavement outside the white lines than I am used to.

[Gummee]

Boulder County has hundreds of miles of roads like this. If you want to ride Left Hand Canyon, parts of Nelson Road, Highway 7 to Estes Park, et al, high motor vehicle speed and less-than-optimal proximity with cars is what you'll encounter. Part of the risks we take as cyclists is evaluating terrain and the inherent dangers vs. the desire to get out in the middle of open spaces and enjoy the speed and pleasures we get from riding. Be safe out there! :beer:
I lived at the top of Rt 7 between Estes and Lyons. While I'd ride DOWN that road, I refused to ride UP it. My roommate at the time was indicative of the general attitude of 'GTFOOMW' on that road. I'd ride the next canyon over, but not towards home.

M

*Get the F--k Out Of My Way

[pbarry]

It was likely built that way. Many states don't have shoulders. That particular road actually looks to have more pavement outside the white lines than I am used to.

Right, it was. There are just a few stretches where it could be made wider, but then would have to bottleneck back down, so it wouldn't accomplish much. The closest equivalent on the twisty hilly stretches would be Highway 1 in California: Steep drop offs, wash outs, rock slides...

[MattTuck]

There's a road around here that is similar to the road in the picture. It is two lanes up hill, one land downhill, and pretty limited shoulders. The section of the road after the uphill section goes back to 1 lane each way and poor pavement quality and crappy shoulders. it is a state highway and I believe the speed limit is 45 or 50.

I don't ride it because there are alternative routes to get me to the same spots. If those alternatives weren't available, I'd have to ride it, and would hope that the state didn't prohibit me from riding the only route available between two towns. I'd also prefer if the shoulder were widened and then the whole issue would be moot.

I was driving on the highway today in the fast lane, driving fast, and a driver in a black dualie pick up truck who was behind me, accelerated up to 90mph to pass me, swerved back in front of me and slammed on his breaks, apparently to teach me a lesson... ok. There are ass holes, some of them drive black dualie pick up trucks. Punishing the people they intimidate is not my idea of justice or good public policy.

[rugbysecondrow]

What rights do you have? Do you actually have a right to the road? Vehicles of various sizes are regularlary prohibited from operating on certain roads for various reasons, why should the same not be true for cyclists?

Let me also throw this out there, traffic moving at 55-65 mph on a stretch of shoulderless road, how safe is it for a motorists to slam on the brakes and cruise at 15-20 MPH while attempted to skirt the errant cyclist who thinks he/she is entitled to be wherever the hell they want? Your "right" to the roads endagers many others who have the misfortune of having to cope with you that day.

Yes, it is unreasonable for motorists to be jerks and "say cyclists need to stay off the road", but your stance is equally as unreasonable.

I'm reading two very different opinions from what you wrote above.

1. This road should be illegal to ride on.
2. It is unwise to ride on this road, for reasons of personal health and general vehicle/cyclist relations.


Illegality:
I personally do not believe that road should be illegal to ride a bicycle on. I refuse to give up any rights as far as riding non-interstate routes goes, to be it would be a horrible precedent and places blame/responsibility on the wrong set of users.

Whenever somebody says "It's dangerous to bike there, I might hit you with my car" I like to respond "You're right, you're a danger to society in that machine, please give me your license and quit driving. And thanks for being willing to admit how unskilled you are behind the wheel."

It should be illegal to build a road like that with so small a shoulder, and to allow it to have that speed limit. (I wonder if it originally was a simple 2-lane with shoulder, then modified to the three lanes shown?)


Wisdom of riding that road:
Yep, that looks like a dangerous spot of road. I see people doing dumb/dangerous things all day. And other people see me do dumb/dangerous things I'm sure. I'm not afraid to call them on it if I think it's warranted, but I'm not about to restrict anyone's ability as a free person to be as dumb as they want within the law.

[rugbysecondrow]

Punishing the people they intimidate is not my idea of justice or good public policy.

Who delivered this message?

[pbarry]

Who delivered this message?

The OP suggested roads like Hwy 93 be closed to cyclists. Not sure if that's what you're asking.

[MattTuck]

Who delivered this message?

IMO, this road should be illegal to cyclist traffic.

The OP.

Rightio.


And that's not to say I don't agree with Nick's feeling that unsafe roads need to be dealt with. It's just a slippery slope to start banning bicycles from portions of road that someone deems unsafe for them. The approach I'd rather, is to place a duty on highway engineers and designers to make all roadways reasonably safe for all users.

[rugbysecondrow]

The OP suggested roads like Hwy 93 be closed to cyclists. Not sure if that's what you're asking.

Maybe, I was wanting Tuck to articulate who was being punished?

Rightio.


And that's not to say I don't agree with Nick's feeling that unsafe roads need to be dealt with. It's just a slippery slope to start banning bicycles from portions of road that someone deems unsafe for them. The approach I'd rather, is to place a duty on highway engineers is that roadways are reasonably safe for all users. That is not punitive though, but rather a discussion about reasonable use. Just because a road used to be less traveled 20 years ago might not mean that is the case today.


Is it punishement to discuss places where it is more or less acceptable to ride our bikes? Granted, this has nothing to do with jerk drivers, but conditions of the roadways. I can think of a few where cyclists ought not be and I am fine with that. I can think of plenty of roads where Semi-tractor trailers ought not be and I am fine with that too. Not all roads are for all uses.

[verticaldoug]

In rural minnesota, the only roads I had to ride were all shoulderless and I wish cars drove only 55 mph.

[Gummee]

Ummm rugbysecondrow, bicycles are defined as vehicles in the MVC right? As such, bicycles are allowed except where specifically prohibited. IOW divided highways such as interstates.

I agree that there are times and places where it isn't smart to ride. Mid-day on the road in question? Not so bad. Rush hour(s)? Probably not the best idea.

...and there's the slippery slope of 'let's legislate bicycles off ALL the roads with higher than Xmph speed limits.' Around here, out in farm country, that'd be ALL the roads I ride.

M

[Flying Pigeon]

FWIW that stretch of road always sketches me out (uphill especially) and I'll go 10-15mi out of my way to avoid it.

[rugbysecondrow]

Ummm rugbysecondrow, bicycles are defined as vehicles in the MVC right? As such, bicycles are allowed except where specifically prohibited. IOW divided highways such as interstates.

I agree that there are times and places where it isn't smart to ride. Mid-day on the road in question? Not so bad. Rush hour(s)? Probably not the best idea.

...and there's the slippery slope of 'let's legislate bicycles off ALL the roads with higher than Xmph speed limits.' Around here, out in farm country, that'd be ALL the roads I ride.

M

I don't see it as a slippery slope, but I think ignoring various uses serves no purpose either. What I see from cyclists is that notion that I should be able to ride wherever I want and vehicle need accomodate that. That is fine in some instances, but I would also say it is not unreasonable to say vehicles have a greater purpose to the use of some roadways and so cyclists ought to heed to them.

I see this not as a slippery slope but rather an articulation of protected uses. Strengthening uses is most spots why recognizing some others are not appropriate.

[jimmythefly]

What rights do you have? Do you actually have a right to the road?

I believe I have a right to be on any roads that are legal to vehicular traffic, as long as I can maintain the minimum posted speed limit. In the USA cyclists are generally restricted from the Interstate system, though there's a fair bit of I-90 through the mountains out here that are legal to ride on.

I believe (perhaps wrongly, anyone?) that I derive this from a basic right to move about the country as I see fit, on roadways that are publicly owned.


Vehicles of various sizes are regularlary prohibited from operating on certain roads for various reasons, why should the same not be true for cyclists?

Isn't that only true for physical size limitations? Like a bridge that will only support a certain weight, or a narrow/low tunnel that wide loads can't fit through, a a very twisty road that long-wheelbase RVs can't navigate? The only reason to prohibit cyclists is that they are moving slower than automobiles. IMO if you want roads with minimum speed limits, look to the interstates, that's not something we should be trying to put into law for any other roadways.


Let me also throw this out there, traffic moving at 55-65 mph on a stretch of shoulderless road, how safe is it for a motorists to slam on the brakes and cruise at 15-20 MPH while attempted to skirt the errant cyclist who thinks he/she is entitled to be wherever the hell they want? Your "right" to the roads endagers many others who have the misfortune of having to cope with you that day.

It's not safe for motorists to do that. If they can't look down the road and apply the brakes appropriately, they should get the fcluck out from behind the wheel of their car. Drivers driving like idiots around slow-moving vehicles are what endangers many others, place blame where it is due.


Yes, it is unreasonable for motorists to be jerks and "say cyclists need to stay off the road", but your stance is equally as unreasonable.

My stance is perfectly reasonable. I didn't say it was without risk, just that it should remain legal to ride on and be up to the rider to take on that risk.

Why is it OK to say "cyclists should stay off that road" and not "that road should be made safe for cyclists"?


Try swapping out "bicycle" for "farm equipment" and see if you feel the same way.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Vehicles of various sizes are regularlary prohibited from operating on certain roads for various reasons, why should the same not be true for cyclists?

. . . that certain types of vehicles are typically prohibited from certain roads. The first--and primary to me--is that their presence would be a hazard to other vehicles because of their size or the kind of cargo they are carrying (explosives, hazardous chemicals, etc.)

The second would be because they impede other traffic to a degree that it makes for an unsafe situation (yes, I know, a pretty slippery condition to define exactly).

There's no way I see any cyclist being a danger to another vehicle because of their size or their cargo. As for the second, wide open interpretation as to whether cyclists impeding traffic flow could create an unsafe situation, but it looks like on that road just about any slow moving vehicle could meet that requirement, but I doubt they are going to ban RV's, tractors, etc.

The real solution here is to widen that shoulder--a lot--for that two mile stretch. But that's unlikely to happen.

I also just can't buy into the suggestion that we should get off this road--or any road that's not a limited access expressway--because the guy in the smoking dualie can't act like a civilized human being.

I'd be interested in seeing any accident/injury statistic for this particular stretch of road. If there have not been any previous accidents/injuries involving cyclists on this particular section then you can bet the local cycling community would be trotting that fact out if any effort was made to ban cyclists on this road.

BBD

[gdw]

As the only road users who aren't required to be licensed and insured we whine about our rights way too much. We should consider ourselves very forunate that we're not required to register each of our two wheeled tools. We would have a much stronger voice if we paid our way like anyone else who operates a vehicle on a public road.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Why is it OK to say "cyclists should stay off that road" and not "that road should be made safe for cyclists"?

. . . though almost never spoken officially, is that it's far easier (read "cheaper") to put up a sign that says "no bicycles" than it is to actually build a bike trail or wider shoulder.

BBD

[slidey]

If the coppers had no issue with CST riding on 93, then neither should we. Its a matter of pointless discussion, and poor judgment to embark upon the Q of should it be legal or not based on our arm-chair survey of a satellite image of the road in Q - let's leave it to those directly involved and on the ground, the riders in the area, and the CSHP.

[jimmythefly]

I don't see it as a slippery slope, but I think ignoring various uses serves no purpose either. What I see from cyclists is that notion that I should be able to ride wherever I want and vehicle need accomodate that.

I am a vehicle, and I can ride wherever I want and I expect other road users to not run me over. And yes, other road users need to accomodate that.



That is fine in some instances, but I would also say it is not unreasonable to say vehicles have a greater purpose to the use of some roadways and so cyclists ought to heed to them.

Bull-effing-sheite. Are you serious? You want to start putting value judgments on who has more right to use certain roadways? Who's errands are more important? I'm way more important than you, my errands are more important, my time is worth more money. Get out of the left lane plebian, the big important people have to use the road and do important things. Ha!

OK, I admit, it'd be awesome if when I was in a hurry to an important meeting, if it was ILLEGAL for all the stupid produce delivery trucks to be holding me up in the highway. OUT OF THE WAY! TIME IS MONEY!

Oooh, also works for recreation: OFF THE ROAD FATSO CAGER! I'M BEING HEALTHY AND SAVING MONEY AND NOT TEARING UP THE PAVEMENT OR SPEWING EXHAUST!


I see this not as a slippery slope but rather an articulation of protected uses. Strengthening uses is most spots why recognizing some others are not appropriate.

I see where you're coming from, but I can't help seeing a pretty slippery slope. Seriously, you think that once we start banning cyclists from certain roads "for their own protection", it won't trickle down to almost everywhere else? I bet there's hardly a road or city street in the country that some cyclist hasn't been told by some driver that it's not safe to ride on.

Again, if it's not safe to ride somewhere because a car might hit them -who's the unsafe one? The driver, admitting they can't be confident they can control their vehicle.

[christian]

We would have a much stronger voice if we paid our way like anyone else who operates a vehicle on a public road.State, county, and municipal roads are overwhelmingly paid for by property and sales taxes. So unless you're exclusively riding on the federal highway system, you're in the clear!

[BumbleBeeDave]

As the only road users who aren't required to be licensed and insured we whine about our rights way too much. We should consider ourselves very forunate that we're not required to register each of our two wheeled tools. We would have a much stronger voice if we paid our way like anyone else who operates a vehicle on a public road.

. . . we DO pay our way because the HUGE majority of cyclists in this country are also licensed drivers and as such we pay our full share of the various taxes that create and maintain the roads for ALL users. This is a specious argument that I've seen employed repeatedly by various factions seeking to deprive a distinct clas of road users (cyclists) of the right to use the road the road that is firmly established through long time legal precedent. :no:

That being said, though, I also have to add that just because I do have the right to ride there doesn't mean I am going to exercise it just to prove a point--and get flattened by a semi. :eek:

There are definitely certain roads around here I wouldn't be caught dead riding on because I know from experience that if I did, sooner or later I would literally be caught dead on them.

BBD

[jimmythefly]

As the only road users who aren't required to be licensed and insured we whine about our rights way too much. We should consider ourselves very forunate that we're not required to register each of our two wheeled tools. We would have a much stronger voice if we paid our way like anyone else who operates a vehicle on a public road.

I do pay my way, through property taxes. Vehicle users actually have the roads subsidized for them by taxpayers and anyone else who doesn't drive, not to mention the sort of second-level subsidy through the support the oil companies get.

A bicycle puts an essentially unmeasurable amount of damage to a paved road.

Licensing and insurance money does not go to building roads and road maintenance.

[jimmythefly]

That being said, though, I also have to add that just because I do have the right to ride there doesn't mean I am going to exercise it just to prove a point--and get flattened by a semi. :eek:

BBD

Yeah, me too. Better to be actually alive than technically correct.

[FlashUNC]

Isn't there some jack wagon state rep in Missouri trying to ban bikes from certain roads that happen to be popular cycling spots?

[jimmythefly]

I see this not as a slippery slope but rather an articulation of protected uses. Strengthening uses is most spots why recognizing some others are not appropriate.

I see what you're saying, I think. I like this idea, just not sure how to implement it.

If we were starting from scratch, we could designate several routes as "automobiles only, travelling 45mph or faster" and "vehicles narrower than 48in travelling not more than 30mph" etc. I woudl be totally Ok with that sort of protected uses, because starting from scratch we could put roads where they need to be and make sure folks could move about as they choose.

I think the trouble is that we already have this system of roads in place. I would actually be fine with making that particular stretch of road in the OP illegal to ride on IF and ONLY IF a parallel alternative route was built. Shoulder, bike path, 30mph limit 2-lane, whatever. Is that what you're thinking?

Is just don't want to see some bureaucrat somewhere sitting down with a map and a red marker and X-ing out roads for cyclists. Cause you know they aren't going to be sitting down with a green pen at the same time and drawing in new MUPs to be built. Sure they might say it, but making cycling illegal on a road takes an eyeblink, and building new MUPS takes an ice-age.

[Likes2ridefar]

Sucks that you even have to consider riding on a road like that.

Two years ago I raced some UCI road races in Brazil, and the only place we could safely train before and between the races was riding illegally on the interstate that had some sort of nickname that basically suggested it was a deadly road. It was like riding on the shoulder of I-95 into NYC and terrifying and fun all at the same time. INSANE!

Bans of any sort stink. I'm all for common sense and choice but understand that is not really acceptable for many.

[gdw]

"we DO pay our way because the HUGE majority of cyclists in this country are also licensed drivers and as such we pay our full share of the various taxes that create and maintain the roads for ALL users. This is a specious argument that I've seen employed repeatedly by various factions seeking to deprive a distinct clas of road users (cyclists) of the right to use the road the road that is firmly established through long time legal precedent. "

Not quite, we aren't paying our share. Your drivers license allows you to operate a car or light truck. I does not allow you to operate a heavy truck, bus, or motorcycle. You need to pass a test to get those priviledges and the state charges for those exams and extra provisions. Operating a bike requires different skills than operating a motor vehicle so one could argue that cyclists should be required to get a unique license. As to registration, you are required to register each of your motor vehicles annually, one registration doesn't cover your stable. Since our bikes aren't registered we contribute nothing to the state. As to insurance, since our vehicles aren't registered, we aren't required to have any. Inspections...nope, we get a pass too. We're allowed to operate vehicles without brakes, turn signals, brake lights, etc. Looks to me like we enjoy a unique status among road users....one which we have been given, not earned.

[MadRocketSci]

93 is not for me. I've driven it enough times to know I don't want to be out there on a bike, especially on one of those windy days. People tend to drive like maniacs on the two-lane sections because no one wants to get stuck behind the gravel truck or semi when it merges back into a one lane. Plus, I don't need the extra plutonium particles going into my gaper mouth (google rocky flats :))

[Gummee]

. . . though almost never spoken officially, is that it's far easier (read "cheaper") to put up a sign that says "no bicycles" than it is to actually build a bike trail or wider shoulder.

BBD

Take the Blackhawk bru-haha (sp?) for example. Even by CO small (town) mindedness that was a bit much.

CO law says that you CAN ban bikes on roads IF there's an alternate MUT/path/alternate within Xm (400?) of the road in question. I'm too lazy to re-google the statute, but it was in the Blachhawk thread. So... Let's get the county to give us an alternative just to the west of the road so people from Boulder can ride down to ride in the park! Easy peasy, no?! Oh, and let's not forget the access to Marshall Dr. (that's the northern E-W part of Morgul-Bismark route)

M

[BumbleBeeDave]

"we DO pay our way because the HUGE majority of cyclists in this country are also licensed drivers and as such we pay our full share of the various taxes that create and maintain the roads for ALL users. This is a specious argument that I've seen employed repeatedly by various factions seeking to deprive a distinct clas of road users (cyclists) of the right to use the road the road that is firmly established through long time legal precedent. "

Not quite, we aren't paying our share. Your drivers license allows you to operate a car or light truck. I does not allow you to operate a heavy truck, bus, or motorcycle. You need to pass a test to get those priviledges and the state charges for those exams and extra provisions. Operating a bike requires different skills than operating a motor vehicle so one could argue that cyclists should be required to get a unique license. As to registration, you are required to register each of your motor vehicles annually, one registration doesn't cover your stable. Since our bikes aren't registered we contribute nothing to the state. As to insurance, since our vehicles aren't registered, we aren't required to have any. Inspections...nope, we get a pass too. We're allowed to operate vehicles without brakes, turn signals, brake lights, etc. Looks to me like we enjoy a unique status among road users....one which we have been given, not earned.

. . . because, as another poster details, it's not our license and inspection fees that pay for the roads. It's largely the general fund established through porperty and other such taxes.

Also, under this same reasoning, any pedestrian walking along a roadway could also be said to be not payin their fair share for access or proper licensing and could be required to get a "pedstrian's license" and wear appropriate safety gear.

That may sound ludicrous, but far more ludicrous things have been attempted in the past by our fine legislators. Plus this whole thing is getting ludicrous anyway. File a report, have the trooper go by to discuss the matter with the Tool, and if the road still totally freaks you out, don't ride on it.

BBD

[jimmythefly]

Not quite, we aren't paying our share. Your drivers license allows you to operate a car or light truck. I does not allow you to operate a heavy truck, bus, or motorcycle. You need to pass a test to get those priviledges and the state charges for those exams and extra provisions.

I think you completely missed the point. All that stuff you talk about -driver's licenses, insurance, tests, have zero to do with PAYING OUR FAIR SHARE. You're right, they have to do with the privelage of operating a motor vehicle. But they do nothing to actually build and maintain roadways.


The following is so wrong I had to pull it out separately. Anything else from you along these lines I'm ignoring, as you're either a master troll or being willfully ignorant.

Since our bikes aren't registered we contribute nothing to the state.

BS again, what you wrote is completely false. I contribute plenty to the state through taxes. I don't know for sure, but I would be surprised if the revenue gained through registration actually covers the costs of administering the program.



Operating a bike requires different skills than operating a motor vehicle so one could argue that cyclists should be required to get a unique license. As to registration, you are required to register each of your motor vehicles annually, one registration doesn't cover your stable. Since our bikes aren't registered we contribute nothing to the state. As to insurance, since our vehicles aren't registered, we aren't required to have any. Inspections...nope, we get a pass too. We're allowed to operate vehicles without brakes, turn signals, brake lights, etc. Looks to me like we enjoy a unique status among road users....one which we have been given, not earned.

Arguing about whether cyclists should be licensed is a separate issue from how the roadways are paid for. Arguing about whether bicycles should be licensed, inspected, or registered is also quite different from how do we pay for roads, though they could in theory be related. But you have yet to do that.

Do you know the real reason cyclists aren't required to have insurance? Because there is not a law saying that cyclists are required to have insurance. That's it.

[pbarry]

Boulder County has bought up most of the open land that abuts the west side of Hwy 93 from the Eldorado Springs intersection, past Highway 72, and even a swath in Jefferson County. It may not be written in any Open Space directive, but I'm sure someone in BCOS has an idea to put in a recreational path from Denver to Golden, on the west side of 93. It could be down in the valley, well away from the road.

[zap]

let's pick our battles and stay off of roads like this one!!

http://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1697857149&stc=1&d=1363015319

Looks like one of many roads I've ridden on in southern Ontario. Really not much choice if you want to ride any sort of distance and not go around in circles 30 times.

Have to admit, it's not that much fun having a semi go by at 70mph..........flying pebbles hurt.

[rugbysecondrow]

This is just not true, vehicles cannot ride wherever they want.

No, it is not a value judgement but rather a legitimate discussion regarding use. Again, as BBD pointed out, all vehicles do not have absolute access to any road...there are limits and boundaries. Why is it unreasonable to discuss that? Is it unreasonable to discuss the merits of bicycle commuting and road accomodations and access vs. recreational paceline riders? If we want greater roles and privledge to the roadways then I think our argument has to evolve further than what you have stated.

Lastly, why is it always the cars fault? A slow moving vehicle plays along side fast moving vehicles on narrow roads, but the onus is always on the car? Why is that? When the sky divers chute doesn't open, whos fault is it? When the SCUBA diver drowns, who's fault is it? When the motorcyclists dies, who's fault is it? Why then, when cyclists take dangerous risks do they choose to blame others and NOT accept the risks?


I am a vehicle, and I can ride wherever I want and I expect other road users to not run me over. And yes, other road users need to accomodate that.

Bull-effing-sheite. Are you serious? You want to start putting value judgments on who has more right to use certain roadways? Who's errands are more important? I'm way more important than you, my errands are more important, my time is worth more money. Get out of the left lane plebian, the big important people have to use the road and do important things. Ha!

OK, I admit, it'd be awesome if when I was in a hurry to an important meeting, if it was ILLEGAL for all the stupid produce delivery trucks to be holding me up in the highway. OUT OF THE WAY! TIME IS MONEY!

Oooh, also works for recreation: OFF THE ROAD FATSO CAGER! I'M BEING HEALTHY AND SAVING MONEY AND NOT TEARING UP THE PAVEMENT OR SPEWING EXHAUST!

I see where you're coming from, but I can't help seeing a pretty slippery slope. Seriously, you think that once we start banning cyclists from certain roads "for their own protection", it won't trickle down to almost everywhere else? I bet there's hardly a road or city street in the country that some cyclist hasn't been told by some driver that it's not safe to ride on.

Again, if it's not safe to ride somewhere because a car might hit them -who's the unsafe one? The driver, admitting they can't be confident they can control their vehicle.

[1/2 Wheeler]

which is why i started a new thread so as not to derail the current one.

CST rider just posted a story about being harassed by a pickup truck driver on a colorado highway. later in the thread a satellite shot was posted of the area.

IMO, this road should be illegal to cyclist traffic. i'm all for cyclists rights, and sharing the road, but on a highway like this with 55 mph speed limit, no shoulder, and a fast downhill descent; forget-about-it.

i mean, c'mon people! there are lots of fun, secluded roads to ride, doing loops where this descent is part of a route you do multiple times per day is plain crazy in my view. even the most patient, good natured driver would get frustrated trying to yield 3+ feet to a cyclist on a descent here, especially with lower visibility and oncoming traffic.

let's pick our battles and stay off of roads like this one!!

http://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1697857149&stc=1&d=1363015319

+ Fn 1

[zap]

Lastly, why is it always the cars fault? A slow moving vehicle plays along side fast moving vehicles on narrow roads, but the onus is always on the car? Why is that?

Not always the motorists as cyclists also come from the driving gene pool, but motorists are in control of a weapon that can cause quite a bit of harm.

This, motorists having greater responsibilities, is recognized in developed countries.

[rugbysecondrow]

. . . that certain types of vehicles are typically prohibited from certain roads. The first--and primary to me--is that their presence would be a hazard to other vehicles because of their size or the kind of cargo they are carrying (explosives, hazardous chemicals, etc.)

The second would be because they impede other traffic to a degree that it makes for an unsafe situation (yes, I know, a pretty slippery condition to define exactly).

There's no way I see any cyclist being a danger to another vehicle because of their size or their cargo. As for the second, wide open interpretation as to whether cyclists impeding traffic flow could create an unsafe situation, but it looks like on that road just about any slow moving vehicle could meet that requirement, but I doubt they are going to ban RV's, tractors, etc.

The real solution here is to widen that shoulder--a lot--for that two mile stretch. But that's unlikely to happen.

I also just can't buy into the suggestion that we should get off this road--or any road that's not a limited access expressway--because the guy in the smoking dualie can't act like a civilized human being.

I'd be interested in seeing any accident/injury statistic for this particular stretch of road. If there have not been any previous accidents/injuries involving cyclists on this particular section then you can bet the local cycling community would be trotting that fact out if any effort was made to ban cyclists on this road.

BBD

I am not arguing that road, I have never been there and so my opinion is worthless. I am discussing the greater issue of use though. If we can limit other vehicle types (slow moving tractors, semis of certain tonage, hazardous cargo etc) then why too can we not regulate vehicles of a diminutive size?

[pbarry]

Without Reading a Single Reply! + Fn 1

Well that shows some real intellectual curiosity.. :cool:

[Likes2ridefar]

Not always the motorists as cyclists also come from the driving gene pool, but motorists are in control of a weapon that can cause quite a bit of harm.

This, motorists having greater responsibilities, is recognized in developed countries.

never thought of my camry as a weapon...

[Gummee]

Lastly, why is it always the cars fault? A slow moving vehicle plays along side fast moving vehicles on narrow roads, but the onus is always on the car? Why is that? Because its the duty of the passing vehicle to do so in a safe, prudent manner. Look it up in your state's laws. They're all pretty similar in this regard. Even boating its the onus of the passing vessel to do so safely. That includes pretty much everything from big block jet boats to kayakers.

When the sky divers chute doesn't open, whos fault is it? When the SCUBA diver drowns, who's fault is it? The skydiver and scuba diver are *typically* equipment malfunctions. That or panic resulting from the above.

When the motorcyclists dies, who's fault is it? Typically? The other vehicle's. Look up SMIDSY. After that, its over-riding skill levels. IOW 1-vehicle MC wrecks are typically the rider's fault. Blowing a corner more often than not.

Why then, when cyclists take dangerous risks do they choose to blame others and NOT accept the risks?There are risks and risks. Every time we get on a public road we're at risk. That goes from a 25mph school zone to a 55mph road. Yes, the risk goes up with speed, but overall it typically isn't the bicyclist's fault that they're in an accident. Left turners, rear enders, right hooks, etc account for most of us. Its hard to outride your skill level on a bicycle. Can be done, but it isn't typical.

M

[Joachim]

highway like this with 55 mph speed limit, no shoulder, and a fast downhill descent; forget-about-it.


Except for the downhill (which we don't have here), if this ^^^ would apply, I would not be able to ride outside in the low country, at all. I have calculated a total distance of 5mi bike lane on my 40mi commute. The rest is 45mph minimum with no shoulder. And that counts for all the roads around here. So yeah, in some places were really do have to share the roads.

[Gummee]

Except for the downhill (which we don't have here), if this ^^^ would apply, I would not be able to ride outside in the low country, at all. I have calculated a total distance of 5mi bike lane on my 40mi commute. The rest is 45mph minimum with no shoulder. And that counts for all the roads around here. So yeah, in some places were really do have to share the roads.
I forget how fast I've gone down that downhill but I do remember being able to go the speed limit.

...and still got passed!

M

[malcolm]

Where I live we have lots of rural two lane blacktop with twisty rolling hills and almost none of it has shoulders. As more and more people move out of the cities and neighborhoods are built in areas that were once forest the traffic has increased dramatically on these roads in the past 10-15 years.

While I have every right to ride there I prefer to mitigate the risk and just not do it, sure I have the right but what good does it do me if clipped by a truck at 55 mph plus and I'm dead. For me, personally, it's an easy choice, but we all have to make our own. I make mine based on my perception of the realities of human behavior and not the way I wish people behaved.

I'm also older, 50s with fairly young kids and not near as daring as I once was. This new caution has opened up mtn biking where I'm more likely to be maimed instead of killed at least in my opinion.

In my opinion just having the right and maybe desire to be there does not make it a responsible decision. I'm not sure making it illegal is the answer, maybe as more people start using bikes for transportation the roads will be built accordingly, don't see that happening in my lifetime at least around here.

[zap]

never thought of my camry as a weapon...

I would have agreed with you :) :banana: but for the damn Camry driver who shaved my left forearm hair at the end of yesterday's otherwise very peaceful ride.

[flydhest]

Two distinct thoughts, in my view. Should it be legal, on the one hand. What should be expected, given that it is legal, on the other.

The latter seems more pressing given that it is legal. Given that, the truck driver is an asshat.

[gemship]

There is a very good point to this thread but I don't have much to add. Lots of other good points to as I read on. I will say I have been buzzed many times and as recently as last week and I am still riding on. I try to tell myself well at least they saw me to quell the many dark thought of revenge:mad:

I am still really glad to legally ride on the roads I enjoy, no highways of course:p I save money and do my part to preserve the air running errands on my bike into town when I would otherwise have to drive.

[flyhippy]

Two distinct thoughts, in my view. Should it be legal, on the one hand. What should be expected, given that it is legal, on the other.

The latter seems more pressing given that it is legal. Given that, the truck driver is an asshat.

Exactly. Its simply not a justifiable argument to say that holding up traffic for the brief 2, 5, 10, or even 20 seconds that it takes to safely overtake should justify an angry response. Its not just roads in rural America where bikes don't belong, this happens on designated bikeways and bridges on a regular basis.

Society just wants to move too fast ...

[BumbleBeeDave]

Lastly, why is it always the cars fault? A slow moving vehicle plays along side fast moving vehicles on narrow roads, but the onus is always on the car? Why is that? When the sky divers chute doesn't open, whos fault is it? When the SCUBA diver drowns, who's fault is it? When the motorcyclists dies, who's fault is it? Why then, when cyclists take dangerous risks do they choose to blame others and NOT accept the risks?

That onus is generally on the operator of the larger vehicle that would cause more damage (and/or death) if it were to hit a smaller vehicle. In that equation a cyclist is at the bottom along with pedstrians.

So as long as we're engaged in this largely academic debate, from that viewpoint, the argument seems to hve been made here that bikes should be banned from this stretch of rado because it's dangerous for them.

But an equally legitimate argument could be made that larger vehicles like semis and huge duallie pickups would deserve to be banned more from this road because of the inherent danger they pose to ALL smaller vehicles such as full-sized automobiles and below. I would be willing to bet money if traffic counts were done cars and smaller vehicles would be in the large majority of all traffic on this road.

BBD

[Gummee]

I'm also older, 50s with fairly young kids and not near as daring as I once was. This new caution has opened up mtn biking where I'm more likely to be maimed instead of killed at least in my opinion Let's examine mtn biking where I am in NoVA. I have to drive MINimum 45min to get to Fountainhead which may/may not be open*. Or about the same time, but much farther distance-wise to Wakefield/Accotink. There's roughly the same mileage (11-ish) of trails at both places.

Hour and a half of riding. Hour and a half driving. More if I mis-time rush hour or there's an accident.

To get to the 'good trails' means going out to Front Royal or farther or up to Gambrill Mtn. Now we're talking 3-4hrs round trip to go ride for 2-3hrs.

...or I can hop out my door and be on relatively untraveled roads with 45mph limits, no shoulders, and typically no sight distances. IMO its 'wrong' to drive to go riding, so I'm going to hop out the back door and deal with it.

I was at the barber shop the other week. Some random dude with a 'faster backwards' bike was getting his hair cut. 'I just drove to Ashburn (hour+ away) to ride the W&OD because I don't want to ride on the roads.' Now, mind you, people from further in towards DC come out to where I live to ride on the unpopulated roads! ...which tells me there's roads *I* don't hesitate to ride on that others think are too risky.

M

*Fountainhead is quite often closed. Any wetness anywhere and they shut the whole thing down. Seems that its pretty well been closed for a month now.

[rugbysecondrow]

Exactly. Its simply not a justifiable argument to say that holding up traffic for the brief 2, 5, 10, or even 20 seconds that it takes to safely overtake should justify an angry response. Its not just roads in rural America where bikes don't belong, this happens on designated bikeways and bridges on a regular basis.

Society just wants to move too fast ...

But this is exactly the point, it is entirely justifiable that traffic NOT be held up for 2,5,10, 20 seconds on these highways. Highways with speeds of 55 MPH are designed for speed, for fast moving vehicles...hence the speed limit. Don't blame the motorist for using the road as it is intended then be pissed at the motorist when he doesn't like having to wait for us. It is not society moving to fast, it is society using the road as it was intended. In many instances, there is a minimum speed limit because it is unsafe to have this one-off user of the road gumming up the works.

I get your point when the speeds are closing together, but road designed for highers speed with limits set as such are not made for cylists sputtering uphill at 10 MPH or cruising at 20.

By no means does this justify being a dick to cyclists on the road. I may have to share the road, but it doesn't mean I have to like it nor does it mean I have to share their agenda. There are plenty of reasonable opinions on this, plenty of bullcrap to go around as well.

[rugbysecondrow]

That onus is generally on the operator of the larger vehicle that would cause more damage (and/or death) if it were to hit a smaller vehicle. In that equation a cyclist is at the bottom along with pedstrians.

So as long as we're engaged in this largely academic debate, from that viewpoint, the argument seems to hve been made here that bikes should be banned from this stretch of rado because it's dangerous for them.

But an equally legitimate argument could be made that larger vehicles like semis and huge duallie pickups would deserve to be banned more from this road because of the inherent danger they pose to ALL smaller vehicles such as full-sized automobiles and below. I would be willing to bet money if traffic counts were done cars and smaller vehicles would be in the large majority of all traffic on this road.

BBD

I never said this stretchof road, I don't know it well enough to comment so I am speaking in a macro sense.

It is a highway Dave...have you just suggested banning trucks from highways? There is a reason why trucks are often banned from side streets and relegated to highways...so if you ban them from there, where ought they go? Cars and semis have comperable speeds, comperable ability on the road, truck drivers have specific training to enhance their ability behind the wheel. They have a special permit to allow them the use, there is not a right for them to drive, it is a learned process.

Regardless of where you want to draw the line, it is clear that not all roads are suitable for all uses. This is in practice now, it is accepted, so why not apply it more often?

[Gummee]

I never said this stretchof road, I don't know it well enough to comment so I am speaking in a macro sense.
Yet you're arguing with some of us that HAVE ridden that particular stretch of road?

Let me get this straight: you're arguing for elected officials to determine where its safe to ride a bicycle? :ear

M

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . it would be ludicrous to ban semi-trucks from this state highway from common sense standpoint. But also from a common sense standpoint it would be equally ludicrous to try and ban bikes from this stretch of road because in both cases it would be impossible to enforce. While you could put up signs for either one, you'd have to station a police officer on either end to enforce on a continuing basis or users of either class would regularly ignore it.

It makes much MORE sense for the OP to do #2--file a report, get trooper to gpo out and have a talk with specific infringer, and reapply when necessary. Especially when this particular infringer is inarguably also Mr. Asshat. :rolleyes:

There are indeed situations where it's merited to discriminate againt a certain class of road users, but this situation doesn't nearly meet the bar that everyone would accept as common sense to do that.

BBD

[rugbysecondrow]

Yet you're arguing with some of us that HAVE ridden that particular stretch of road?

Let me get this straight: you're arguing for elected officials to determine where its safe to ride a bicycle? :ear

M

They don't have to be elected. Individual, administrators, officials have made decisions about far less serious issues than whether cycling on a 55 mph highway is permisable...small potatoes my friend.

But yes, I do think decisions can be made, whether through the transportation planning process, development plans, infrastructure bills etc. I think impact fees for neighborhoods which cause increases in road uses is possible. New developments often pay impact fees for extension of sewer, utilities and public services, why not road infrastructure. There are ways to involve entities of local governance to work for you, but I also think it requires a legit conversation regarding acceptable use. This "all or nothing" approach is a fools game.

[rugbysecondrow]

. . it would be ludicrous to ban semi-trucks from this state highway from common sense standpoint. But also from a common sense standpoint it would be equally ludicrous to try and ban bikes from this stretch of road because in both cases it would be impossible to enforce. While you could put up signs for either one, you'd have to station a police officer on either end to enforce on a continuing basis or users of either class would regularly ignore it.

It makes much MORE sense for the OP to do #2--file a report, get trooper to gpo out and have a talk with specific infringer, and reapply when necessary. Especially when this particular infringer is inarguably also Mr. Asshat. :rolleyes:

There are indeed situations where it's merited to discriminate againt a certain class of road users, but this situation doesn't nearly meet the bar that everyone would accept as common sense to do that.

BBD

Do you station a police officer at checkpoints of every speed limit? Of course not, so why would you need to do this as well? But, if there were a cyclist using the road illegally, then he/she could be cited. it isn't that complicated.

Your scenario is reactionary...it speaks to that singular asshat. Why ignore the greater problem of incompatable uses?

Why is it acceptable for vehicles traveling at 55mph to have to slow down to 15 MPH, 20% of their speed, for the purpose of a cyclist on a highway?

[pbarry]

Hwy 93 is well trafficked with heavy trucks. [I'm not sure if the landfill on Leyden Rd. is still open?] But they are out there in large numbers. Cyclists are pretty sparse along there compared to the more friendly bike routes in the county.

[malcolm]

Let's examine mtn biking where I am in NoVA. I have to drive MINimum 45min to get to Fountainhead which may/may not be open*. Or about the same time, but much farther distance-wise to Wakefield/Accotink. There's roughly the same mileage (11-ish) of trails at both places.

Hour and a half of riding. Hour and a half driving. More if I mis-time rush hour or there's an accident.

To get to the 'good trails' means going out to Front Royal or farther or up to Gambrill Mtn. Now we're talking 3-4hrs round trip to go ride for 2-3hrs.

...or I can hop out my door and be on relatively untraveled roads with 45mph limits, no shoulders, and typically no sight distances. IMO its 'wrong' to drive to go riding, so I'm going to hop out the back door and deal with it.

I was at the barber shop the other week. Some random dude with a 'faster backwards' bike was getting his hair cut. 'I just drove to Ashburn (hour+ away) to ride the W&OD because I don't want to ride on the roads.' Now, mind you, people from further in towards DC come out to where I live to ride on the unpopulated roads! ...which tells me there's roads *I* don't hesitate to ride on that others think are too risky.

M

*Fountainhead is quite often closed. Any wetness anywhere and they shut the whole thing down. Seems that its pretty well been closed for a month now.

I hear you but it's the opposite for me. There is nowhere close to my house I would ride my road bike. The closest place is 20 minutes one way and it's fairly boring. The same distance I have 18+ miles of mixed single track, sweepy and flowing as well as technical with some fairly steep climbs. For me it's an easy decision, mtn biking now represents what I started riding bikes for in the first place some 30 years or more ago. I wish I had started it sooner.

We all have to make our own decisions for some cars zipping inches away at 50 mph is acceptable. Seeing the all to common outcome of this, for me it isn't. I simply take advantage of the choices available to me.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Why is it acceptable for vehicles traveling at 55mph to have to slow down to 15 MPH, 20% of their speed, for the purpose of a cyclist on a highway?

I don't recall the OP describing this in his original post . . .

"I was doing about 40 mph, hugging the white line, and the 18 wheeler gave about 8+ feet clearance while passing at about 50 mph (speed limit is 55). After the 18 wheeler moved ahead about 1000 ft, a big black Ford diesel pickup crept up next to me, well inside the statutory 3 feet space, and obviously riding his brakes. There was no oncoming traffic and I was already on the white line, so my antenna was up as to why he was going so slow and riding so close. As his rear quarter panel passed me, the pickup got off his brakes and floored the throttle, engulfing me in a dense diesel smoke cloud at 40 mph with no shoulder. The pickup then raced ahead to the 18 wheeler, and slammed on his brakes again as he realized couldn’t get around the large truck."

. . . and YOU are saying MY scenario is reactionary? :p

The issue on this stretch of road seems to be pickup driving major tools specifically harassing a cyclist, not a bicyclist hindering traffic because he's going too slow. :rolleyes:

BBD

[Gummee]

I hear you but it's the opposite for me. There is nowhere close to my house I would ride my road bike. The closest place is 20 minutes one way and it's fairly boring. The same distance I have 18+ miles of mixed single track, sweepy and flowing as well as technical with some fairly steep climbs. For me it's an easy decision, mtn biking now represents what I started riding bikes for in the first place some 30 years or more ago. I wish I had started it sooner.

We all have to make our own decisions for some cars zipping inches away at 50 mph is acceptable. Seeing the all to common outcome of this, for me it isn't. I simply take advantage of the choices available to me.
I started out life as a mtn biker. Back at VA Tech where you can ride to the ride, ride the ride, then ride home.

I'd still be one if there wasn't driving involved in mtn biking in NoVA.

S'why I like the dirt roads W of Bull Run Mtn so much. Most of the fun of mtn biking without the traffic of the roads all around me.

M

[Gummee]

But yes, I do think decisions can be made, whether through the transportation planning process, development plans, infrastructure bills etc. I think impact fees for neighborhoods which cause increases in road uses is possible. New developments often pay impact fees for extension of sewer, utilities and public services, why not road infrastructure. There are ways to involve entities of local governance to work for you, but I also think it requires a legit conversation regarding acceptable use. This "all or nothing" approach is a fools game.I'll agree with that. Impact fees and mandatory bike lanes (or at least decent sized shoulders) for every new or repaved road.

Since the biggest reason more people don't ride road is 'they're not safe' let's fix that.

Having said that, as a 'serious' cyclist, I steer clear of MUTs. While the speed limit is good for cruising, the people on the MUT with me scare me more than cars do! It seems that they turn off their brains because they're not in traffic or something. Dunno.

M

[Vientomas]

Why is it acceptable for vehicles traveling at 55mph to have to slow down to 15 MPH, 20% of their speed, for the purpose of a cyclist on a highway?

Why is it acceptable for vehicles traveling at 55 mph to have to slow down to 15 mph for the purpose of a slow moving vehicle (tractor or other farm equipment) on a highway?

Why, because as a society we deem it to be acceptable. Cannot the same acceptance be extended to a cyclist?

[Gummee]

Why is it acceptable for vehicles traveling at 55 mph to have to slow down to 15 mph for the purpose of a slow moving vehicle (tractor or other farm equipment) on a highway?

Why, because as a society we deem it to be acceptable. Cannot the same acceptance be extended to a cyclist?
Obviously not!

It was a few months ago now, but I was headed to coffee with buddies. As I was driving down the road I started to see a line of cars.

Took till I got over the next hill that I saw the school bus in front of the line of 15-20 cars all sitting patiently for the school bus.

This is on a road that if you get more than 2 cars in a row, its a busy time of day.

Boggled my brain 'cause if that line was caused by a bicycle, there'd be no end of the hell to pay!

M

[slidey]

+1

boggled my brain 'cause if that line was caused by a bicycle, there'd be no end of the hell to pay!

M

[rugbysecondrow]

Again, I am not arguing this one particular instance, but a macro discussion. On a road designed for and managed for high speed, ought we allow slow moving vehicles like this?

We can agree, this guy was prick, so I am not carrying that torch.


I think, if you choose to, you can separate the issues.

I don't recall the OP describing this in his original post . . .

"I was doing about 40 mph, hugging the white line, and the 18 wheeler gave about 8+ feet clearance while passing at about 50 mph (speed limit is 55). After the 18 wheeler moved ahead about 1000 ft, a big black Ford diesel pickup crept up next to me, well inside the statutory 3 feet space, and obviously riding his brakes. There was no oncoming traffic and I was already on the white line, so my antenna was up as to why he was going so slow and riding so close. As his rear quarter panel passed me, the pickup got off his brakes and floored the throttle, engulfing me in a dense diesel smoke cloud at 40 mph with no shoulder. The pickup then raced ahead to the 18 wheeler, and slammed on his brakes again as he realized couldn’t get around the large truck."

. . . and YOU are saying MY scenario is reactionary? :p

The issue on this stretch of road seems to be pickup driving major tools specifically harassing a cyclist, not a bicyclist hindering traffic because he's going too slow. :rolleyes:

BBD

[rugbysecondrow]

Why is it acceptable for vehicles traveling at 55 mph to have to slow down to 15 mph for the purpose of a slow moving vehicle (tractor or other farm equipment) on a highway?

Why, because as a society we deem it to be acceptable. Cannot the same acceptance be extended to a cyclist?

You mean large implements with reflective triangles and blinking lights?

I am good with that. Is that how most recreational cyclists roll?

[rugbysecondrow]

You mean the big giant orange vehicle with flashing lights, lighted stop sign and serving a functional purpose?

Yep, I am good with that too.

Are you guys trying to hinder or help my argument?

Note: slow moving ing vehicles are lighted, special signs etc.

Maybe that is the compromise, cyclists lit up like other slow moving vehicles...triangles and all.

Makes sense since those are the examples put forth.


Obviously not!

It was a few months ago now, but I was headed to coffee with buddies. As I was driving down the road I started to see a line of cars.

Took till I got over the next hill that I saw the school bus in front of the line of 15-20 cars all sitting patiently for the school bus.

This is on a road that if you get more than 2 cars in a row, its a busy time of day.

Boggled my brain 'cause if that line was caused by a bicycle, there'd be no end of the hell to pay!

M

[Gummee]

RSR: Are you being deliberately obtuse?

...or am I missing something?

M

[Vientomas]

You mean the big giant orange vehicle with flashing lights, lighted stop sign and serving a functional purpose?

Yep, I am good with that too.

Are you guys trying to hinder or help my argument?

My bright orange jacked is as big and bright as the triangles attached to a slow moving vehicle.

So now we are going to differentiate slow moving vehicles by their size or their visibility? It is acceptable for large highly visible vehicles to cause traffic to slow but smaller not as visible vehicles not so much?

Your opening position was that vehicles should not have to slow for cyclists. I pointed out the vehicles are required to slow for other users of the road, and as a result, why not slow for cyclists. Now your position appears to be that vehicles should only have to slow for large, highly visible vehicles.

What about a group of 50 cyclists all wearing neon orange? Big and bright. Would you agree that vehicles should slow for such a group?

[jimmythefly]

Again, I am not arguing this one particular instance, but a macro discussion. On a road designed for and managed for high speed, ought we allow slow moving vehicles like this?

To put it another way:

Should we allow roads to be designed and managed for high speeds without also providing an alternative for other users?

Or:

On a road with slow-moving vehicles, should we allow high speed ones?



Speaking of this particular stretch of road, it should only be made illegal for slow-moving vehicles after and alternative is provided.

Or, they could quit managing the road for high speed, and start managing it for all users.


I agree that in theory, we could and should have designated roadways that are high-speed only. BUT, they must be accompanied by alternatives for low-speed traffic.

I mentioned this earlier, but the issue is that we have a bunch of existing roads, and I am not about to let someone sit down and start designating them off-limits to bicycles overnight, without adequate parallel alternate routes.

There are often alternate routes to get somewhere, but adequate alternate routes is open to much interpretation.

[Gummee]

How far out of the way are we supposed to go before something's deemed 'inadequate?'

M

[rugbysecondrow]

Yes I would, if cyclists would decor themselves as such and act as slow moving vehicles then I think that would be a start.

Will that happen? Nope.


My bright orange jacked is as big and bright as the triangles attached to a slow moving vehicle.

So now we are going to differentiate slow moving vehicles by their size or their visibility? It is acceptable for large highly visible vehicles to cause traffic to slow but smaller not as visible vehicles not so much?

Your opening position was that vehicles should not have to slow for cyclists. I pointed out the vehicles are required to slow for other users of the road, and as a result, why not slow for cyclists. Now your position appears to be that vehicles should only have to slow for large, highly visible vehicles.

What about a group of 50 cyclists all wearing neon orange? Big and bright. Would you agree that vehicles should slow for such a group?

[DukeHorn]

Really, this thread is now comparing cars stopped for a bus full of children to cars not stopping for a peloton of recreational riders???

I didn't know that the "functional purpose" of a school bus was the equivalent of a cyclist going out for exercise.

oye vey

[rugbysecondrow]

RSR: Are you being deliberately obtuse?

...or am I missing something?

M

The opposite of obtuse is what? Acute? Has anybody been that?

I used examples presented to me.

Cyclists want rights, but what responsibility?

They what status as a vehicle, but no vehicular standards.



Folks, you can't pick and choose, that is not viable. You want to act as a slow moving vehicle on the road, then you ought to own that. If not, then you do not belong.

That is not obtuse. Frankly burying your head in the sand and hoping for something different is obtuse.

[1/2 Wheeler]

The opposite of obtuse is what? Acute?
Has anybody been that?


Only if you are using obtuse as description of an angle.

I think he meant the "slow to understand" definition.

Thus, his addition of the word "deliberately" obtuse.

I know this because I'm a big fan of the Shawshank Redemption.

So as to you question of opposite. It depends on which word you are referring.

In context, I think the opposite would be slow to understand but it is not being done "deliberately".

In which case the answer to your second question is a resounding YES! I might even go as far as to say most everyone in this thread is guilty of being the opposite of deliberately obtuse.;)

[christian]

Cyclists want rights, but what responsibility?

They what status as a vehicle, but no vehicular standards.


Sorry, Paul, but that's a strawman; you're a better rhetoricist than that.

No one in this thread has suggested the OP or any other cyclist should ignore the rules which apply to him - stay as far to the right as practicable, move off the road when safe to do so if impeding 5 or more cars etc.

And the fact remains that the vehicle code in all 50 states consider a bicycle (but not a unicycle) a vehicle. Afforded certain rights and accorded certain responsibilities. As such, why should that class of road user not be allowed the same freedom of movement as others? Because of the marginal inconvenience of other road users? Sorry, all the time I've had to "wait" for cyclists in my life won't add up to 10 minutes? Because other road users might hurt them or kill them due to their inattentiveness? Sorry, that's am argument for stricter licensing.

And tiered licensing is an artifact of more training required to drive a more dangerous vehicle. Elected officials have universally determined (with a few crackpot exceptions to prove the rule) that bicycle licensing isn't required - bicycles pose next to no risk to other road users.

[malcolm]

I started out life as a mtn biker. Back at VA Tech where you can ride to the ride, ride the ride, then ride home.

I'd still be one if there wasn't driving involved in mtn biking in NoVA.

S'why I like the dirt roads W of Bull Run Mtn so much. Most of the fun of mtn biking without the traffic of the roads all around me.

M

I would love to be able to do either from my door step, but alas that's not my situation. Maybe one day all roads built will be multipurpose with acceptable lanes for flow of traffic and bike lanes included.

I agree the bike multipurpose trails are impossible to cycle on safely with runners, walkers, dog walkers and kids they are an accident waiting to happen.

[Gummee]

Really, this thread is now comparing cars stopped for a bus full of children to cars not stopping for a peloton of recreational riders???

I didn't know that the "functional purpose" of a school bus was the equivalent of a cyclist going out for exercise.

oye vey

Its the idea that if we cyclists did the same stop and go (or average speed even) as the school bus there'd be every single one of those cars ticked off at whomever was riding in that pack.

Since its a school bus, its OK to be held up.

Strange hypocrisy going on, but since when do 'people' make sense?

M

[rugbysecondrow]

That's what I get for mixing happy hour and forum discussion. ;)

Sorry, Paul, but that's a strawman; you're a better rhetoricist than that.

No one in this thread has suggested the OP or any other cyclist should ignore the rules which apply to him - stay as far to the right as practicable, move off the road when safe to do so if impeding 5 or more cars etc.

And the fact remains that the vehicle code in all 50 states consider a bicycle (but not a unicycle) a vehicle. Afforded certain rights and accorded certain responsibilities. As such, why should that class of road user not be allowed the same freedom of movement as others? Because of the marginal inconvenience of other road users? Sorry, all the time I've had to "wait" for cyclists in my life won't add up to 10 minutes? Because other road users might hurt them or kill them due to their inattentiveness? Sorry, that's am argument for stricter licensing.

And tiered licensing is an artifact of more training required to drive a more dangerous vehicle. Elected officials have universally determined (with a few crackpot exceptions to prove the rule) that bicycle licensing isn't required - bicycles pose next to no risk to other road users.

[BumbleBeeDave]

At least the Dualie Tool-ee didn't do this . . . :eek:

http://road.cc/content/news/78146-motorist-brazil-charged-attempted-murder-after-driving-cyclists-severed-arm

BBD

[CSTRider]

Holy cow … some things really take on a life here.

I’m the OP from the original thread that apparently spawned this debate. My main point in the original thread was that if a motorist appears to violate the law (crowding and passing within 3 feet, deliberately blowing smoke, yelling and obscene gestures, etc.) keep your cool, gather information, and call authorities. The Colorado State Highway Patrol took my call seriously, and that’s all I wanted to convey.

But for the purposes of this debate, it’s important to mention that the CSHP never asked why I was riding on Highway 93. I completely understand that other cyclists who visit or live in the area may not choose to use this road, but it is far from illegal or even unusual.

If any internet sleuths want to investigate the question to “why would anyone consider riding a bicycle on this road”, please look at Google Street view. You’ll see signage at both the bottom and top of the hill that says “Share the road”. The northern signage (for southbound traffic) shows a bicycle above the sign, while on the southern signage (for northbound traffic) the bicycle sign has recently gone missing – probably due to winds or vandalism. But the point is that this road is clearly marked with official signage to let drivers know the road is used by cyclists.

Now, I’d personally never consider riding south (uphill) due to the speed differential between vehicle traffic (55 mph) and a cyclist riding up a 6.5% average grade (8 mph?) with no shoulder. But I’m ok with riding north (downhill) for the following reasons:

- There’s a light at the top of the hill (at Hwy 128 and 93 intersection) that has the effect of regulating traffic on the downhill stretch so that it’s relatively rare (in my experience) for more than about 4-5 vehicles to catch and pass a cyclist who’s confidently descending in a tuck without riding their brakes. Google Maps won’t tell you this.

- If a pass occurs, it usually takes place about mid-way down the hill and the vehicle/bike speed differential is only about 10-15 mph.

- The speed limit in the aerial map zone provided by Angry actually changes from 55 to 45 mph due to the intersection light at the bottom of the hill. Approaching traffic can see the light, and the light has about a 70-80% chance of turning red, so traffic is usually slower still. Again, Google Maps won’t tell you this.

I’m not trying to convince anyone else to ride this stretch, and I totally get it if a large majority wouldn't ride it in any situation. But I personally think it can be a safe and enjoyable ride for someone who understands the risks involved, the traffic flow, and is confident descending at speed.

Back to the original point – if a vehicle driver would prefer not to “share the road”, I believe they absolutely have a right to express their opinions to public officials, the state department of transportation, etc. But I also think it’s wrong and illegal to express their views as aggression and intimidation toward cyclists - and it’s our responsibility to report it when this happens.

Thanks (again) for listening - jim

PS Update – just discovered there IS a planned upgrade to the shoulders on this stretch of road in late 2013-14 … see details here (http://www.bouldercounty.org/roads/plans/pages/highway93shoulders.aspx).

[oldpotatoe]

For those of us who live and ride around the 'republic', vast majority stay away from Hwy 93 for the reasons mentioned. Being on a bike there, w/o shoulder, is really dangerous. Yes the OP has a 'right' to be there but like I said, most cyclists around here stay away. There are scads of really good riding w/o ever going near Hwy 93, even starting from South Boulder.

[93legendti]

I wouldn't ride it. Even a 1/4 mile stretch I do every so often on a wide shouldered, 45mph local road exceeds my comfort level.

[Gummee]

I wouldn't ride it. Even a 1/4 mile stretch I do every so often on a wide shouldered, 45mph local road exceeds my comfort level.

Comfort levels are like belly buttons. Everyone's is different.

I'm with the OP on this one. The road in question isn't the best thing on the planet, but its certainly not a death trap (either direction!).

Legally, the shoulder IS NOT part of the roadway. We don't HAVE to ride there. We're entitled to our part of the lane to the left of the white line just like every other vehicle on the road. Having said that, I'd rather not deal with traffic *if I don't have to* so ride shoulders when they're available and not full of detritus. I try to be a 'good neighbor' as much as I can without impairing my safety.

M

[William]

One does not simply "ride" Hwy 93. Its black pavement is guarded by more than just smoke belching duelies. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great semi is ever watchful. It is a shoulderless wasteland, riddled with exhaust and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume. Not with ten thousand cyclists could you do this. It is folly.

:)

All kidding aside, I have never ridden this stretch so I cannot comment. But even in rural Oregon there are areas that are dangerous to ride. Sometimes you have to cross or ride sections of busier roads or hi-ways to get to other sparsely auto populated areas. Even on those rural forest rides on country roads with little traffic and no shoulder, the occasional log truck can come blasting by, sometimes giving you a wide berth, other times so close you feel like you could stick your elbow out and get it taken off. Point being, what we do is dangerous and you should be aware and prepared no matter what road you are on. I also try to avoid heavily traveled roads as much as possible, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do. As for the original OP of the hwy 93 incident, it sounds like he's riding that section like it should be done..all things considered.







William

[rugbysecondrow]

Sorry, Paul, but that's a strawman; you're a better rhetoricist than that.

No one in this thread has suggested the OP or any other cyclist should ignore the rules which apply to him - stay as far to the right as practicable, move off the road when safe to do so if impeding 5 or more cars etc.

And the fact remains that the vehicle code in all 50 states consider a bicycle (but not a unicycle) a vehicle. Afforded certain rights and accorded certain responsibilities. As such, why should that class of road user not be allowed the same freedom of movement as others? Because of the marginal inconvenience of other road users? Sorry, all the time I've had to "wait" for cyclists in my life won't add up to 10 minutes? Because other road users might hurt them or kill them due to their inattentiveness? Sorry, that's am argument for stricter licensing.
And tiered licensing is an artifact of more training required to drive a more dangerous vehicle. Elected officials have universally determined (with a few crackpot exceptions to prove the rule) that bicycle licensing isn't required - bicycles pose next to no risk to other road users.

A) just because it is the case today does not mean it needs to be true tomorrow

B) Is it really a marginal inconvenience? MUTs have speed limits for cyclists because it is understood that the compatable uses of peds and cyclists differ. Why is it absurd that not all roads have equal, compatible uses? Certainly we realize the difference on these paths, why then can't we also realize the differences on the roads?

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . except that you are ignoring the real world to the point where I now suspect you are just poking a stick in the anthill to enjoy watching the power you have to make them run around.

I think you know as well as the rest of us that in the real world, if bicycles were NOT legally described as equal vehicles that they would be banned from roads all over the country. They would be prohibited any place where it would be easy for local government to do so for reasons that have everything to do with institutional bias and local political convenience and little or nothing to do with safety.

Such prohibitions might be couched in language that promises the construction of alternative MUT's for bike use, but I think it's a given that would be an empty promise, much like government promises to remove tolls from toll roads after the original bonds are paid off. It never happens.

I'll use my discretion and personal responsibility to decide whether to take the risk of riding on specific roads--and will do so obeying safety provisions that apply to me (staying to the right, etc) and will do my best to report those drivers like this tool in the duallie who harasses me.

BBD

[MattTuck]

Paul,

If you look at the history of "jay walking" (Link Here. (http://westnorth.com/2009/02/01/a-history-of-jaywalking/)), you'll see that there has been tension amongst road users for nearly 100 years. The very term 'jay walking' was an institutional effort to shift the blame of accidents to pedestrians.

That kind of thinking is dangerous because it favors one class of road user over another. I'd prefer a solution that involves more personal responsibility. A driver/rider/pedestrian should maintain control of his/her vehicle at all times such that they can negotiate roads, hazards, other road users in a safe and controlled manner.

[zap]

Holy cow … some things really take on a life here.

I’m the OP from the original thread that apparently spawned this debate. My main point in the original thread was that if a motorist appears to violate the law (crowding and passing within 3 feet, deliberately blowing smoke, yelling and obscene gestures, etc.) keep your cool, gather information, and call authorities. The Colorado State Highway Patrol took my call seriously, and that’s all I wanted to convey.



You did good.

Motorists who do stupid to cyclists most likely do stupid to other motorists.

[malcolm]

I've had just a few thoughts I though I would add.

First let me say kudos to the OP (involved in the incident) I think it was handled in the most appropriate manner.

Geography plays a role. I suspect in areas where cyclist are more common and there is a greater cycling culture you are probably safer on these type roads as drivers see more of you. I might would feel more comfortable in say Colorado than Alabama.

Most drivers are just interested in getting around you and getting to their destination and would choose to do that safely and generally do.

Who actually causes more injury and death asshats like this that are intentionally harassing or the distracted texter that veers onto the shoulder and takes you out.

I guess the question is as detestable as harassment is are they the ones killing us or is it the distracted?

We really don't have much cycling culture where I live but the last few incidents I can recall with serious injury or death were in places with a decent shoulder and involved intoxicated or distracted drivers veering onto the shoulder and striking cyclists from behind. They also involved leaving the scene an all to common occurrence.

[jimmythefly]

A) just because it is the case today does not mean it needs to be true tomorrow

B) Is it really a marginal inconvenience? MUTs have speed limits for cyclists because it is understood that the compatable uses of peds and cyclists differ. Why is it absurd that not all roads have equal, compatible uses? Certainly we realize the difference on these paths, why then can't we also realize the differences on the roads?

Bingo! Speed limits on MUPs slow down the fastest traffic (most likely to do harm in a collision), to safequard the other users.

So instead of kicking cyclists off the roads, you're implying the correct action should be to restrict the speed of the automobiles on those roads, in order to safeguard the more vulnerable users. Right?

[rugbysecondrow]

What is the real world point? If it is that a controlled use of roadways would lead to complete banning of use, then I am not ignoring it, I juts think it is stupid. There are a whole host of uses in this world which are allowed and not allowed for various reasons. Zoning is an easy one. Can I put a slaughter shop right next door to a daycare? Maybe not the most compatable of uses. What about a strip club by a school...maybe not. Understanding that uses can be compatible or incompatible is not the same as saying it should be banned, but rather it is recognizing that maybe semi trucks, high speeds, zero shoulders and cyclists just don't mix. I don't see that as unreasonable...you might. You might also like your strip club next to your high school...folks have different opinions.

BBD, are you allowed to ride on whatever road you want in the USA? NO. Period. There are already controls which disallow you of that privledge. To say or imply otherwise is just not true . Maybe an extension of the current restrictions of use need to be discussed. I am glad Semi trucks can't cut through certain neighborhood side streets to avoid traffic, there is a legit reason...the use is incompatable. The same is true for many cyclists, they just don't belong on some roads.

We might disagree, but you have to acknowledge that vehicles are different in use (trucks, cars, mopeds, bikes, tractors, horse and buggy etc). Their use is identified differently on the roadway for safety and standardization. Their use and ability to use is not recognized as universal and there are some restrictions to use. Why ought bicycles be exempt from this or be treated any different? This is the greater conversation cyclists often refuse to engage in.

. . . except that you are ignoring the real world to the point where I now suspect you are just poking a stick in the anthill to enjoy watching the power you have to make them run around.

I think you know as well as the rest of us that in the real world, if bicycles were NOT legally described as equal vehicles that they would be banned from roads all over the country. They would be prohibited any place where it would be easy for local government to do so for reasons that have everything to do with institutional bias and local political convenience and little or nothing to do with safety.

Such prohibitions might be couched in language that promises the construction of alternative MUT's for bike use, but I think it's a given that would be an empty promise, much like government promises to remove tolls from toll roads after the original bonds are paid off. It never happens.

I'll use my discretion and personal responsibility to decide whether to take the risk of riding on specific roads--and will do so obeying safety provisions that apply to me (staying to the right, etc) and will do my best to report those drivers like this tool in the duallie who harasses me.

BBD

Bingo! Speed limits on MUPs slow down the fastest traffic (most likely to do harm in a collision), to safequard the other users.

So instead of kicking cyclists off the roads, you're implying the correct action should be to restrict the speed of the automobiles on those roads, in order to safeguard the more vulnerable users. Right?

What the limits do is recognize incompatable uses and attempt to make them compatible. Some paths are not compatable for all types of users, and that is OK. Ought cars drive in bike lanes, No, those are for express bike traffic. Ought cars drive and operate in express bus lanes, no. Ought bikes operate on highways of highspeed designed for automobiles? Maybe not.

If you think this is a slippery slope or a gotcha, then no amount of discussion will change that. What I believe is that cyclists need to be better advocates for their use of the roadways, but that means strengthening their toe-hold in most arenas while giving ground in others. It is a compromise...not something cyclists really want to do.

[bicycletricycle]

With all due respect, the western United States is not all as replete with multiple uni-directional road options as suburban New Jersey.

this made me giggle

i have ridden on highways like this a lot. should be safe if motorists keep the eyes open.

[Flying Pigeon]

Unfortunately you are stuck with that passage for ambitious rides like the Grand loop and Mt Evans door to door. Here's my alternative using Indiana rd to the east. It's still not great but not the widowmaker that Hwy 36 is (at least until it gets widened soon).

http://ridewithgps.com/ruter/148253/full.png

[Jason E]

I understand Angry's opinion, though I disagree with it because it is about rights. All this taxpayer nonsense is a non-issue. It's about judgement and commonsense, just like operating a motor vehicle or knowing how much to drink.

Coming home Sunday, I avoided a road I got hit on. I road it Saturday, people ride it all the time. It's not the best, but it is not the worst. It just didn't feel right. I used my judgement.

I'm sure on a Sunday, mid morning, this road from the OP is most likely alright. I would have to think about it at and decide for myself during other times.

[oldpotatoe]

I understand Angry's opinion, though I disagree with it because it is about rights. All this taxpayer nonsense is a non-issue. It's about judgement and commonsense, just like operating a motor vehicle or knowing how much to drink.

Coming home Sunday, I avoided a road I got hit on. I road it Saturday, people ride it all the time. It's not the best, but it is not the worst. It just didn't feel right. I used my judgement.

I'm sure on a Sunday, mid morning, this road from the OP is most likely alright. I would have to think about it at and decide for myself during other times.

I don't ride on the road up to Eldora Canyon..got hit there in 2002..just not gonna ride up there.