- This topic is empty.
September 10, 2009 at 3:11 am #592250
OK- more bike lanes? Really more bike lanes? I’m all for saving gas but there doesn’t seem to be many bikes. Don’t get me started on jumping onto sidewalks and blowing red lights.September 10, 2009 at 7:08 am #676802
when I’m driving I have no problem (mostly) sharing the road with cyclists. I dislike the ones using cell phones (yes, have seen that on 1st Ave. S.), or the one’s unaware of what’s around them because they’re too busy listening to their iPods. Or, as I saw today on one bus trip on the #55 from Admiral to Alaska (takes 10 minutes, maybe?)..3 different bike riders in the shallows, and NONE with helmets on, just tooling along slowly, oblivious of the traffic around them. I don’t care if there are bike lanes, but I do care about unsafe bicycle riders…no wonder people gripe !September 10, 2009 at 3:26 pm #676803
I’m not going to get into the argument of how many motor vehicles I see on a daily basis ignoring the rules of the road. Jschu – what are you talking about? Do you have a specific location you are worried about? Did a cyclist do something specifically illegal?
Riding on a sidewalk is legal for a cyclist to do, running a red light is not. If you see this behavior, report it and the location to the SPD they will log the call/complaint.September 10, 2009 at 4:02 pm #676804
Okay I have a question… I was driving south on California, up the hill in the Gatewood neighborhood and there is a bike rider coming down the hill and he is practically riding on the center line between the two lanes. I can’t begin to tell you how nervous that makes me.. what if he suddenly falls into my lane? There was NO traffic in front or behind him and yet he felt the need to ride down the center of the road, instead of the center of his lane.
My question is why ride the center of the road with oncoming traffic instead of the center of the lane for downhill traffic?September 10, 2009 at 4:26 pm #676805
Drivers, cyclist and even walkers ALL break the laws. There is not one group that follows all the laws and doesn’t ever inconvenience someone else getting around by a different method (bikes on sidewalks, drivers making a rolling stop, peds crossing against a light). It has nothing to do with this group or that group. People in general have adopted and embraced this sense of entitlement – that whatever they are doing needs to be accepted by everyone else…but don’t you dare do anything that they will look down upon from their sky high pedestal.September 10, 2009 at 4:26 pm #676806
In response to Franci:
Motorcycle riders often ride to one side of the lane or the other because the center of the lane tends to be oily due to cars leaking oil as they drive, which makes it more difficult to drive on. I imagine it is the same for cyclists.September 10, 2009 at 4:54 pm #676807
Oftentimes a cyclist will “take the lane” or travel further to the left due to safety issues. Riding to the right at a high rate of speed (like down the California hill or Avalon on which cyclists can be travelling at 30+ mph) is dangerous. It puts riders in the door zone and out of the line of vision of vehicles pulling onto the roadway from the right and from left-turning vehicles. The right side of the lane also can be full of debris and cracks/holes that are not noticed by drivers of motor vehicles but can cause a cyclist to lose control of the bicycle. And as raindance42 said, the middle of the lane is often slippery. In these cases it’s best to just exercise patience and follow the cyclist down the hill…hopefully the cyclist eventually moved to the right so you could excute a safe and legal pass. It may make you nervous but it sounds like you did the right thing in hanging back. If the cyclist crashes, you don’t want it to involve you.September 10, 2009 at 10:41 pm #676808
I was headed in the opposite direction going up the hill and coming down the hill towards me was a cyclist practically riding on the center line that divides the two lanes. I can understand avoiding the oil, but this person was too close to crossing into my lane for comfort. This was at a point were I could not keep further to the right side due to parked cars.September 11, 2009 at 11:53 pm #676809September 12, 2009 at 12:13 am #676810
So, alywest63, you don’t think the small fraction of your tax dollars that go towards creating bike lanes that help keep cyclists safe is a good use of money? Maybe what they could do instead is send a refund checks to all the single occupancy drivers that never get out of their cars to walk or ride a bike. I bet you’d get at least $1 back.
Because, you know, cyclists are tax paying citizens too. And we have a right to be safe too.September 13, 2009 at 3:59 am #676811
Obviously they are thugs, the OP said so. Can I call the people who use sidewalks fascists?September 14, 2009 at 1:45 am #676812September 14, 2009 at 4:17 pm #676813September 14, 2009 at 7:07 pm #676814
In Seattle it is legal for bikes to be on the sidewalk or in the street. Don’t blame the bikes, blame the lawmakers who make ambiguous laws.
And this is one of those chicken/egg things. We need the infrastructure if we expect more people to ride bikes.
Anything we can do to reduce the number of cars and reduce our dependency on oil is a win-win-win in my book.September 16, 2009 at 8:11 pm #676815
Oh no, JanS, you saw a cyclist on a cell phone??!!! Good thing it’s illegal for drivers to talk on cell phones, ’cause I haven’t seen one do that EVER!!! And of course, the cyclist poses the much greater danger to me in my fat car!!!
[sheesh – think before you post]September 16, 2009 at 10:46 pm #676816
I’m happy to share the road with cyclists, most of the time. What get’s me is when the cyclists don’t share the road with the cars. For example, I was driving north on California between the junction and PCC. There were two cyclists riding side by side. I was not directly behind but the third car behind. I don’t know how many were behind me but I’d say seven or eight. These cyclists must have known what they were doing because slowly but surely the cars passed them one by one, crossing into the oncoming traffic lane to get around them. It was dangerous. I get the point they were making, but it doesn’t make me want to “share” with them.September 16, 2009 at 10:50 pm #676817
lucky chick…you joined today just to give me crap about my comment? This bicyclist was on 1st Ave. South, going north, near Safeco field, during rush hour, in the lane where busses go, completely oblivious to traffic around him, only one hand on the handle bars. I, on the other hand, was waiting for a bus at a bus stop. NO FAT CAR…understand? Still wanna give him the benefit of the doubt? I have not driven my car in 6 months…how about YOU? If I need a car, I use a Zipcar for an hour at a time…how about YOU?
Your last line? Perhaps you need to take your own advice ;-)September 16, 2009 at 11:34 pm #676818
Get this, I’m on a bus heading downtown on 1st Ave South near the Sears building when my bus passes a commuter on a unicycle. The bus would pass this guy so close that I could’ve reached out the window and tapped him on the shoulder. He was going so fast that he passed the bus several times when we stopped for a fare. Made me so nervous I had to close my eyes.September 17, 2009 at 5:57 am #676819
Tacomachine: share works both ways. share doesn’t mean other people get to use the road until you want them out of your way. Riding two abreast is not only safer for cyclists in 30mph zones, which is most streets in the city, its perfectly legal per RCW 46.61.770.September 17, 2009 at 9:49 am #676820
when those who are riding two abreast are NOT sharing, there’s a problem, especially if they’re holding up about 10 cars. You’re right, sharing goes both ways, and that means that bicyclists need to be aware that they’re holding up traffic, and try to alleviate that. It doesn’t mean that they can do whatever and only the ones in cars have to share :)September 17, 2009 at 3:35 pm #676821September 17, 2009 at 3:47 pm #676822
As vincent pointed out, it’s perfectly legal for two cyclists to ride side-by side on the roadway. “Share the Road” does not equal “share the lane.” If it was a slow-moving vehicle in front of you the same rule would apply. The responsiblity to pass safely is on the overtaking vehicle. Section 11.53.200 OVERTAKING A VEHICLE ON THE LEFT. The operator of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of such overtaken vehicle at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. The cyclists have the option of moving to the right, if it’s safe to do so. It’s rarely safe to do so on California Ave.
WSMom – it sounds like the unicyclist was doing nothing wrong. The BUS passed him too close (was the unicyclist on the right or left?), according to your description. Then he was up to speed in traffic catching up with and passing the bus (Was he passing the bus when the bus was pulled over at a stop? Was he lane splitting? Was he passing the bus on the left or right?). I encounter bus-hopping frequently on 3rd, 1st and Stewart St. I generaly move at the speed of traffic and pass buses that are stopped, the bus passes me, pulls over and the cycle repeats itself. It’s not dangerous unless the driver isn’t paying attention or is aggressive, or if the cyclist is not paying attention or is aggressive.September 17, 2009 at 4:05 pm #676823
quick! someone pipe in with a quip that’s pure opinion that has no basis with facts or the law.September 17, 2009 at 4:18 pm #676824
quick! someone pipe in with ridiculous mean snark that adds nothing to the conversation! oh, wait. too late.September 17, 2009 at 5:20 pm #676825
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.