Shoulders

I live in quite the decentralized and hilly town, it can be challenge getting someplaces.
Fortunately I have been able to avoid the major roads (hilly 40-45mph), but I've got a new job and I
have a lot less choice. I was just wondering, is it legal to ride on the shoulder? Its a well paved
shoulder with about a car width's width, but maybe that doesn't change the legality.

Peace, Nick Bojda

 

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> I live in quite the decentralized and hilly town, it can be challenge getting someplaces.
> Fortunately I have been able to avoid the major roads (hilly 40-45mph), but I've got a new job and
> I have a lot less choice. I was just wondering, is it legal to ride on the shoulder? Its a well
> paved shoulder with about a car width's width, but maybe that doesn't change the legality.

This varies by jurisdiction, so check your local laws.

In general, most places in the U.S., it's legal to ride on the shoulder outside of business
districts. In much of the U.S., that includes riding on the shoulders of Interstate highways, too,
outside of urban areas.

Some places make distinctions between shoulders and paved sidewalks, others allow cities and towns
to make road-by-road decisions about where cycling is allowed.

Again, it varies by jurisdiction, check your local laws.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Updated Infrared Photography Books
List: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html

 

In Oklahoma, you may use the shoulder 'temporarily' in order to allow overtaking traffic to get by,
but there's no legal requirement to get off the road. Some states require you to do so when there's
a safe turnout.

But if these roads have a 40-45 mph limit and they're wide enough to ride on, why worry about
getting over? Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.

--

alan

Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the "Daily Oklahoman."

"Joshua Putnam" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> This varies by jurisdiction, so check your local laws.
>
> In general, most places in the U.S., it's legal to ride on the shoulder outside of business
> districts. In much of the U.S., that includes riding on the shoulders of Interstate highways, too,
> outside of urban areas.
>
> Some places make distinctions between shoulders and paved sidewalks, others allow cities and towns
> to make road-by-road decisions about where cycling is allowed.
>
> Again, it varies by jurisdiction, check your local laws.
>
> --
> [email protected] is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Updated Infrared Photography Books
> List: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html

 

Well, the problem is that the cars are going so fast. Going up some of the hills, which are often
very long and very steep, I feel like I could run as fast if not faster. I myself would feel really
bad for the drivers because on those streets I would be turn 2 lanes roads into 1 lane. And I ride
during heavy traffic, so as such I would be a huge pain and pretty much a road block.

Peace, Nick

"alan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In Oklahoma, you may use the shoulder 'temporarily' in order to allow overtaking traffic to get
> by, but there's no legal requirement to get off the road. Some states require you to do so when
> there's a safe turnout.
>
> But if these roads have a 40-45 mph limit and they're wide enough to ride on, why worry about
> getting over? Cyclists fare best when they act and
are
> treated as drivers of vehicles.

 

Nick,

I don't know your situation, so any advice I give has to be very general. In most cases, when you're
climbing a hill and going slowly, it's fairly easy to remain on the right-hand portion of the
roadway. Overtaking cars will have to slow down, of course, but it's far easier for them to
accelerate around you. If there's a useable shoulder you can ride there too, but often there simply
isn't. It's a judgement call that only you can make.

Lane postioning is not rocket science, but it does seem counter-intuitive. By riding further left in
the lane you're forcing overtaking traffic to pass only when it's safe to do so. This isn't
arrogance or discourtesy. It's just safety, and it's your personal safety. If you hug the right hand
line, car drivers will try to 'thread the needle' - passing uncomfortably close, sometimes unsafely
close. It has to be a perceptual thing. Most motorists will pass with about as much room between
them and you as you have between your bike and the right hand line. If you haven't tried this, and I
freely admit that it seems frightening at first, you really should.

--

alan

Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the "Daily Oklahoman."

"NB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Well, the problem is that the cars are going so fast. Going up some of the hills, which are often
> very long and very steep, I feel like I could run
as
> fast if not faster. I myself would feel really bad for the drivers because on those streets I
> would be turn 2 lanes roads into 1 lane. And I ride during heavy traffic, so as such I would be a
> huge pain and pretty much a road block.
>
> Peace, Nick
>
> "alan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In Oklahoma, you may use the shoulder 'temporarily' in order to allow overtaking traffic to get
> > by, but there's no legal requirement to get
off
> > the road. Some states require you to do so when there's a safe turnout.
> >
> > But if these roads have a 40-45 mph limit and they're wide enough to
ride
> > on, why worry about getting over? Cyclists fare best when they act and
> are
> > treated as drivers of vehicles.

 

On Fri, 09 May 2003 01:48:48 GMT, alan said (and I quote):
> Most motorists will pass with about as much room between them and you as you have between your
> bike and the right hand line.

I've never thought about it in those terms before, but I think you're on to something here.
Motorists make a judgement about how much space a cyclist needs, and they seem to use the amount of
space you give yourself from the road edge as their guide.
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war. But, after all, it is the leaders of a country who
determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering

 

In article <[email protected]>, the robotic servitors of
[email protected] rose up with the following chant:
>On Fri, 09 May 2003 01:48:48 GMT, alan said (and I quote):
>> Most motorists will pass with about as much room between them and you as you have between your
>> bike and the right hand line.
>
>I've never thought about it in those terms before, but I think you're on to something here.
>Motorists make a judgement about how much space a cyclist needs, and they seem to use the amount of
>space you give yourself from the road edge as their guide.

For my own part, the results I've observed vary so widely, I can't make any general rules.

I usually ride as close to the edge as I can, because I know what I'd think of any cyclist who
didn't do his best to stay out of my way if I were in a car. Only about one motorist in a hundred
will pass me that close at full speed. More often, the motorist will put his car entirely into the
next lane over, even if it's a two lane road with no passing. But the vast majority will slow down a
bit and slide over a bit, which is fine with me.

-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"Statements contained in this document may constitute 'forward looking statements' within the
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are neither
promises nor guarantees, but involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements."

-- Legal disclaimer issued by Rational Software following its acquisition by IBM.

 

In article <[email protected]>, Scott Eiler
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I usually ride as close to the edge as I can, because I know what I'd think of any cyclist who
>didn't do his best to stay out of my way if I were in a car.

OK, I'm game; what would you think of such a cyclist, and why?

--Bruce F.

 

In article <[email protected]>, the robotic servitors of [email protected] (J.
Bruce Fields) rose up with the following chant:
>In article <[email protected]>, Scott Eiler
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>I usually ride as close to the edge as I can, because I know what I'd think of any cyclist who
>>didn't do his best to stay out of my way if I were in a car.
>
>OK, I'm game; what would you think of such a cyclist, and why?

Same thing I'd think of any stopped or especially slow-moving vehicle which was blocking the road.
I'd try to get past at the first safe opportunity, and I'd expect the other driver to do his best to
cooperate. Any cyclist who wants to move up a marked bike lane (or shoulder) to reach a stoplight
and turn right on red, but finds a car blocking it, will probably feel the same way about willfully
obstructive traffic.

-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"Statements contained in this document may constitute 'forward looking statements' within the
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are neither
promises nor guarantees, but involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements."

-- Legal disclaimer issued by Rational Software following its acquisition by IBM.

 

There's a great difference between 'cooperating' and simply diving for the shoulder when a motor
vehicle approaches. Most cyclists will ride to the right on an uphill and make it easier for motor
traffic to overtake and pass. But sometimes there's no shoulder or the lane just isn't wide enough
to share safely. In that case, it's the responsibility of the overtaking driver to do so in a safe
fashion. It's not a matter of the cyclist obstructing traffic. He takes the lane for his own safety
and uses his own judgement as to when to do so. But if you feel he's obstructive, please call your
local law enforcement to deal with the problem. They'll get right on it.

--

alan

Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the "Daily Oklahoman."

"Scott Eiler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Same thing I'd think of any stopped or especially slow-moving vehicle
which
> was blocking the road. I'd try to get past at the first safe opportunity,
and
> I'd expect the other driver to do his best to cooperate. Any cyclist who wants to move up a marked
> bike lane (or shoulder) to reach a stoplight and turn right on red, but finds a car blocking it,
> will probably feel the
same
> way about willfully obstructive traffic.
>
> -------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/

 

> Lane postioning is not rocket science, but it does seem counter-intuitive. By riding further left
> in the lane you're forcing overtaking traffic to
pass
> only when it's safe to do so. This isn't arrogance or discourtesy. It's just safety, and it's your
> personal safety. If you hug the right hand
line,
> car drivers will try to 'thread the needle' - passing uncomfortably close, sometimes
> unsafely close.

Could we let the motorists know about this? I've tried both methods of lane positioning and cars
still tend to buzz by as close as they can no matter where I am. I always give myself some room to
the right, but I also stay over to the right as far as possible.

(I'm somewhat convinced that new drivers in the state of Maine are actually *taught* to drive as
close to bikes as they can!)

 

"J. Bruce Fields" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Scott Eiler
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I usually ride as close to the edge as I can, because I know what I'd
think of
> >any cyclist who didn't do his best to stay out of my way if I were in a
car.
>
> OK, I'm game; what would you think of such a cyclist, and why?

From the view of a motorist, such a cyclist is an object in their way. Motorists do not like to have
objects in their way. It pisses them off. They have to make their "go faster" go slower, and this is
not acceptable to them.

Our fast-paced society is breeding a generation of motorists who do not want anything to slow them
down. Bikes, pedesterians, stop signs, stop lights. All a hinderance to them.

Seriously, in the area I live in I seem to be playing with my life if I get in the way of a car.
They just don't like it, and the more you follow the rules of the road the more it seems to confuse
and anger them.

I do the best I can, but it often sucks the fun out of a ride when most of it is spent trying to
avoid getting killed.

 

In article <[email protected]>, the robotic servitors of
"alan" <[email protected]> rose up with the following chant:
>There's a great difference between 'cooperating' and simply diving for the shoulder when a motor
>vehicle approaches. Most cyclists will ride to the right on an uphill and make it easier for motor
>traffic to overtake and pass. But sometimes there's no shoulder or the lane just isn't wide enough
>to share safely. In that case, it's the responsibility of the overtaking driver to do so in a safe
>fashion. It's not a matter of the cyclist obstructing traffic. He takes the lane for his own safety
>and uses his own judgement as to when to do so.

Actually, I usually approach this problem from the perspective of the cyclist. When I'm a motorist,
I'm okay with waiting to make sure the cyclist is safe. My car is really narrow anyway (it's a Geo
Tracker), so we can fit it side by side with a bike in virtually any traffic lane. When I'm stuck
behind a car that can't, I blame the car.

>But if you feel he's obstructive, please call your local law enforcement to deal with the problem.
>They'll get right on it.

That raises an interesting problem, because there *might* be some drivers out there who have the
foresight to put their local police department's non-emergency line on speed dial from their cell
phone, and the impatience to call the police against *my* bike if they have a grudge with how I
relate to traffic. And I've seen a few motorists with the impatience to do this, if not the
foresight. Could the police actually be responsive enough to find and pull over the cyclist in
such a case?

-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"Statements contained in this document may constitute 'forward looking statements' within the
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are neither
promises nor guarantees, but involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements."

-- Legal disclaimer issued by Rational Software following its acquisition by IBM.

 

In article <[email protected]>, Scott Eiler
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Any cyclist who wants to move up a marked bike lane (or shoulder) to reach a stoplight and turn
>right on red, but finds a car blocking it, will probably feel the same way about willfully
>obstructive traffic.

Hrm, nope, can't see getting too worked up about that. If the car in front of me is also planning on
turning right, I'm happy enough to wait my turn in line. Surely you'd agree that there's nothing
wrong with a car moving into the bike lane in preparation for a right turn?

Of course I have no problem with the statement "people shouldn't willfully obstruct traffic."
However it seems to me that there's some distance between asking people not to willfully obstruct
traffic and asking them to do their best to get out of your way.

--Bruce Fields

 

In article <[email protected]>, the robotic servitors of [email protected] (J.
Bruce Fields) rose up with the following chant:
>In article <[email protected]>, Scott Eiler
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Any cyclist who wants to move up a marked bike lane (or shoulder) to reach a stoplight and turn
>>right on red, but finds a car blocking it, will probably feel the same way about willfully
>>obstructive traffic.
>
>Hrm, nope, can't see getting too worked up about that. If the car in front of me is also planning
>on turning right, I'm happy enough to wait my turn in line.

Well, here's a question of cycling etiquette. Motorists claim the right to pass us... can we
therefore claim the right to pass them?

>Surely you'd agree that there's nothing wrong with a car moving into the bike lane in preparation
>for a right turn?

Normally, sure. But when the car can't possibly complete the turn before other cars move, but it
blocks the bike lane anyway, I have a problem.

-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"Statements contained in this document may constitute 'forward looking statements' within the
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are neither
promises nor guarantees, but involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements."

-- Legal disclaimer issued by Rational Software following its acquisition by IBM.

 

In article <[email protected]>, the robotic servitors of Fritz M
<[email protected]+> rose up with the following chant:

>My hypothesis is that only cyclists are targeted for anger. Other impediments to traffic
>flow include:
>
> * left-turning vehicles where there's no turn lane
> * farm vehicles
> * Amish buggies
> * large trucks
> * police cars going under the speed limit just for fun
> * construction ("necessary" to handle the volume of traffic)
> * trains crossing at grade
> * school buses picking up children
> * transit buses on a narrow road
> * trucks carrying HazMat stopping at every RR crossing

You've never heard people rant about construction or school buses?

>I don't think I've *ever* heard people rant about these other factors, all of which can cause more
>delay than a cyclist typically does.

From the motorist point of view, I've ranted about practically all those things (well, except for
horses on the road, but I know people who have ranted about that).

-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"Statements contained in this document may constitute 'forward looking statements' within the
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are neither
promises nor guarantees, but involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements."

-- Legal disclaimer issued by Rational Software following its acquisition by IBM.

 

[email protected] (Scott Eiler) wrote:

> You've never heard people rant about construction or school buses?

Well, yeah, people do complain about construction delays, which is ironic considering that motorists
are the cause of the construction.

> From the motorist point of view, I've ranted about practically all those things (well, except for
> horses on the road, but I know people who have ranted about that).

I've found the quiz below to be helpful for me. I sometimes tend on the high side on the "aggressive
driving" scale.

http://www.aaafoundation.org/quizzes/index.cfm?button=aggressive

RFM
--
To reply, translate domain from l33+ 2p33|< to alpha. 4=a 0=o 3=e +=t