Other than on extremely busy highways or similar, not sure why there were laws against this in the first place. But glad they fixed it. I can’t recall ever riding a bike and stopping for just a stop sign on residential roads.
Just an anecdote but it was pretty disturbing tbh, because the guy seemed absolutely enraged that another cyclist wasn't car-ing hard enough.
So, I can absolutely understand a cyclist getting upset with another for flagrantly violating a traffic law. It's unfortunate that this is where this situation has evolved to, but I think it's a lot more understandable (and nuanced) than "cyclist wasn't car-ing hard enough."
It’s not entirely unjustified. I deal with badly behaved weekend cyclists every week.
Like, why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit).
Or going the wrong way in a one-way?
Lots of entitled type-As ruining the experience for regular cyclists.
why should cyclists be required to follow one-way signs? the point of one-way streets is that the street can be narrowed to a single car width; cars are too wide to pass in narrow streets, so a single direction of travel must be shown on both ends, otherwise cars will be stuck in the middle and have to reverse to get out. bicycles don't have this problem. the only justification for one-way cycling is high-traffic streets with danger of collision, but in such high-traffic scenarios I think 99.99% of cyclists will self-organize into reasonably consistent traffic flows, no sign required.
If I drive and hit a cyclist going ignoring the one way, the following things happen: -Emotional trauma for the driver -Death or serious injury for the cyclist -No punishment; or maybe a lawsuit against the cyclist for damages, if I want to be an asshole. Because the cyclist was in the wrong.
Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed?
I think a lot of places have them. Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, the UK ... basically any European country. I mean it's not like every (or even most) one-way street is like that in those places, but they're common enough.
There are also "advisory cycle lanes", where there is physically one car lane, but cars can go in both direction. They are expected to (slowly and carefully!) go into the cycle lanes either side in order to pass each other. Speed limit is very low on these ofc.
>Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed?
Actually no, "roads designed for cars" tend to be pretty wide. Take an existing two-lane road, cut it down to a single lane down the middle and have half-width cycle lanes either side. It's easier to do that on a wide road than a narrow European city road. (American lanes are too wide anyway.)
The problem is not "roads designed for cars", it is politics designed for cars. The roads are not immutable, they can be modified, if there is political will. It can be done: Netherlands was rebuilt after WW2 to be car-dependent in the American pattern, and then that was undone in the 1970s onwards after the oil crisis and record pedestrian fatalities:
https://one-handed-economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/...
There is a myth that European cities have always been pedestrian and bike friendly because they inherit their street design from a time before cars -- not always so! Things have gone back and forth.
Wider isn’t safer, so width is irrelevant. The most dangerous local roads in NYC are extremely wide.
What should worry you is that going the wrong way in a one-way isn’t obviously dangerous.
It really should be, and perhaps that’s a failure in US road rules and education. Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists.
Yeah that's precisely my point; the physical space is there. Narrow the lanes and use the freed space for more sidewalk, bike lane, trees, etc. It means there's an opportunity.
>Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists.
Absolutely not!
Why not? Everything I’ve seen here and in the real world strongly suggests otherwise.
If safety is really the overarching concern and assumptions on basics like one-ways are not so obvious and cannot be taken for granted…
Then I don’t see any other obvious choice other than testing and licensing cyclists.
It won’t happen, but that’s the rational conclusion.
Even if you take away everyday motorists, the same safety issues remain with delivery vehicles, mass transit, and taxis.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Empirically the countries that are safest for cyclists don't have licensing for cyclists, and they have the infrastructure and laws I talked about.
How is this claim different from the oft-heard claim that "not stopping at stop signs is obviously dangerous", ignoring TFA and the substantial evidence therein regarding cyclists and stop signs? I have presented arguments for my proposition that one-way signs are not appropriate in the vast majority of circumstances for cyclists. As far as I can tell, you have presented no arguments in favor of your position except 1) assertions that it is "obvious", 2) claims that anybody that disagrees with you should not be allowed to cycle, and 3) vague insinuations that running over cyclists is appropriate retribution for traffic violations.
Like I said to another poster: You make a compelling case for requiring cyclist licensing.
I think this warrants a further response.
One of the best things NYC has done was to reduce lanes of traffic.
So there’s a lot of QoL improvements to narrowing.
However, driveways will pose significant danger to two-way bike traffic in one-way roads; especially near corners.
It’s safer cycle center or the opposite side, to be fully visible.
How is this addressed?
I’m saying that right of way is the least concern; instead, cyclists should be cycling very defensively.
You seem very happy to let cyclists get killed, to promote your own PoV though.
Maybe in other countries, but that’s a no-no in the US.
If you care about cyclist safety, then don’t spread misinformation.
Edit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...
Wrong-way cycling the single largest cause of cycling accidents, where it was the cyclists fault.
However, much of the problem is resolved if street parking is reduced or eliminated.
which direction is that, exactly? any cyclists or pedestrians coming the wrong way down the street will be in front of the vehicle. are you saying that drivers will exclusively look behind their vehicle while driving down a one-way street, and only very occasionally look in front?
No bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions?
And what happens when a car and cyclist both go at a 20 mph pace? How much time does the driver have to react, if the cyclist doesn’t?
Setting that aside, this is the exact purpose of speed limits, not one-way streets. One-way streets do not prevent pedestrians from popping out behind "bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions", or children, or debris, or potholes, or stopped or malfunctioning cars, or construction, or sudden road ends...
Edit: If you can't stop in time for a bicycle, you can't stop in time for anything, and you need to drive slower. Unfortunately, many American drivers seem to believe that they own the road, and if dumb children run out onto the road and get flattened, that's their own fault for breaking the law.
Are you suggesting cars go even slower?
When two vehicles move towards each other at 25 mph, that’s 50 mph.
It’s not 50 mph of automobile kinetic energy, but the human reaction time suffers the same.
Reacting to a 10 to 20 feet distance at 50 mph isn’t easy nor realistic, in roads designed for 25 mph travel.
On a road with one lane in each direction? So that passing vehicles aren’t facing oncoming traffic for as long. If you’re giving them enough space when passing, you’re probably over the line anyway; would you rather be there for twice or three times as long if they were riding single-file?
What’s happening is weekend cyclists having a conversation. Why is this okay?
You might be having a conversation with the person next to you in your car. Why is that okay?
Incredibly dangerous to drive there with cars zooming past, just inches away.
> What’s happening is weekend cyclists having a conversation. Why is this okay?
Are you jealous, driving alone in a car taking up as much space as multiple cyclists?
It’s done that way because the space is about five to seven feet wide of paved and another 10 feet of unpaved.
So no, it’s not incredibly dangerous unless the cyclists make it that way.
Paved shoulders are not travel lanes. They often have debris (nails, glass bottles, etc) which don't get cleared by regular vehicle traffic.
At a guess, because going single file means that aggressive drivers will try blow past them, inches away, at 50 mph. So using the whole lane is much safer.
And depending on where you are, it's also legal. In California, if the road is too narrow to share safely, even a single bicyclist is allowed to take up the whole lane. [1]
> Or going the wrong way in a one-way?
Yes, these people are terrible.
[1] https://www.calbike.org/go_for_a_ride/california_bicycle_law...
I’m talking about duos and trios just riding in sync having a conversation.
This happens way too frequently in some areas of where I cycle. Nobody calls them out on it either, except honking drivers.
It’s for their safety and courtesy, telling them that a car is passing because they (the cyclists) aren’t following the rules and interfering with the flow of traffic.
At minimum, know that you’re giving up your right of way as a cyclist.
Yes, cyclists should be courteous. But they also deserve to be safe, and sometimes that safety requires occupying a full lane so aggro drivers don't pass them going too fast and too close. The truth is that a lot of drivers only respect other people in cars, so sometimes cyclists have to hold space like cars if they want to be safe.
Even when everyone tries following the rules, accidents happen between cars and “x”.
When cyclists deliberately break the rules designed for their own safety then what? The law is small comfort to someone maimed or dead.
It’s why I tell people to assume the other driver/cyclist are unaware and will choose to make the “wrong” choice, until proven otherwise.
I get that you as a driver may not like it because it's inconvenient for you. But that's no reason to just ignore the actual rules and preemptively blame cyclists for the outcome of being maimed or dead.
See https://nybc.net/education/bike-law/2-uncategorised/68-a-sum...
You linked this to support your argument?
It does say to switch to single file while being overtaken. But in the scenario you described, nobody was overtaking them when they set up side by side.
Cyclists do not have an unlimited right of way in NY and are not allowed to just take-up a lane arbitrarily.
It sounds like, when there is a usable edge, that rule both allows side by side on the edge and disallows single file in a lane.
Nevermind that the road signs also say single file.
If there's a wide bikeable shoulder, you could go side by side and still not interfere with traffic.
If there's a narrow bikeable shoulder, you're forced into single file in it, in most cases.
If there's no bikeable shoulder, then you're taking up the lane no matter what, and then those rules say nothing against being side by side except while being passed.
The rule is not "go single file". The rule is "stay out of the lane when you can".
> https://www.bicycling.com/rides/a20026266/bicycle-safety-do-...
> https://www.zifflaw.com/ny-bike-accident/bike-accident-attor...
And this is assuming, again, that the municipality is silent on the matter. That is, some areas and roads can and do insist on single file.
Or for that matter, that cyclists in twos aren’t forcing drivers to cross into the opposing traffic lane.
I have no idea which part of my post that's a response to.
Especially because the first sentence of your second link is "Only three states allow bicyclists to ride side by side but require them to ride single file when being overtaken by a vehicle. New York is one of those states."
allow bicyclists to ride side by side...
Because, just to be extra clear again, the scenario you laid out earlier was complaining that they were side by side before any attempt at overtaking was happening.
To quote myself: > It’s for their safety and courtesy, telling them that a car is passing because they (the cyclists) aren’t following the rules and interfering with the flow of traffic.
To be extra clear: I’m already overtaking a duo/trio and I’m doing so because they still haven’t yielded or gone single file.
> I’m talking about duos and trios just riding in sync having a conversation.
> This happens way too frequently in some areas of where I cycle. Nobody calls them out on it either, except honking drivers.
This post sure sounds like you think they already aren't following the rules by hanging out side to side, having a conversation for an extended period of time.
If that's not what you meant, that you're only talking about when someone tries to pass, then okay I guess we're not in disagreement here.
And let's not forget that you also said:
> Cyclists going side-by-side in a single-lane (per-direction) is violating the rules.
Which is only true on certain shapes of road, and the core of the rule is staying out of lanes when possible, even when they're already single-file. So I think any misunderstanding on my part is understandable and not purely my fault.
> This post sure sounds like you think they already aren't following the rules by hanging out side to side, having a conversation for an extended period of time. If that's not what you meant, that you're only talking about when someone tries to pass, then okay I guess we're not in disagreement here.
I wonder what you think “overtaking” means, in the context of not impeding traffic.
>And let's not forget that you also said: >> Cyclists going side-by-side in a single-lane (per-direction) is violating the rules. Which is only true on certain shapes of road,
You mean like “….why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a *narrow service road* (40 to 50 mph speed limit).”
> So I think any misunderstanding on my part is understandable and not purely my fault.
Oh, it’s absolutely your fault. Context is everything.
Someone has to be trying to pass before it counts as overtaking and possibly impeding.
The law definitely doesn't say to stay in single file at all times just in case someone might want to overtake at some point.
> You mean like “….why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit).”
No, not at all! They only have to leave the lane if there is a big enough shoulder. A narrow service road is exactly where bikes are permitted to use the lane!!
You cut the most important part of my sentence which is "the core of the rule is staying out of lanes when possible, even when they're already single-file."
If the road forces them to be in the lane anyway, then they don't have to be single file as a general rule, only when someone is overtaking.
The only reason not to be side by side, other than overtakers, is when one bike could fit in the shoulder but the second bike would have to be in the lane. If both bikes can fit in the shoulder, then side by side is no worse so it's allowed. If zero bikes can fit in the shoulder, then side by side is no worse so it's allowed.
So are you saying cars need to slow down to bicycle speeds, wait for the cyclists to go to single file (assuming they do at all), then go back to normal speeds?
> No, not at all! They only have to leave the lane if there is a big enough shoulder. A narrow service road is exactly where bikes are permitted to use the lane!!
Nope. Again, you failed to understand the context.
The service road is narrow—just two lanes, but one for each direction—but the shoulder is well-paved, clean, and nearly the width of a full lane.
I make this extremely clear in my discussion elsewhere.
New York insists that cyclists stay on that righthand shoulder.
This is completely separate from single file vs. side by side. Just stay on the shoulder.
Even single file in the lane would break the rule.
If the shoulder is nearly the width of a full lane, then it would fit for them to be side by side entirely inside the shoulder, and that would be allowed too.
Sometimes, as a secondary effect, this rule blocks being side by side. But only when the shoulder is very specific widths. It's not the point of the rule.
> So are you saying cars need to slow down to bicycle speeds, wait for the cyclists to go to single file (assuming they do at all), then go back to normal speeds?
Cars shouldn't have to slow down quite that much, but overall yes cars might have to wait a couple seconds as they approach the bikes and show intent to pass.
Once one car passes, other cars can easily go by after them, since they'd need to stay single file until the cars are done overtaking.
It's a very short wait and only for the first car in line.
And, mind you, this is only on roads where bikes can't use the shoulder.
If the law wanted bikes to stay in single file at all times it would just say that, and not "when being overtaken".
> (assuming they do at all)
Well if they don't then that's breaking the law, of course.
Yes.
So the situation I’ve been writing about is where there is a quality shoulder, but the cyclists going side-by-side end up jutting into the driving lane.
This is because there isn’t enough space for two cyclists to reliably stay in that shoulder.
If cyclists don’t proactively go back to single file, at this point a car has swerve out partially into oncoming traffic or brake check and down to bike speeds and wait for the cyclists go back into their lane.
Either decision creates hazards to other drivers and other cyclists.
So no, in the context I’ve been dealing with weekly these aren’t separate issues.
> Cars shouldn't have to slow down quite that much, but overall yes cars might have to wait a couple seconds as they approach the bikes and show intent to pass.
A 40 to 50 mph service means going down to 25 mph. That impedes traffic and it’s dangerous, especially when you consider that cyclists are less visible to begin with.
The best outcomes are where cyclists proactively move, when they hear the courtesy honk.
Weekend cyclists having a conversation don’t care.
Now try recognizing that the reason it's legal here is safety. And that whether or not it's legal there, it may be safer for cyclists everywhere to use the whole lane in some circumstances.
Try recognizing that the rules are written to accommodate both the safety of the cyclist while preventing traffic congestion.
It’s a compromise and requires cyclists to do their part as well.
Really, if asking to stay single file is too difficult then cyclists really need to get licensed for their own safety.
I’d hate it but the comments make it more and more convincing that there’s no other way.
Yes, sharing the road is important. But as somebody who uses multiple modes of transport on the regular, I'm confident in my judgement that the existing standards overly favor cars. If sharing the road is truly what's important, the work ahead of is is much more about improving access for bikes than it is for cars.
Should cyclists in a peloton make it easier for cars to pass? Sometimes! And sometimes they shouldn't, because that would put them more at risk of dying at the hands of some irate dick.. If you can't see that, it's probably because you're not a regular distance cyclist.
They're not "interfering with the flow of traffic". At that point, the flow of traffic is the speed the cyclists are keeping. You're the one interfering.
https://nybc.net/education/bike-law/2-uncategorised/68-a-sum...
A quarter-second honk gets cyclists’ attention without startling them.
Some states and cities actually care about the flow of traffic, because it will cause hourslong gridlock otherwise.
I would love if cyclists everywhere also had the same expectations; and loss of cycling privileges, if they didn’t.
Each time a cyclist has annoyed me or created an extremely dangerous situation of their own accord, it mostly just came down to poor route selection by cyclists, which represents an infrastructure problem, or exactly one traffic law violation: speeding.
Cyclists riding in packs represent a route selection and availability issue. Large groups of cyclists have to decide between being annoying or being dangerous every time they ride on a road without a bike lane or large shoulder. Whether they're riding two or three abreast (in which case everyone just has to wait for them, the annoying choice), or single file in a line (in which case vehicles have to cross the center line for a very long time to pass safely, the dangerous choice), there is no safe and friendly way for them to coexist on these routes. Now, of course, these cyclists did make the decision to do this - so, the debate here becomes fairly existential. Personally as a cyclist, I avoid these roads and situations, but I'm not convinced that "these people shouldn't be doing this" is a societally beneficial option here.
Cyclists who speed aggressively do really annoy me. Both on footpaths, where they build animosity with pedestrians and create dangerous collisions, and on mountain descents, where they regularly out-ride their sight lines and braking ability.
It’s a danger to them, to drivers, and to other cyclists (the ones coming down the other direction).
In my experience it’s not a constant problem but it’s not a trivially small number either.
In the absence of a bike lane or wide shoulder, I don't feel that it matters much as it's just an unsafe situation regardless - there's an argument that a large group in a pack is shorter and therefore safer and easier to pass, an argument that having to swing "wide" into the opposing lane is more dangerous, an argument that cyclists in this situation simply should not be passed (in which case IMO they should pull out at the next opportunity, just as a slow motor vehicle would be required to do in many states), and an argument that the situation shouldn't exist to start with.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
Somewhere else in this thread, bicyclists are complaining about cars who specifically try to wave them on to go first. While I can understand why this might not always be what they want, this seems like a generally good situation - the car driver is aware of the bicyclist and is attempting to do the right thing by indicating that they've noted the presence of the bicyclist and also trying to be courteous. I've done this myself from time to time and I assumed I was being a good driving citizen, but perhaps I was wrong.
I would hope that we can all agree that there are a subset of drivers who are reckless and dangerous, and there are a subset of bicyclists who are also reckless and dangerous. We have the same issue with boaters, personal watercraft, etc. Aircraft might be slightly better because of the high barrier to entry, but reckless pilots exist too. In each of these cases, the bad ones tarnish the rest.
Ha, yep that’s a lesser peeve. I’ve found that an innocently confused look and head tilt usually gets them to take their turn.
You do it in front of a cop who needs to make his quota!