Why aren't bikes allowed on freeways.???

  • Thread starter laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
  • Start date



[email protected] wrote:

> I, too have done it for hundreds of miles on western freeways. (It's
> also legal in New Jersey, IIRC). Again, despite the ill-informed
> remarks, the problems are minimal.

Gee, now I feel bad about making that wind turbulance remark. My
experience was with a bus passing me at a 15 mph differential on two
lane undivided road with about 5 or 6 feet of clearance on a windy day
(I was taking the lane at the time).

I admit that I have no experience riding on interstates here (since it's
illegal in both VA and WV, AFAIK), so I'll defer to those who have
first-hand experience.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Richard Utt wrote:
>> I've done it too: just this month, Interstate 15 in Utah.
>>
..
>
> I, too have done it for hundreds of miles on western freeways. >
> The worst problems we encountered were these:
>
> In some places, the shoulders are milled to keep the less-competent
> motorists on the pavement. Those surfaces are bad for bicycling, so we
> had to watch to avoid them.
>
> In some places, there's excessive trash and gravel on the shoulders.
>
> And on a busy freeway, the noise is not pleasant.
>
> Otherwise, there's just no problem.

My experience matches Frank's, based on riding I-15 in CA, NV, and UT, and
84 in OR, plus misc small mileages elsewhere - e.g. near Meridian MS this
past spring when US 80 went on the Interstate for a while.
 
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:04:01 -0700, mark <markjs1@*nospam*yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, laura bush -
>VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's really the safest place for them since there is always a wide
>> berm on a freeway and there is no chance of some parked car pulling
>> into their path like happens all the time in cities.. We need to
>> encourage bike use and i say BIKES EVERYWHERE.
>
>far to many moron drivers unable to successfully multitask while
>driving, drinking coffee and chatting to their dog on the cellphone...

Then activites like that should be outlawed. Problem solved.
 
On 19 Jun 2006 19:36:46 -0700, [email protected] wrote:


>
>In some places, the shoulders are milled to keep the less-competent
>motorists on the pavement. Those surfaces are bad for bicycling, so we
>had to watch to avoid them.
>

The main purpose is to wake up dangerous psychos who drive while
sleepy.
 
Raoul Duke wrote:
> "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Stay off the berm and leave it for the cyclists and don't drive 85
> > mph. 85 is only for psychopaths.
>
> Obviously you've never driven across Texas. One HUNDRED eighty five
> wouldn't be fast enough.

You are right. When leaving Texas, one hundred eighty five kph is way
too slow. If possible, it is best to exceed the speed of sound so you
don't have to listen to Texas bull ****. Better yet, exceed the speed
of light so you don't have to look at their ugly women.
 
laura bush - TRAGIC ACCIDENT FORTY PLUS YEAR AGO wrote:

> I'd like to use a bike for city driving to the grocery or library etc.
> but i still think it's just too damn dangerous.

You? Afraid??? Who'd've guessed.
 
Sorni wrote:
> laura bush - TRAGIC ACCIDENT FORTY PLUS YEAR AGO wrote:
>
>> I'd like to use a bike for city driving to the grocery or library
>> etc. but i still think it's just too damn dangerous.
>
> You? Afraid??? Who'd've guessed.

BTW, for an /honest/ account what happened, read this (all of it):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

Go ahead and keep your classless and hateful user-name (until the next
version, of course). Says a hell of a lot more about YOU than her.

BS (really)
 
In article <[email protected]>, xeton2001
@yahoo.com says...
> It's really the safest place for them since there is always a wide
> berm on a freeway and there is no chance of some parked car pulling
> into their path like happens all the time in cities.. We need to
> encourage bike use and i say BIKES EVERYWHERE.

In at least half of the U.S., bikes are allowed on some or all
Interstate highways.

If your state is not among them, ask your state elected officials why it
works in states from New Jersey to California but won't work in your
state.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> Again, many people (engineers, safety specialist etc) ALL more
> intelligent than you have determined that it's a bad idea.

AASHTO, however, disagrees, and publishes design standards used across
the U.S. for bicycle access to freeways. But they're just a national
association of highway and transportation officials, what would they
know that could stand up to Usenet bloviation?

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

>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>> On 19 Jun 2006 12:10:01 -0700, "Grendel" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:

>> >This doesn't even get into the fact that cyclist would be blown off of
>> >the berm or sucked into the path of traffic by the slipstream from one
>> >fast moving Peterbilt.

>> Bikes are allowed on regular two lane highways where speed limits are
>> 60 mph. Why doesn't it happen there? Again i say THINK.

>Again, I say you are incapable of thinking. I thought about it,
>considered the physics of it (man on 30lb bike going 15mph vs. 65,000lb
>Peterbilt going 80mph....again 'Vroom, woosh, *squish*') and agree with
>the experts that it is a pretty stupid idea.

>It does happen there. You've never heard of cyclists getting killed
>before? Or do you just wish to blame it on 'SUV driving Rightards!'?
>(are you saying that democrats ALL drive hybrids?) I've had it happen
>to me, got blown off the highway by a rig doing between 50-60, the ONLY
>time I rode a bike on the major highway. On an interstate the limit
>is, in my state, 75. That can do a lot of damage.

>Again, many people (engineers, safety specialist etc) ALL more
>intelligent than you have determined that it's a bad idea.

>Live with the fact that you are an idiot.

So, the 12,000 or so on bikes from west Houston through Bellville,
Fayetteville, La Grange, Bastrop, and Austin who are pedaling on state
highways with a 70/65 night limit (and mostly two 12' lanes) every San Jacinto
weekend (i.e., around April 21) are idiots? Funny, considering I pedaled out
FM 1093 all the way to Fulshear from near where the West Sam and 1093 meet
these days...but back then, it was two lanes of blacktop for almost 20 miles;
I made it out to Fulshear and then came back the same way, and I had no close
calls, despite 1093 being one of the busier roads in the outer fringes back
then. For some reason, I've managed to survive approximately 40 years of
pedaling in and around the Houston area...

--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey ([email protected]) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >
> > So you agree that using the "Emergency Lane" would only constitute a
> > hazard to the bicyclist under the rare circumstance somebody entered it
> > illegally?
> >
> > Wayne
> >
>
> Ummmm, it's not that rare. If bicycle use was allowed in the emergency
> lane, we'd have hundreds of bicyclists killed, daily I'm sure. -Dave

Doesn't seem to be a problem in the half of the U.S. where it's legal
already.

Interstate cycling is actually safer. Boring, but safer. Riding across
the Cascade Mountains on I-90 is smooth, safe, and dull. Riding on US-
20 is much more scenic, also harder with more passes, and more
dangerous. Likewise, if I needed to ride to southern Oregon in a hurry,
I-5 would be faster and safer than riding down the coast on 101, but
also extremely boring.

No need to theorize, you can look at the statistics in states where it's
been legal for decades.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html>
 
In article <[email protected]>, xeton2001
@yahoo.com says...
> On 19 Jun 2006 11:54:25 -0700, "Colorado Bicycler" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Bikes ARE allowed on freeways in the west. They do require you to exit at every
> >car exit, cross at the top of the exit, and reenter.
> >
>
> HUH??? Are you sure about that? Why would they have such a law?
>

This is another rule that varies by state. Not all states that allow
bicycles on freeways have this requirement.

The concern is that bicycles remaining on the freeway need to cross the
lane of traffic exiting the freeway. States that assume cyclists are
mentally incompetent mandate they exit the freeway and re-enter rather
than crossing the exit ramp. Other states leave this to the cyclists'
choice, given the traffic conditions at the time.

Personally, if I'm riding on a freeway and traffic is light, I've never
had a problem finding a gap in traffic to cross the off-ramp and remain
on the freeway. If traffic is heavy, then dropping down the exit and
re-entering can be faster than waiting for a safe crossing.

If traffic is stop-and-go heavy, then it's easiest to wait for traffic
to stop, communicate with a motorist, and cross in front of a stopped
car.

Of course, if you're dealing with a multi-lane exit, then it gets harder
to find a gap in 2+ lanes at the same time, so exiting and re-entering
can be simpler.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Books for Bicycle Mechanics and Tinkerers:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html>
 
"Joshua Putnam" <[email protected]> wrote
> Interstate cycling is actually safer. Boring, but safer. Riding across
> the Cascade Mountains on I-90 is smooth, safe, and dull. Riding on US-
> 20 is much more scenic, also harder with more passes, and more
> dangerous.

Don't you mean SR 20? There's no US 20 in WA state. US 2/Stevens
Pass?

FloydR
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> "Joshua Putnam" <[email protected]> wrote
> > Interstate cycling is actually safer. Boring, but safer. Riding across
> > the Cascade Mountains on I-90 is smooth, safe, and dull. Riding on US-
> > 20 is much more scenic, also harder with more passes, and more
> > dangerous.
>
> Don't you mean SR 20? There's no US 20 in WA state. US 2/Stevens

Sorry, you're right. I was thinking of my upcoming Oregon vacation,
US-20 drops down to 101 in Newport. SR-20 is the dangerous scenic route
across the Washington Cascades.

And, in case anyone worries, no, it's not particularly dangerous, it's a
beautiful cycling road. Cycling is generally a very safe activity, even
off the interstate.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html>
 
"Joshua Putnam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, xeton2001
> @yahoo.com says...
>> It's really the safest place for them since there is always a wide
>> berm on a freeway and there is no chance of some parked car pulling
>> into their path like happens all the time in cities.. We need to
>> encourage bike use and i say BIKES EVERYWHERE.
>
> In at least half of the U.S., bikes are allowed on some or all
> Interstate highways.
>
> If your state is not among them, ask your state elected officials why it
> works in states from New Jersey to California but won't work in your
> state.
>
> --
> [email protected] is Joshua Putnam
> <http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
> Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
> <http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html>

Shoot in 1968, Illinois started issuing different license plates to
motorcycles that were too small to be used on interstates. (In Illinois,
under 150 cc are not allowed on interstates, neither are bicycles or
pedestrians for that matter.) Motorcycle plates with all numbers and now 2
letters are allowed on interstates, one letter plates are not.

But then we were one of the last states to allow self serve gas and up the
truck limit to 80,000 lbs on interstates.

Charles of Schaumburg
 
>> Ummmm, it's not that rare. If bicycle use was allowed in the emergency
>> lane, we'd have hundreds of bicyclists killed, daily I'm sure. -Dave
>
> Doesn't seem to be a problem in the half of the U.S. where it's legal
> already.
>
> Interstate cycling is actually safer. Boring, but safer. Riding across
> the Cascade Mountains on I-90 is smooth, safe, and dull. Riding on US-
> 20 is much more scenic, also harder with more passes, and more
> dangerous. Likewise, if I needed to ride to southern Oregon in a hurry,
> I-5 would be faster and safer than riding down the coast on 101, but
> also extremely boring.
>
> No need to theorize, you can look at the statistics in states where it's
> been legal for decades.

Josh - Ever heard the saying there are lies, there are DAMNED LIES, and then
there are statistics???

I don't doubt the statistics probably show that biking on the freeway is
pretty safe, in areas where it is currently allowed.

Of course, it's only "pretty safe" at the moment as it's not too common,
even in areas where it is allowed.

Imagine if traffic density of bicycles increased to say, 10 per mile, on the
average freeway. I'm sure that the numbers would then show why allowing
bicycles on freeways is a really TERRIBLE idea. -Dave
 
>
> I'd like to use a bike for city driving to the grocery or library etc.
> but i still think it's just too damn dangerous.

So you'd rather bike out on the freeway? Interesting twist of logic there.
 
> Like Richard, we never once exited when we intended to go straight.
> Non-urban freeway exit ramps get very little exiting traffic, and the
> cyclist takes only a few seconds to cross the ramp so there's
> negligible hazard even if the cyclist didn't bother to check his rear
> view mirror. And if motorists are really going to argue they wouldn't
> notice a cyclist, they should admit to severe sight problems and turn
> in their license!
>

Ummmm . . . motorists often fail to see motorcycles, and motorcycles:
1) Are larger than bicycles
2) Are LOUDER than bicycles
3) Have lights on (front and rear) at all times while the engine is running
4) Are faster than bicycles

If people can't see motorcycles, how do you expect them to see bicycles,
which are (in comparison) slow, small, quiet, and not lit
up?????????????????????????????????? -Dave
 
Werehatrack wrote:
>
> Am I the only one who looked at the poster's name and the crosspost
> list, and concluded that this was a troll?
> --
> Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
> Some gardening required to reply via email.
> Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.


Nope. I trimmed the list before sending my reply. What caused me to check the
list was the many replies from users who I didn't recognize.

--
Michael
 
Mike T. wrote:
> > [F.K. wrote:[ And if motorists are really going to argue they wouldn't
> > notice a cyclist, they should admit to severe sight problems and turn
> > in their license!
> >
>
> Ummmm . . . motorists often fail to see motorcycles, and motorcycles:
> 1) Are larger than bicycles
> 2) Are LOUDER than bicycles
> 3) Have lights on (front and rear) at all times while the engine is running
> 4) Are faster than bicycles
>
> If people can't see motorcycles, how do you expect them to see bicycles,
> which are (in comparison) slow, small, quiet, and not lit
> up?????????????????????????????????? -Dave

It's true that motorists _sometimes_ don't see motorcyclists. And they
_sometimes_ don't see other motorists. They sometimes don't see
tractor trailer rigs or bridge abutments.

But all the above are rare, and even more rare in the visually empty
conditions of a rural freeway. Despite the implied "Bicycling is
dangerous!!!!" nonsense, there are no data indicating any visibility
problems with bikes on freeways.

Dig up information from the states that allow freeway cycling. You'll
see it's no problem.

- Frank Krygowski
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SierraSlim
Some Bike Rides Just Aren't Meant To Be!
Replies
12
Views
1K
Road Cycling
SierraSlim
SierraSlim
E
Are there Road Bike Shorts that aren't tights?
Replies
3
Views
609
Road Cycling
Dane Buson
D
T
Re: Ed, Why aren't you out on your bike?
Replies
0
Views
376
Road Cycling
Tom Keats
T
J
Re: Ed, Why aren't you out on your bike?
Replies
3
Views
410
Road Cycling
Jeff Grippe
J
C
Why aren't bakes allowed on the runway at the airport while jets are taking off and landing
Replies
4
Views
388
Road Cycling
[email protected]
J
Top Bottom Back