TexasCHLforum.com

KD5NRH wrote:

mr.72 wrote:It'd be a noticeable jolt to the driver but not exactly very dramatic. Try grabbing all of the brake lever on a bicycle while running 15mph and you will go over the handlebar, guaranteed.

Basic physics doesn't care what you're sitting in or on; when you decelerate from 15mph to a full stop in a given distance, you will experience exactly the same forces. The force that would throw you over the handlebars will slam you into the seatbelt hard enough to hurt.

You are right about that, except that in the case of the bicycle and the handlebars, the problem is not that your body is decelerating (well, at least, your body does not decelerate noticeably until it hits the pavement). The problem is that the front wheel is decelerating, and due to the geometry of the bicycle, the road, and your body's center of gravity, you are going over the handlebars instead of stopping.

In the case of the car, the seat belt along with the friction between your butt and the seat and other things will decelerate your body. At 15mph, I don't think there is probably enough momentum in your body to overcome the friction of your butt in the seat, but even if there is, then there is the fact that you have many fixed (fixed to the stationary car) objects against which to brace your body actively, such as your foot on the brake pedal. Now if you were standing on the hood of the car when it stopped from 15mph to zero, then you would fall down just like you would on a bicycle.

KD5NRH wrote:

mr.72 wrote:1. no lighting is required for bicycles by law

Texas Transportation Code
551.104(b) A person may not operate a bicycle at nighttime unless the bicycle is equipped with:
(1) a lamp on the front of the bicycle that emits a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet in front of the bicycle; and

Thanks for the correction.

KD5NRH wrote:

3. You cannot stop a bicycle very fast,

Since when? I can definitely stop my bicycle in a much shorter distance than any car I'm aware of551.104(a) requires that a bicycle be "equipped with a brake capable of making a braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement."

Skidding is not stopping.

Try stopping your bicycle and your car both from 30 mph. Or try stopping a bicycle AT ALL from 60 mph. Maybe if it's sub-40 degrees outside you can stop a bicycle from 60 mph in less than, oh, 300 to 500 feet? Lots of wrecks during bicycle races by professional cyclists who try to just slow down for a corner from 50+ mph in warm weather due to blowing tires, melting tubes, melting brake pads, breaking rims, etc. A lightweight bicycle is just not designed to stop like a car. A car will even out-stop a sport bike in most cases, and the motorcycle has far greater tire contact per lb and nearly infinitely more braking capacity (heat dissipation, pad area, pad heat resistance, etc.) than a bicycle.

Most cars will stop without any noticeable stopping distance at 15 mph, typical bicycle speed. I know my Miata will absolutely come to a dead halt with no tire smoke or rolling at all from 15mph if I just stomp my foot on the brake. It'd be a noticeable jolt to the driver but not exactly very dramatic. Try grabbing all of the brake lever on a bicycle while running 15mph and you will go over the handlebar, guaranteed. You have to modulate the brake and roll to a stop from 15mph on a bicycle.

agbullet2k1 wrote: If I'm on my bike and riding through a semi-busy street, I'll run a stop sign assuming that there are no cars in the immediate vicinity just because I believe it is safer for all involved if I just get my butt out of the way. However, if I come to a 4-way stop that has cars waiting to go in all directions, I'll stop with the rest of the cars, and definitely wait my turn, if not more, to ensure that I don't endanger myself or others by doing something that is not expected.

That's exactly what I would do and exactly what most cyclists I know would do. This is an excellent example of what constitutes a prudent "bending" of the law in favor of safety. FWIW, most cyclists will slow down for any stop sign even if there is nobody in sight in any direction. Often times most cyclists will slow to 3-5 mph but not clip out of the pedals. I have yet to see any car slow down to less than 3-5 mph at a stop sign with nobody coming in any direction. Cars consider that a "stop" when you are in a car. Well then it's a "stop" on a bicycle too.

Anyway, every year in September a bunch of Austin cyclists (mostly mountain bikers) do a "moonlight cruise" which is a middle-of-the-night ride with no lights through most of downtown Austin. These guys are well known to not wear helmets or any proper cycling gear for this ride, which is sort of a "counter culture" type event. Sort of a protest I guess. They deliberately break a bunch of traffic laws. It's kind of like giving the finger to the city. Stupid, I know! But the idea is that mostly the only people on the roads are police. So it's sort of a dare, seeing if the police will try and give them tickets (and they do). Maybe this was an event like the one in Austin?

Sometimes cyclists band together and do stupid things to demonstrate their presence. I don't support these kinds of rides and typically most road cyclists do not (I am mostly a mountain biker although I have been riding mostly on the road for the past year or so). I think the laws need to be changed for cyclists, but this is not the way to go about it. Sort of like if all of us decided to march down Congress Avenue, wearing only underwear and a gun belt with a handgun carried openly. Yeah it'd make a point about concealed carry, but the point it would make is "we don't respect the law".

Abraham wrote: If you refuse to abide by the rules when on the trail on your bicycle - that's your call.

Where did you get that idea?

You really have a chip on your shoulder against bicycles on "State Parks" trails, don't you?

You can break the rules of man but you cannot break the laws of physics.

Glad I don't ride in "State Parks". Seems the HOHAs are well-represented there.

agbullet2k1 wrote: Applying your earlier logic (trail riders vs. walkers), legal != prudent.

Yes, you are absolutely right. When I am riding at night, I have a blinking red rear light (which, by the way, is not really legal in the state of Texas, but is extremely prudent) and at least a solid front light, maybe a blinking front light (definitely illegal in the state of Texas). I also never ever get on a bicycle without a helmet. I cleaned out my storage room last weekend and tossed two cracked bicycle helmets that serve as reminders of what might happen to my skull if I fail to wear a helmet.

However, just like bicycles and hikers understanding what is likely, prudent, or expected on the trail, drivers can benefit greatly from trying to understand why bicycles do what they do on the road so when they do something it is not so unexpected. I run red lights all the time on my bike. Mostly I do it in order to avoid interacting with cars. Dogmatic insistence that the "rules of the road" or the traffic laws should apply identically to all vehicles from bicycles to semi trucks doesn't make any sense. There is no way that an exposed rider on a 25 lb vehicle with less than 1 hp and a top non-coasting speed of 25 mph should be expected to adhere to the same rules as a multi-ton truck. That's irrational and illogical. Legal != prudent in all cases.

agbullet2k1 wrote:While we're on the topic of bikes, I have a problem with group rides that aren't "organized" except on paper.

How else are they supposed to be organized? Can private citizens not organize their own ride? "Hey, why don't you guys meet me at 7:00am and we'll ride out to Andice from Cedar Park...". However it would be highly unusual for a ride to include 300-400 riders. I suspect you are exaggerating this number a little bit? That's over twice as many as are in the Tour de France. Anyway, closing roads for many rides is not common, and police escorts are almost unheard of for anything that is not organized by the city. Many, even most, races are held on open public roads. I suspect you would find it far less convenient for bicycle races to routinely involve closing public roads.

Now about the specifics of your story:

1. no lighting is required for bicycles by law
2. Normally a group ride tries to keep the group together through traffic lights, which is obviously what they were doing, even if the light turns red. The group is sort of treated like one large vehicle in this instance.
3. You cannot stop a bicycle very fast, and trying to do so while in a large group like this can be very dangerous. So if they were approaching the light while it was green, and then it turned yellow or red right as they got there, then it would have resulted in a giant pile up if they'd tried to stop. The safest thing to do is ride on through.

Now I know I am not going to convince you that these cyclists didn't just run the light after it was red for a very long time, and I also will not plan to convince you that it is foolish to pull up onto the railroad track until you know full well you can proceed through. But it may help to just learn how to expect cyclists to behave while they are on the road. They do what they do mostly for their own safety. Cyclists in a group of dozens or more are much safer in terms of traffic interaction than isolated cyclists or groups of just a few, so they ride in this kind of group on purpose to protect themselves.

Abraham wrote: I'll take the responsibility of not being clear.

<snip>

They'll be happy to inform you as to who has the greater (if you will) right of way - fast moving cyclists or slow moving hikers when both are on the trail.

No, you were perfectly clear. So let me be clear. If you are not paying attention then you might get run over by someone on the trail, especially if you are walking casually on a trail frequented by cyclists. This is simple physics and has nothing to do with rules, whether you or I think they are silly.

There are a couple of ways this plays out. In some cases a bicycle is going 10-15 mph on the trail, rounds a corner and finds people walking on the trail and maybe it's not possible to stop the bike or avoid the walkers on the trail without crashing, so in this case, it is clearly going to result in an accident. The rules are irrelevant because the cyclist was not aware of the walker until it was too late. For this reason, I am not an advocate of mixed-use trails especially when the trails have frequent blind turns and have mostly bicycle traffic so cyclists are not expecting to see a walker.

In other cases (most cases), a bicyclist will see the walkers and slow down behind them, hoping that when the walkers hear the noise of the cyclist and notice that there is someone waiting on them, then they will be polite and move over. Again, I am not talking about park rules, but I am talking about courtesy. The cyclist is being perfectly compliant with the rules by not running down the walkers. In fact I have never, ever seen a mountain biker who ran into or through walkers on the trail when it would have been possible for them to stop by the time they saw the walking people. Those are accidents, see above. But if the walkers just stroll along and do not make any effort to move over and let people by, then they are rude, even though they may well be within the rules. You don't make friends that way.

Mountain bikers and hikers/walkers can get along on the trail as long as they both respect the other party and understand the purpose in which the other group is engaging. You may be out hiking to see animals or having a casual conversation with someone walking with you, but I am probably trying to get a workout and working on my skills on the trail so expect me to want to go fast, you want to go slow. So you will not irritate me by going slow as long as you are not preventing me from going fast. Likewise I will have minimum interaction with you if you just let me go on by. That's all there is to it.

No mountain bikers are out there trying to knock you over on purpose.

Abraham wrote:mr.72,

"3. casual walkers who don't yield trail to faster-moving trail users"

By "faster-moving trail users" are you referring to bicycles?

Yes.

And while the rules are that I should slow down when I'm on my bike on the trail, common courtesy is that if you are strolling along on the trail with absolutely no urgency, you should move over whenever there is a stack of fast cyclists waiting on you. To heck with the rules. I'm not talking about bicyclists running over hikers, but really, if you want us all to get along, then you have to understand that mountain bikers are on the trail in order to ride, not stand there next to their bikes while walkers consume the entire trail.

Of course here I am talking mostly about trails where 99% of the traffic is bicycles. Slower moving cyclists always move over as courtesy. I move over when I am blocking the trail of a faster rider. That's courtesy. To deliberately block the progress of a faster trail user is just flat out rude.

for this mountain biker, it's got to be:

1. dogs not on leashes, PERIOD
2. dog poop on the trail
3. casual walkers who don't yield trail to faster-moving trail users