Explain this biking behaviour?

November 26, 2007 3:55 PM

Question (or two) about people who bicycle in the big city.

Even though I don't ride I'm certainly fully supportive of those who do however a few behaviors have stood out that seem strangely anti-social or just dickish;

Why ride on busy, narrow streets that are major thoroughfares when the quiet side-streets that run parallel seem like they would be nicer for both the drivers on the busy street and the faster for the bike rider who doesn't want cars all over the place and exhaust in their face?

Secondly, it seems pretty ignorant to me to slow down an entire lane of traffic to a crawl, force everyone to go around you, into the other lane, causing a definite safety hazard and then ride to the front of the pack at the next red light so we all get to do it over again, or am I missing something? Hopefully its me who's missed something here and not all the bicyclists who are being jerks.

posted by Cosine to Society & Culture (9 answers total)

To answer the first question-- Generally, for the same reasons that cars tend to stick to big streets. Side streets tend to change directions, have lots of stop signs or just cease to exist. Plus, in a lot of cities, main streets are the only ones that really get from point A to point B quickly. Meandering on a bike is a lot more effort. Stopping and starting a lot on a bike is a ton more effort.

For the second, where else should they ride? It would be a lot more dangerous for people on the sidewalk if bikers were to ride there. Every biker I know will take a bike lane if one is available, but sadly they aren't that prevalent in most major cities. I can see your frustration with the leapfrog game of passing, but trust me, it's just as annoying for the biker. The worst is when you get stuck in one of these loops with a bus.
posted by atomly at 4:07 PM on November 26, 2007

And what of (the occasional) bicyclist who choses to ride the wrong way, up a one way street - like say, the one who hit me on Broadway in Manhattan? Rare, but evil.

I should have punched the jerk.
posted by R. Mutt at 4:08 PM on November 26, 2007

For the second part, I really don't see an alternative. Many places sidewalk riding is actually illegal. (And it's really more dangerous anyway -- for pedestrians, that is.) It's not a "behavior," it's just the way it has to be on some streets. Do you have a suggestion how those cyclists can be less jerky? :)

First part, atomly already answered completely.
posted by iguanapolitico at 4:13 PM on November 26, 2007

1) There's a good chance there's more stop signs and tough on the side streets (though busy street here tend to be wide ones) though sometimes it's bikers who just plan their route poorly.

2) To keep people from hitting us, or to prepare for something like a left turn that might be a few blocks up.
posted by drezdn at 4:14 PM on November 26, 2007

+1 atomly. On point 1, my old neighborhood is a perfect case in point. For "traffic calming," they added a lot of stop signs, and installed roundabouts, speed humps, etc, on the minor residential streets. This pushed motor traffic out to the neighborhood collectors, but it also pushed me (on my bike) out to those collector streets as well. The added overhead of riding through the neighborhood was just enough to discourage me. It was interesting to observe it in action.

On point 2, if you're a cyclist in a lane that's too narrow to share with a car, you want to visibly take it over so that a motorist isn't tempted to squeeze past you.

I agree that riding against traffic is stupid and dick-ish. And that some cyclists can be stupid dicks in other ways. As can motorists and people in every other role we play.
posted by adamrice at 4:15 PM on November 26, 2007

Why ride on busy, narrow streets that are major thoroughfares...

I like to ride on the busier streets in downtown Vancouver because they don't allow parked cars during rush hour, which means I'm not going to get doored. Busier streets usually have stoplights too, which means some jerk driver is not going to run a stop sign and hit me, or ignore my right of way at a four-way-stop if I got there first.


Secondly, it seems pretty ignorant to me to slow down an entire lane of traffic to a crawl, force everyone to go around you, into the other lane, causing a definite safety hazard and then ride to the front of the pack at the next red light so we all get to do it over again...

This is somewhat jerk-ish behaviour. I usually try to ride near the curb and let cars pass me, but if I'm on a street with a lot of parked cars or one that is particularly narrow, I take a lane. However, in that case I stay in my lane when I get to stoplights. Cyclists have the right to take a full lane. They don't have the right to inch up past all the stopped cars and then jump in front of them again at the front of the lane.

That being said, if I am riding near the curb I often ride up past stopped cars, but I leave enough room on my left for them to pass me once the light changes.
posted by sanitycheck at 4:16 PM on November 26, 2007

If there's a good low-traffic route that gets me where I'm going, I'll take it over a high-traffic route every time. Bear in mind though, residential streets often have stop signs at every intersection and blind driveways, reducing their appeal and inceasing their hazard.

As for the second, and ignoring your 'safety hazard' comment/distraction - let's not go down that rabbit hole - you're absolutely right. If you're going to ride on the streets, you obey the traffic laws, and that means you do not filter to the front of the lane at a light, but wait your turn behind the car in front of you. It's the law, and it's good manners.

But others hold different opinions. I'm going to go make popcorn and be right back for the fun.
posted by mojohand at 4:17 PM on November 26, 2007

Sorry, for the second question, I thought you were asking why someone would take a lane, not why they would filter up ahead.

For taking a lane though, there's a bit of a Mac vs. PC type views with some people swearing by this book.
posted by drezdn at 4:21 PM on November 26, 2007

Question one: this doesn't match my general experience as an NYC cyclist. Other big cities may be different - the width and layout of roads and character of the drivers play a role when I'm choosing a route. For instance, in less urban parts of Queens and Brooklyn, I'll avoid the quiet side streets. They're single lane, and drivers in those parts don't have a sense of how wide their Escalades really are, meaning that instead of passing me in perfect mutual safety, they just tailgate and lay on the horn. Better to be on a busy street where there's more opportunity to pass.

As for question two...cycling in most NYC traffic is as fast as driving, if not faster. So what's happening here, from the cyclist's perspective, is that cars are making this obnoxious effort to pass the biker just to make it to the next red light first.

(Again, this all depends on which big city we're talking about. I've seen some cases of cyclist entitlement in SF that seriously pissed me off. Riding in the center of a lane is a safety issue only if cars are parked on the side and you're avoiding the door zone. Otherwise, just make some room, dammit.)
posted by a young man in spats at 4:21 PM on November 26, 2007