I'm beginning to not like local cyclists

[canuckguy]

Originally Posted by Jean-Paul

Yeah, that's what I heard. I wish I could have gone with you. I would have sucked, but it would have been fun.

Eric & I are kinda glad you didn't make it though, since we were able to take turns on your Scalpel. :p

But it still would have been nice to have had you along.

[emartin10]

Heck yes! That bike was sweet!!!

E

[Jean-Paul]

Celia-extraordinary post! I concur

Ditto.

Just Friday, though, there was a guy saying that his groups rides the NLR side of the river every Tue/Thur at about 24...Now, I know he's lying because it's difficult to maintain a 24mph average and he can't, but I was quick to point out how shitty / unsafe it was to ride that fast on the path at 6:30 in the evening. He would qualify as an asshat, in my book.

Hey, I usually average about 30-35 on that stretch.....






































Until I pull into a parking space and get on my bike, then it's back to 15!

[Geo]

JP,

If it was the club I ride with on the north side on Tues/Thurs night, please accept my apologies. We do have a fast group this year and have grown from about half a dozen to the 18 that showed up last week. We've had discussions about slowing it down and letting it rip in all out sprints on the road between the skate park and the rehab center or take your energy out on climbing Ft Roots.

I will relay this message to them again this afternoon when we get ready to start.

I do have to say that yelling "On your left" will send walkers straight over to the left. A friend, not in the riding group, took a nasty crash to avoid hitting a couple when he alerted them he was coming around on your left.

Please bring your kids back out there and enjoy what's yours!

Respectfully,
Geo.

[ODB]

Geo, you've got real class. Thanks.

Joe

[Dogg Town Scott]

JP,

With two kiddos (one 2 year old and one 10 month old) I understand your pain. I walked the trail with the family about a month or two ago. And the whole time, I was watching in front and behind for cyclists and others. I know that my son, will be doing just fine walking along. Then "boom" he sees the most interesting stick in the world and runs to it. Which just so happens to be on the opposite side of the trail. So with the 10 month old in the stroller, I pull the most amazing multi-tasked slightly ninja-like move to put the brakes on stroller and grab the son. Kinda like that Andy Garcia scene in the train station at the end of "The Untouchables". If you seen the movie, you probably have done a similiar move elsewhere.

I know another time I was riding down on the trail alone, and was nearing run off the road by this co*ksucker and his gf/wife/significiant other. They were riding two-wide and took up most of the trail. And yes, they both were in the tip-top "posuer" gear and top notch bikes. So I agree that the "posuer" term is used automatically when someone has a nice ride in combination with the rude attitude. If you want to ride fast and take up the whole track, get off the public trail and build a velodrome.

After taking the concealed carry weapon class, I tend to analyze situations alot more. I am more aware of other's rude attitudes and dangerous risks. So if you hear about a goateed posuer cyclist with a couple pistol whipped marks on his head, it was not me.

OK, that is my rant for the year. See you on the river trail.

Scott

[Dogg Town Scott]

On the same pulse as ODB, Geo you got real class for taking this in and trying to help. I know that pros, semipros and big groups sometimes forget about the beginners and newbies. So I appreciate your input and help.

I really try to be considerate of others while riding the trail, like slowing down real slow around kids. I have seen lots of guys/girls buzz right by kids and family. Which in my book is rude and shows no respect for others.

[Erika]

I don't know gear so I won't be able to hurt people's feelings with calling them poseurs. All I know is that when there is a bike trail and I still have to move the car out of the way for one or two bikes, I don't like it. I understand a big group of cyclists on a bike trail will need some room and it isn't often so I don't mind moving out of the way. I am upset that, on Fair Park by the zoo, a single cyclist was riding the car lane, next to the bike lane. I am upset that, in Rebsamen, there is a bike trail and a meandering trail on both side of the road yet I have to wait on one or two cyclist who won't stay in the bike trail. The walkers, runners, dogs and kids are on the meandering trail with cyclists getting full use of the bike trail. Why do they need to ride two abreast blocking a lot of traffic?

I will gladly share a road and drive around a cyclist if there is no bike lane, it is when there is a bike lane and they are in my lane that I get upset.

The worst time on the night JP is speaking of was when there was narrow bridge that joins two parts of the trail. It is very difficult to share - it is a temporary bridge. Bikes were zooming along it. That is uncalled for. There are tons of blind spots.

I am mostly mad because the new pedestrial bridge doesn't look wide enough to accomodate the bikes and everyone else. I want to be able to enjoy it, it is a really neat thing for our city but I bet the cyclists really show their butt on this.

Btw, I am a casual cyclist. I use my bike to get from point a to point b or to enjoy a bit of the outdoors so I know about sharing a road. I have a bike with a kickstand but still know how it is from that perspective.

[bmph8ter]

Have you ever noticed all the glass and rocks in the bike lane on Fair Park? Or noticed how much of the paint that marks it is worn away from all the cars using it as a passing lane? I've spent some time in it, and have to say it is hands down the single crappiest bike line in the city that I've ever had the pleasure of riding in. If I'm ever there again (doubtful) I think I'll take my chances in the street.

How wide IS the new bridge going to be? Last I read was 12-14 feet which would surely be enough for all of us to share.

[ODB]

Of course I was riding down on the river yesterday and had to slow down to get around people walking 4 abreast! Why is it okay for people to walk and talk but not ride and talk?

Also, the bridge is way wider than any of the paved trail in the area.

I was on the road portion (with a bike lane) near alltel before and couldn't ride in the bike lane due to all the debris (rocks, glass, sticks) so was "riding the line" when a cop came up behind me and motioned me to get in the bike lane. He was the only car on the street and had a full lane next to him open to pass me. Of course, I'm just being inconciderate I guess while all the walkers and drivers are so wonderful to even allow me in the vicinity.

(yeah, those 4 people pissed me off the other day)

[silly]

I'm a cyclist you have to move over for down on the river...Let's visit this topic for a moment.
1) you don't want us to ride too fast on the path so we won't scare children and meanderers. Okay, we'll ride in the bike lane.
2) The bike lane is full of sand, rocks, glass, debris that makes riding in it dangerous and is the single biggest cause of accidents in the cycling community. I refuse to ridein a bike lane that endangers my safety, so I take the lane. Arkansas State law states that I may take the lane when I feel it is necessary to maintain my personal safety. The Little Rock side of the trail's bike lane from the dam to the end of the golf course endangers my safety. So, where should we ride? The way I see it is people who regularly use that section of recreational land know to look out for cyclists. It's tough to have to be inconvienced for other people, but society is give and take. I don't particularly like children in resturants, football games at War Memorial, or the new ballpark, but I have to deal with it.

[Ron Rizzardi]

There are LR ordinances that addresses when cyclists cannot use the road and how many can ride abreast:

Sec. 32-489. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near as to the right-hand side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two (2) abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use theroadway.
(Code 1961, § 39-117)


As it applies to how far to the right to ride the key word practicable - not possible - practicable. The two words mean different things. Practicable means for purposes useable thereof. If the right edge of the road has debris on it it is not usable for the purpose of riding a bicycle especially at faster speeds and on turns. So if a cyclist is not as far to the right as you think they should be just remember its not your call it is the cyclists judgment as to how far to the right they need to be. Unfortunately, some will abuse that judgment call. As I see it there are few roadways that permit enough cyclists to ride more than two abreast. They can ride more than two abreast on paths but will have to keep their speed down because:

Sec. 32-490. Speed.
No person shall operate a bicycle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.
(Code 1961, § 39-118)

Now where there is a path the law says it has to be adjancent to the road. Is that adjacent as in integral with the road as in bike lane or does adjacent mean a bike path that is segregated from the road way? A bike path and bike lane are two different things. The law says bike path not bike lane.

But the spirit of the law I think include bike lanes here. Then it comes down to debris again. Like in a car if a lane you are in has a surface hazard on it you are natutrally permitted to leave that lane and use the other lane. Of course you yield to traffic already in the lane before making that move and then move back to your lane when clear. How is a cyclist operating their bicycle any different? But, I think the cyclist needs to be back in the bike lane as soon as possible. If the bike lane is widely littered with debris a call to city services is in order much the same way a motorist would report a road lane littered with debris.

There is also a LR ordinance that addresses cyclists using the sidewalk:

Sec. 32-494. Riding on sidewalks.
(a) No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within a business district. Whenever any person is riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk outside of business districts, such person shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.
(b) This section shall not apply to police officers acting in the line of duty as part of a city bicycle patrol, except that police officers riding on sidewalks shall operate the bicycle in a safe manner, yielding to the right-of-way and warning pedestrians to the extent possible.
(Code 1961, § 39-123; Ord. No. 16,218, § 1, 5-19-92)


Business district is defined in the municode and I take it to mean any one side of the street or total from both side that has 300 continous feet of businesses within 150 feet of the sidewalk and you are within 600 feet of that area. In this boundary you are not permitted to use the sidewalk and likewise are not required to use sidewalk outside this area.

There's lots of other interesting things that LR makes explicit requirements of on cyclists. NLR is not so specific except that they use the standard law:

Chapter 102
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 102-4. Application of chapter to bicycles and animals.
Every person riding a bicycle or an animal or driving any animal drawing a vehicle upon a public street or roadway shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter applicable to the driver of any vehicle, except those provisions which by their nature can have no application.

Which means to say that anywhere the word vehicle is used in chapter 102 of the NLR municode take it to means bicycle as well.

Another interesting tidbit is how it appears LR code defines bicycle:

Sec. 32-1. Definitions.
State law references: Similar provisions, A.C.A. § 27-49-219(d).
Bicycle means every device propelled by human power upon which any person may ride, having two (2) tandem wheels either of which is over twenty (20) inches in diameter.

This is probably what prohibits children's bicycles or tricycles from being operated on roadways and therefore probably is defined as a toy.

[ODB]

Thanks Ron, great information!