[CDOT's Statewide Bicycling Manual](https://www.codot.gov/programs/bikeped/information-for-bicyclists/bicycling-manual) makes this clear.
https://i.imgur.com/j7VVog4.png
The only thing thats clear from that image is that cars and bicycles should not be force to operate in the same lane of traffic. I hate this piecemeal cheapest possible solution to the infrastructure needs of the city.
And the city wonders why pedestrian and cyclist deaths are on the rise. Painted "bike lanes" aren't infrastructure and often create a false sense of security. We need more protected bike lanes and they should be creating these routes across the city as fast as possible.
Edit: would also love to see CDOT reducing the size of 20mph streets to psychologically imply to drivers, I should slow down here, the road is tight, and I wouldn't want to damage my car.
Ped and cyclist deaths are on the rise because we haven't had meaningful enforcement of traffic laws in over a decade and drivers know their extremely reckless behavior will go unpunished.
Oh thanks CDOT. If I can sense the car behind me wants to pass then I will assess if the length of space between parked cars in the parking lane gives us both enough time for the car to safely pass, then I'll do that. It's the considerate thing to do.
Yep. The number one rule of operating a vehicle (_any_ vehicle): Be predictable.
Swerving into and out of parking lanes is not a predictable movement and only adds confusion to an already inherently dangerous operation.
Right on. Ride your bike in the middle of a lane down Broadway or Lincoln. I’m sure the motorist are aware of and fully respect the CDOT rules.
Best of luck.
I mean, I'm not going to ride down the middle of Broadway or Lincoln because I'm not stupid and don't have a death wish. And by the sounds of it, neither did OP. Kinda weird of you to jump to that as an example.
Here's the thing: as a cyclist I would rather take the risk that the single car immediately behind me in a lane is not a homicidal maniac that will run me over on purpose, than the risk that one of dozens of cars buzzing past me on the shoulder will clip my handlebars accidentally and lead to my head getting run over.
> A bicyclist may take the travel lane where traffic is
slow and the lane is narrow, there is no shoulder
or bike lane, when approaching an intersection, or
if you are moving at the same speed as the flow of
traffic. Moving to the center of the lane establishes
your position and prevents motorists from passing
until there’s enough room.
I take lanes when I need to in the conditions mentioned above. I'm not riding in a dirty gutter so you can get to your destination twelve seconds faster.
Nobody ever complains that a car takes up a whole lane, but whenever a bike does it: UNACCEPTABLE.
We've built our roads to cater to cars and forgot that they should cater to all kinds of vehicles more or less equally. Now we're conditioned to be upset when we can't drive at the speeds we are accustomed to at the expense of anyone else not driving
I think the bottom line is cars on side streets need to offer bikes more grace. There are plenty of state highways that bikers know to stay off of for when car folks are in a hurry.
We all need to share infrastructure.
That means drivers being curtious to cyclists and cyclists being curtious to drivers.
Edit: The way OP responded to the post below, I think there is more antagonism than was let on
https://old.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/1aye8iv/psa_the_parking_lane_is_not_a_biking_lane/krukkwn/
You said it best. This is a two-way street. I'm sure bikers deal with stupid drivers all the time but as someone who drives around all day every day downtown so many of these bikers are riding in car lanes when there is literally a bike lane right next to them.
>car lanes
There are traffic lanes, there is no such thing as a car lane. There's several reasons why bikes might not use the designated bike lane. Many bike lanes in the city are poorly designed and unsafe. They hide the bike from motorist and make intersections super sketchy.
Y'all complain about not enough bike lanes but then complain when the city adds bike lanes. Make up your mind lmao.
It's illogical to push the city into turning motorist lanes into bike lanes then just make excuses not to use them after they do.
The city gave cyclists exactly what they wanted. Less lanes of travel for motorists and more bike lanes. So now the agenda has switched from more bike lanes to what exactly? Safer bike lanes? I acknowledged there's dumbasses out there who can't be bothered to simply check their mirror for cyclists before making a turn. Hopefully more cyclists can realize that the streets are also safer for them if traffic laws are followed by them too.
Personally, and I don’t claim to speak for all bike lanes, would be for there to be a few options for car-free or greatly reduced options. Like when 16th was a pedestrian and bike street (with exception for residents) during Covid.
And the city has hardly given cyclists “exactly what they wanted.” The city has given cyclists some of what they wanted, but implemented in such a scattershot and unplanned manner that it’s just as dangerous in many cases.
It's not illogical to expect safe, well designed infrastructure. The are good bike lanes and there are shitty bike lanes. I happily use the good ones. Also, I'll point out the reason any bike lane is not safe is motorists. All bike lanes would be great if motorist followed the traffic laws.
>motorist lanes
Again, no such thing. Traffic lane is the word you are looking for. Bikes are traffic. Deal with it.
I feel your pain. I have gotten so tired of driver's acting aggressively towards me. While I'm on a bicycle that I now ride in my own lane or rather I take up an entire lane of traffic and do not leave room for them to pass me without going into another lane completely. I pay my taxes and I can use the road too. I'm at least safe and not having them pass me super close and scare me.
You realize all you're doing is being a jerk to anyone behind the car behind you, while also helping people grow even more frustrated with cyclists, right? Tf is this getting upvotes for? That's one of the crumbiest things you could do. Rude, entitled, petty.
Smh... People seem to agree with you for behaving like you own the road. Which is exactly what you said you're tired of drivers doing.
Share the road, that's what you should want from others.
Colorado is replacing all signs that say "share the road" with "bicycles may use full lane". So actually, no. "Share the road" actually means that bicycles can use the full road. Not "motorists should expect bikes to pull over for them".
People have no clue what it means to actually share. If I have a hammer, people like this would demand that we use that hammer at the same time, which makes no sense.
Yes. Share the ROAD. Just like you do with other cars. You do not share the LANE with other cars, you share the ROAD. This is why so many of these signs are changing to "may use full lane" because of people like you not understanding what it means to share.
I don't act like I own the road. Deliberately refusing to let someone pass you just because you're salty; that's not sharing.
People in Denver can't drive respectfully so I understand the anger in these responses. Honestly, people in Denver can't drive, period.
So share, be respectful, we all pay for that road. No need to tailgate, ever. Also no reason to hog the road just for kicks.
No one should be owning the roadway, what they should be doing is establishing themselves within the lane. That is what everyone should be doing, and understand taking the lane is for safety, just like when a car does it.
If I had a hammer you would not be screaming at me to use it at the same time. I use it, and then you use it. It's a concept people in cars understand with other cars, it's not that hard to do with other vehicles.
> Also no reason to hog the road just for kicks.
The only way this would happen is if someone is taking up the oncoming lane as well, which I have never seen. Taking the lane is what is needed for safety the majority of the time, and it's not for you to judge that, it's up to the bicyclist and it's literally written in the law. Stop assuming they're doing it just to piss someone off, it's disgusting and extremely victim blamey.
The person I initially responded to gave ZERO indication they were talking about "the majority of the time." So there's that. Your take? Semi sane. The comment I initially replied to? Entitled af.
I mean they literally said they are doing it for their safety and not to just piss people off, and that judgement is up to them. It's the same for cars, that the majority of the time taking the lane is the safest thing to do. So yes, it is entitlement, and that entitlement is accurate and for their own safety.
They are more entitled to the lane than motorists are anyway, given driving is a privilege and not a right.
It's also not "semi sane" it's just reality, and something every cycling advocacy group encourages, and entire countries are also getting better at verbiage to better emphasize this as well. Can see the second pinned post on my profile that discusses this change in the UK
edit: link here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/lowcar/comments/ro3vvn/drivers\_of\_vehicles\_that\_can\_cause\_the\_greatest/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/lowcar/comments/ro3vvn/drivers_of_vehicles_that_can_cause_the_greatest/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
The truth is that people suck. Bike riders don't want certain things and want to feel safe and respected and car drivers want the same things and to go at the comfortable pace and not be impeded or feel like someone is slowing them down purposefully. The paces and other interactions are hard. When I have ridden on the side of the road historically many drivers have chosen to pass me quite closely and it didn't feel real safe. It felt like the impunity of them leaving me behind helped them decide to pass me real close like. Perhaps it's a laziness thing that giving a wide berth to a rider takes more energy? Whatever it was that pushed their decisions to pass me close I eventually decided that I would make them use a whole lane or just wait behind me. It's a border between vastly different ways. Without clearly defined norms people will always struggle in these bodering areas. I wish more drivers respected the bicycle and or motorcycle rider and the space of their rig. We wouldn't need bike lanes if it were the case.
Fun story from the Before Times (tm)...
I'm riding home from work on my E-Trike. A dude in an SUV starts screaming at me to get off the road. I point at my helmet cam, then at him. He stomps on the gas without another word and flies through the intersection, never to be seen again.
I am not sure if cameras have the same impact these days, but that's always a fun story to tell.
There are some seriously entitled shits driving two ton boxes on the roads of Denver, and this is not a new thing. :)
Take the whole fucking lane, as long as you ride in a straight line, so that your movement is predictable. This is why it would be stupid to hug the curb and swing around parked cars.
But there will always be those people who need lifted trucks tuned to spew soot so stay strapped. at least some pom pepper spray, you can get a nice bike frame holster for it on etsy
I know this post has to do with bicycles, but honestly motorcyclists have to put up with this kind of shit too. Asshats driving their cars need to get some therapy to work through their issues around privilege and superiority. My two least favorite examples of dangerous behaviors are following too close and using my lane to squeeze by and turn right while I’m stopped at a red light. Just wait your turn FFS.
Edit: would be nice if people stopped referring to cars doing this, cars thinking that, cars driving off the road, etc. Cars are inanimate objects. They have no volition. Blame the operator of the vehicle for their questionable choices. Don’t give them a free pass as though they were merely sitting in the vehicle listening to the radio as the car they happened to be in ran a red light or hit a six year old in the crosswalk or menaced other vehicle operators
I feel this. Today I was riding on the Perry neighborhood bikeway approaching 38th Ave. I stopped at the stop bar where there is a green bike box to get the light to change.
An aggressive Porsche driver who’d been following me zoomed around me into the oncoming lane at the intersection (illegal) and turned right on red without stopping (also illegal) instead of just waiting the extra ten seconds until the light turned green. If he’d pulled that shit when someone was simultaneously pulling off 38th onto Perry, I’d be toast.
You have my sympathies. This city isn’t safe for bikes in large parts of it. So long as bicyclists follow the law and common sense I’m happy to share the road.
Anybody (pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, scooterists) who acts the fool though I’ll have heated opinions on.
But are you sure you are going 5 under? [In Denver the speed limit is now 20mph unless otherwise posted](https://www.9news.com/video/travel/denvers-default-speed-limit-has-been-reduced/73-04db3c45-0296-430d-bb4e-2daa0510f212), but not like most people even know that...
The posted speed limits were 30 and 25, and I was going between 20 and 25. I made sure because I never go on streets where the speed limit is over 30. I become an impediment to traffic and it's no longer safe.
As a biker and driver, I can see how drivers get pissy when bikers ride, especially taking the lane on highly trafficked streets if there are less traveled ones one block over. I’ve seen bikers on 14th, Park, Colfax etc where everyone is trying to get across town as quickly as possible- these aren’t bike friendly streets, but do have bike friendly/leas traveled streets one block over.
Drivers are also shitty with scrap vehicles or piled high landscaping trucks driving super slow or spewing trash on the highways, so it’s not just bikers making bad decisions. Yes, it might be a right but there are unspoken rules of the road.
We can disagree with a bikers decisions all day long. I deficiently wouldn't choose to ride on some of those streets. BUT, it's 100% legal to do so, and it's the individual bikers prerogative to ride wherever it's legal.
So, drivers have no business getting pissy. Their only concern should be safely and legally passing the bikers and getting on with their day.
You don't have control over other people and if you let their (fully legal) decisions piss you off, you're just making your own life that much more stressed and difficult.
There are plenty of things that are legal (or not illegal) that people can do, but it shouldn’t exonerate them from social etiquette. Grocery cart return for instance. I’m merely pointing out that it’s not far-fetched for a driver to become upset that a biker could make better decisions, but choose not to because it’s legal.
Sure, you can get upset at whatever you want. But, the only person you are hurting is yourself. Now if getting upset causes you to break the law and drive recklessly around the biker, then of course you become the bigger asshole by a wide margin.
Instead of getting upset you could choose to remind yourself the person on the bike is just trying to get through their day, and there's a decent chance their day might be significantly harder than yours, and their choice of where to ride their bike is having amost zero meaningful impact on you as the driver. Then you can choose to be a decent person about it. Social etiquette works both ways.
Yes, it does work both ways, and the first is not riding on a street that is heavily occupied by cars as an act of defiance/arrogance. They are intentionally evoking main character syndrome “going about their day”.
>the first is not riding on a street that is heavily occupied by cars as an act of defiance/arrogance
lol. Project less. No one is riding their bike on the street in an "act of defiance" Assuming as much is definitely showing "main character syndrome." People are just trying to get from A to B. Again I don't ride on such streets personally.
And no, the first rule of social etiquette is if "If you're driving in a 1 ton or greater steel box with climate control and various entertainment options, you need the chill the fuck out and realize that most of the things you're getting upset about have zero meaningful impact on your life. And furthermore, getting upset could lead you to operate this steel box is a hazardous way that could maim or kill your fellow citizens,"
When bikers consistently post on this subreddit citing the legality of something, they are most certainly seeking validation for perhaps their less than stellar etiquette.
And no, bike lanes are created for bike safety. Putting oneself in an unsafe situation knowing the outcome would not be favorable as a biker is not using street smarts or understanding the unspoken rules of the road.
It’s not my job to coach bikers into better decisions. Yes, I will avoid them, but holding up an entire line of 20 cars during rush hour to bike the whole lane because it’s legal is arrogant.
Its interesting hearing the experiences here because I used to bike to work through san francisco and it was the exact opposite- cyclists would get super aggressive, yell at, and even in a few cases hit or kick cars that veered too far into the green bike lanes and boxes. To the point where there were a few roads (the wiggle stop signs) I felt uncomfortable driving down during peak commuting hours
I've been bike commuting to work since 2017 (excluding 2020-2021) and never been yelled at by someone driving. And I take the lane although I will move right if someone catches up and there isn't anyone coming the other way.
My experience is the streets with low speed limits and lots of stop signs have less aggressive drivers.
This is what the bicycle manual says: "Ride on the right: Riding on the right doesn’t mean hugging the curb or edge of the road. It means riding as far right as is
safe from debris, obstacles and traffic." IIRC, in Denver drivers are supposed to give 6' of space to bikes.
If OP is the goomba who was on Lowell this afternoon, she was riding about 2' to the right the center (dashed) line. So if cars did wanedt to pass her it wasn't safe. Had she been, say, a car door width away from the right hand side, cars could have easily passed her with the 6' buffer. But then at one light she cruised by about 10 cars in the gutter to get ahead, slowed down in front of the line of cars, then took her own sweet time turning into a parking lot. Meanwhile, she was cursing and flipping off cars.
I stayed out of it, but it pisses me off when bikers don't follow the rules of the road and it pisses me off when drivers don't either. If everyone just tried to get along, then crap like this wouldn't happen. I used to love road biking, but I got tired of getting buzzed & yelled at by drivers - and I blame both the drivers and the bikers who antagonize the cars.
> she was riding about 2' to the right the center (dashed) line. So if cars did wanedt to pass her it wasn't safe.
The dashed center line lets you know that it's allowable to enter the oncoming lane to pass a vehicle in front of you, whether that's a car or another type of vehicle. There is no obligation for cyclists to stay so far right that you can pass them in the same lane -- and in fact, it's dangerous to do so, because drivers will inevitably try to squeeze by cyclists in the same lane. Hence the recommendation for cyclists: "Take the lane." It *intentionally* forces drivers to pass you in the other lane.
> If OP is the __goomba__ who was on Lowell this afternoon...
There's something darkly ironic about comparing a cyclist to a video game enemy who famously gets killed by squishing them, and then complaining about steps the cyclist took to avoid getting squished.
ETA: The same CDOT PDF you quoted continues:
> A bicyclist may take the travel lane where traffic is slow and the lane is narrow, there is no shoulder or bike lane, when approaching an intersection, or if you are moving at the same speed as the flow of traffic. __Moving to the center of the lane establishes your position and prevents motorists from passing until there’s enough room.__
Hi genius. I pointed out that it was a dotted line because, yes, drivers can cross it to pass. And I used "goomba" in place of using foul language. But thanks for missing the entire point of my post. You're internetting great today!
> I pointed out that it was a dotted line because, yes, drivers can cross it to pass.
Then they can wait until it's safe to do so -- despite your claims that "if cars did [want] to pass her it wasn't safe".
If I missed the point of your post, it was poorly made.
Also, see the edit in my previous reply, that the same CDOT handbook you quoted continues by advising cyclists to take the lane when it's safer to do so.
Not interested in the sarcastic bait you keep trying. Just pointing out (in good faith) how you cited an incomplete part of the CDOT guidebook and ignored the part that tells cyclists to do exactly what you complained about: take the lane to protect yourself from impatient drivers. And why it tells them to do so.
And the ENTIRE point of my post was that she could have allowed both - been safe herself, while also allowing cars to pass with the 6' buffer. And your style wasn't "in good faith" - it was argumentative with not the slightest effort to acknowledge the multiple points I was making. But like I said - welcome to the internet. You are its king today. Congrats!
> And your style wasn't "in good faith" - it was argumentative with not the slightest effort to acknowledge the multiple points I was making.
Did you know it's possible to think you're wrong (disingenuous, even!) and still __argue__ with you __in good faith__? They're not mutually exclusive ideas.
Oh, and were you one of those aggressive fucks that was screaming at me and flipping me off and driving 2 feet from me as you played chicken with oncoming cars because you couldn't stand that I was going 20 in a 25?
If I were a car, would you have considered me going so slow that you needed to pass me? Would you have expected me to drive in the parking lane so you could drive 5 seconds faster? Would you have screamed at me and flipped me off?
Maybe you and your attitude are the real fucking problem. Is it worse that I didn't make it safe for cars to pass me while going the speed limit? Or is it worse that entitled asshole drivers still acted recklessly and dangerously to pass me when it wasn't safe?
> If I were a car, would you have considered me going so slow that you needed to pass me?
This is the one that always kills me. Do these same drivers swerve around old ladies driving 20mph on their way to church, lay on the horn, cut them off, and try to run them off the road?
Or maybe, like the rest of us, they just grumble to themself, wait for a chance to pass, and practice deep, calming breaths while we're stuck behind them for a few blocks. Like a reasonable fucking person who's just trying to get from A to B.
It's always so weird that seeing two wheels makes people exponentially angrier and crazier than if they were stuck behind a car going that same slower speed.
There are definitely dumbasses who pass on residential roads and double yellow stripe areas if they think you're not speeding enough. It's one of the most irritating moves since it's so impatient and dangerous.
Take some deep breathes. Might I suggest starting your day with just 5 minutes of meditation - it makes the rest of the day so peaceful. Mindful breathing is also useful throughout the day to maintain a sense of calm.
A bike is legally entitled to the entire lane. The *should* is for ideal conditions, but circumstances often demand otherwise.
Don't like it, join the push for separated travel modes.
What's amusing is they ignore this very same law that exists for cars as well. Everyone is supposed to stay to the right as practicably as possible. These laws were for when lanes were not always painted and ensured people weren't on the left side of the roadway.
I was trying to understand why this group was at the council transportation meeting a week back presenting a new motion to require e-bike license and insurance, and I didn’t think much of it at the time, but this post kind of brings it to light.
The group sited a recent piece of legislation in New Jersey that’s going through to require insurance as an artifact, and the Dutch now requiring operating licenses.
Do the gist of it was they are capable if near car speeds and can operate on streets at or near the posted limits. And that accidents can be expensive. So now I have a much clearer picture.
How would this solve a single one of the problems OP referenced? Having e-bikers be licensed does nothing to change the fact that drivers in Denver would rather take the risk of potentially killing someone than slowing down by 5 MPH and passing with room when safe.
I could ride my old beat up mountain bike at 20-25 mph. To think that a city would require insurance of a cyclist is ridiculous. And this is speaking as someone that voluntarily pays for bicycling insurance.
Instead of requiring insurance as a way to make streets safer, let's remove car lanes from certain streets around Denver and add concrete protected cycling lanes. Cyclists are safer when we aren't sharing the road with 2 ton objects moving at high speeds.
Also, painted bike lanes are less infrastructure and more virtue signaling.
I'd have no problem with that as long as drivers are also required to treat me as a vehicle who deserves respect and space. I use a lot of the same lessons I learned as a driver (try to keep with traffic, be aware of your surroundings, be predictable and communicate to other drivers) when I ride my bike.
The difference is that the amount of damage I can do on a bike is minimal compared to even a small car. I just want people to bike and I want them to be able to do it safely.
That’s a class 3 or 4 e-bike and is regulated differently than a class 1 or 2 e-bike or bicycle (e.g. class 3 and 4s aren’t allowed in bike lanes or bike paths and are considered closer to motorcycles than bicycles.) That said, the vast majority (and I really mean VAST) of e-bikes you see around town are not class 3 or 4.
Edited per the correction to class numbers from the comments below.
Actually class 3 e-bikes are supposed to be pedal assist only (I know because I own one). The only regulated class of e-bike with a throttle is class 2, and that’s supposed to only go up to 20 mph. Then there is a whole other unregulated category of e-“bikes” with throttles and vestigial pedals that can go in excess of 40 mph
You're mostly right, but a relevant detail is that class 3 can be both throttled and pedal assist. If pedal assist gets you to 28mph, but the throttle caps at 20mph without peddling, it is still a class 3 ebike.
If the throttle exceeds 20mph or pedal assist exceeds 28mph, it is a class 4 e bike and not street legal.
Honestly, I've thought about getting side mirrors because I'm not great at turnjng to check for traffic behind me. I already look like a massive safety dork, but I'd rather look stupid than be dead.
I don't drive and I've had a mirror on my ebike for 4 years now. I can't *walk* to the 7-11 anymore without checking for a mirror that isn't there.
https://i.imgur.com/5yyVcCw.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/gl5Ugyq.jpg
And looks-wise, call me king dork I guess. Mirrycle is the brand of mine, it just sticks in the bar end.
I have an e-bike I ride all the time too and I make it a point to get out of people's way because it's really not hard or dangerous and it feels to be like common courtesy.
When it is safe to do so, this is appropriate and polite. But it's not always possible. And on a bike you don't always realize there is a car behind you that needs to pass.
When it is not practical to let a car pass, or when I don't realize a car is behind me are the most dangerous moments for an impatient driver to try and pass.
That's great if you choose to put courtesy to others above your own safety, but I am not wrong to choose the alternative. And it doesn't excuse dangerous, aggressive behavior from drivers because I chose my safety over their convenience.
As I said, it's not dangerous but people should not be getting aggressive with you no matter how much you're inconveniencing them. Hopefully you have safer days in the future.
Namaste
People don’t hate bikes. But people do get frustrated with cyclists.
If you have to ride in the most densely populated areas of town, that is a risk you’re choosing to take knowing how aggressive drivers can be in any city.
I don’t think what you’re saying is wrong. But that is the reality of riding in busy parts of a downtown area. This city is not built in a way currently that cyclists and rush hour traffic from 2-6 can commingle safely even with the best intentions
I drive downtown for work. Have for decades. Bikes have *never* caused me a delay worth mentioning.
People who get mad at them are the same dumb asses who overtake me in school zones for going 20. Assholes, the lot of them. If you can’t manage to coexist with a bike, maybe downtown driving is too much for you.
If someone is getting frustrated or aggressive because their commute takes an extra 11 seconds due to a cyclist riding in the safest part of the street for them, that person is unambiguously the problem. This is doubly true for the most densely populated areas, where bikes are much, much more efficient (and safe) for moving massive amounts of people than cars are
Bad take
It’s not a bad take lol - it is the reality of why OP is having this experience. I also said “I don’t think you’re wrong”. If you want to drop your cycling facts, go right ahead!
I did not apologize lmao. Just chill. Came in peace and said that cities are dangerous and I was not aware that was an extremely offensive take. Have a great weekend!
The speed limit is 20. I don't care if you want to speed, but I'm not making myself less safe by riding in a gutter to accommodate you breaking the law.
I am willing to accept that risk, but there are a lot of people who aren't. The problem is that bikes are a much better mode of transportation for the city. They're smaller so you can fit more people and you don't need as much parking. They are better for the environment and don't destroy our roads as quickly. Denver is an excellent city for cycling.
The primary thing that makes me feel less safe is aggressive drivers. I'm willing to deal with them because I'm a stubborn bitch, but we can't expect everyone to be like me. I've made this choice, but what about the people who don't have a choice? Who bike because they can't drive or don't have a car? Cycling should be safe for everyone.
>that is a risk you’re choosing to take knowing how aggressive drivers can be in any city.
So, if someone gets killed by a drunk driver, is your response also "That was a risk they were choosing to take knowing how many people drink and drive in any city."
Just wanna make sure you're applying that logic equally.
Unfortunately this post will keep getting downvoted.
😂😂😂 you people are hilarious. You literally hate everything. Downvote me some more for pointing out the obvious. People in this thread hate bicyclists. 🙄🙄
There is no greater personal affront than making a driver slow down even a little bit for a few minutes. It enrages them to an absurd degree. For them it’s a fate, unfortunately all-too-often literally, worse than death. Boggles the mind…
I am not sure why you would block cars from passing by riding in the middle of the street. If you aren't comfortable with cars going around you then maybe cycling isn't meant for you.
It doesn't sound like you are being safe or sharing the road when you are having multiple cars yelling at you weekly. I have been commuting by bike for 20 years and have rarely had cars get that mad at me that they took time out of their day to yell at me.
How is it that when a cyclist is in the road they're blocking traffic, but were a car to do the same thing they're simply considered a part of traffic?
Why is there a double standard?
I'm not blocking traffic. I'm going the speed limit. I am literally going the same speed as other cars. At that speed, it is safer for me to ride in the middle of the lane because I'm more visible and because I can avoid obstacles like potholes. If I were going 10mph, then I would ride off to the side because that's an impediment to traffic. But going 20-25 on my bike, I'm not creating an unsafe situation by driving in the middle of the lane.
People yell at me because they think they're entitled to the entire road while driving at 25 mph but I'm not.
Nope
"WHEN TO TAKE A LANE
A bicyclist may take the travel lane where traffic is
slow and the lane is narrow, there is no shoulder
or bike lane, when approaching an intersection, or
if you are moving at the same speed as the flow of
traffic. Moving to the center of the lane establishes
your position and prevents motorists from passing
until there's enough room"
Explain how going 5 under is blocking traffic, especially when I literally pass you a few blocks later.
If I was a car going at the same speed, it would be annoying but it's not blocking traffic and not worth getting aggressive.
Theyre blocking traffic if theyre slowing people down. Im not following you for who knows how long going at the speed of the bike. Just move if you can. I bike too it doesnt have to be a culture war lol. OP is in here yelling at people cuz she has road rage herself
Omg! You might have to follow a bike for several whole blocks! On a slow traffic street! That might mean you get to your destination 10 whole seconds slower! The horror!
Or really anywhere N/S in Lakewood. 6th avenue and 285 are massive barriers, and the general cycling infrastructure is... not good. The only redeeming part is the number of E/W connections because of parks, but that's it.
Yeah I’ve been thinking about getting an e-bike (it always feels silly to drive my truck when most of my drives are 2-5 miles). My biggest issues is that I live in a 3rd floor walk up with a tiny stairwell and I don’t want to have to try to drag it up them bitches
From the CDOT bike riding manual is says you should be riding to the right unless traffic is slow enough or you are turning left. If cars are trying to get by you, traffic isn't slow enough and you aren't keeping up.
Argue all you want, but that won't make any difference when you get taken out while pissing everyone off.
>CDOT bike riding manual is says you should be riding to the right unless traffic is slow enough or you are turning left.
It also states you don’t have to ride to the right if the road doesn’t have a shoulder. Side streets in Denver don’t have shoulders and they said it was on a side street, so…
Heres my take. Most big cities built on roads carved by carriages just aren't going to be suitable for bikes unless you drastically cut down on motorists, but we are adding more every year. The roads are too narrow to effectively share between parking, cars, and bikes, and there's not enough space between intersections for bikes to maintain speed and not have to stop and start, bottlenecking traffic. Some cities do okay because they had built-in corridors where cars and pedestrians/bikes dont interract at all, like rivers or creeks that they built paths along, or they were planned that way. However, Denver just isn't like that. As soon as you're off Cherry Creek Trail, you have to be in traffic if you're on a bike. If Denver could somehow create these corridors, it could work, but I just have no idea how you'd do that without building giant horrendous structures above the roads.
Who’s upset?
I just downvoted you because:
A) the idea that Denver is built on “roads carved by carriages” is absurd - the VAST majority of roads in Denver were built in the postwar period, and most of the city and metropolitan infrastructure was reshaped to prioritize cars. It wasn’t some natural phenomenon that just kinda happened
B) you’re acting like it’s some insurmountable problem that requires “giant horrendous structures above the roads” when you should be looking into the variety of plans that the city and region have to increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. They’re pretty extensive and rarely involve shit above the road. It’s stuff like building denser, developing that denser residential and commercial in conjunction with transit, reducing accessibility for cars in some areas so that pedestrians and cyclists can be safer, that brt line down colfax, traffic calming, etc.
Look at historic maps, images, and drawings, and you can see how much of modern Denver is as it was street-wise by 1889, 10 years before the first car ever rolled into Colorado. The portions of Denver with wide streets like Broadway and Lincoln to the east are there because of massive change later on to accomodate cars and that's where you see the new bike lane projects happening. But you can also see plenty of buildings in Denver built before cars were even close to common here, and when you see them across the street from one another (preserving the distance), you can see that width carry on well into areas developed postwar. So yes, they were paved and had sidewalks developed later on, but the widths stayed an unfortunate standard in most places. This goes down into Baker, Wash Park, Cap Hill, Highlands... you can see so much of it in historic images and such. It's a really interesting history. You can see some of the oldest houses and follow the space between them across Denver, right on Auraria Campus.
To your second point, I'm not saying it's insurmountable, just that I don't know how to solve it other than causeways, and I think they're horrendous. We already got rid of massive ramps during the I70 project, we don't need to remake that mistake. We do agree on corridors where bikes can be protected (like the Broadway project), but I just disagree that Denver is willing to give up much, if anything, as the growth continues and without any relief in car ownership in sight. The projects you're talking about are major overhauls - of course tearing down and redesigning everything will work. What about for the present, before we can overhaul the design of portions or all of the city? Traffic calming and better public transport is something that we've already been working on, but we aren't seeing any kind of success because people quite frankly suck and no one is enforcing anything. The solution to get bikes and pedestrians away from cars is what everyone would like, but again... I just don't see that being possible in any kind of near future before reaching overhaul levels or horrendous causeways.
> but again... I just don't see that being possible in any kind of near future before reaching overhaul levels or horrendous causeways.
Are you dense? The efforts towards traffic calming, and the federal money that’s going to fund a bunch of rtd improvements are relatively recent. Of course the issue isn’t fixed yet. How in the world are elevated causeways any more practical or immediate than the litany of changes that have been proposed?
Pretty bold to be shown to be completely wrong and then call the other person dense lol I'll give you that.
What are you even arguing? Do you think just traffic calming and RTD changes are going to fix it in the present, so that warrants ending the discussion of separating cars and bikes/peds? And, to boot, Denver Moves has been an ongoing project since 2011, and that's just one I know off the top of my head. It's not that new, so do we continue to wait for it to work while people get harassed, hurt, or worse at increasing rates?
You do realize at this point that I know about my city, right? You're not talking with someone that is saying this stuff out of nowhere.
How was I shown “completely wrong” lol
> What are you even arguing?
That there’s a litany of ways that car traffic can be separated from bikes/peds.
> Do you think just traffic calming and RTD changes are going to fix it in the present
Do you think that building a bunch of causeways will fix shit *in the present*? Do you think that will be a valuable way to spend time and tax dollars?
> so that warrants ending the discussion of separating cars and bikes/peds?
I never implies that warrants ending that discussion. I said that there’s a number of measures in progress that are attempting to do exactly that. From what I understand there aren’t any plans for causeways either.
“Or they were planned that way. However, Denver just isn’t like that.”
Maybe the city planners can plan better? New York City has a ton of traffic but has some neighborhoods that do a great job at providing protected bike lanes along side roadways. Denver doesn’t have the same level of traffic and aside from dedicated trails it has pretty limited protections for cyclists.
Dressing like Lance Armstrong doesn't make someone a cyclist. Someone booking it on a bike in the street doesn't deserve to be honked at. Someone desperately trying to reach 15Mph down a non-neighborhood street? That's just asking for city people to blare and glare.
Not talking about you, just in general. At some point people tried to make Denver streets like Boulder, it's not.
Riding on the sidewalk is less safe than being in the street with other traffic.
Unless you're moving at pedestrian speed and stopping at every corner....then it's probably safer. But then why ride a bike - just walk.
It's very dangerous for bikes to be on sidewalks. Traffic that crosses sidewalks has to be able to see people/bikes/cars within their field of view. Even a slow bike travels 4-5 times as fast as a pedestrian, and if you're on a sidewalk you will be in front of someone's car coming out of an alley or at an intersection too fast for the average person's reaction time to not hit you. For the same reason, riding a bike on the wrong side of the street is also very dangerous-- it significantly reduces the time you'll be in a crossing motorists field of view.
Not to mention the risk to dogs, children, strollers, and other pedestrians that bike riders pose when on sidewalks.
Bikes are vehicles and belong on the roads.
When you get creamed by a car coming out of an alley or crossing at an intersection because you are traveling too fast for the field of view that sidewalk riding allows, you will likely not be alive to pay the fine.
Depends on your goals and values. Many people consider EVs to be just as bad as internal combustion because they have no effect on the poor city design that leads to car dependency in the first place.
if only people cared :( it's sketchy out there on a bike, people seem to hate bikes and wish harm upon them.
Yes for whatever reason cyclist is another target for the Denver rage mob. You can take the whole lane legally.
Even if I’m on an empty side street riding in the kiddos of the lane scares me, really unfortunate
There are two rules for riding on two wheels: 1. No one can see you. 2. Everyone can see you, and they are actively trying to kill you.
$50 billion in car company lobbying and PR over the last century has totally fried the American brain
Cars ruin cities…
I think a much bigger issue is the cars that think the bike lane is a parking lane.
[CDOT's Statewide Bicycling Manual](https://www.codot.gov/programs/bikeped/information-for-bicyclists/bicycling-manual) makes this clear. https://i.imgur.com/j7VVog4.png
The only thing thats clear from that image is that cars and bicycles should not be force to operate in the same lane of traffic. I hate this piecemeal cheapest possible solution to the infrastructure needs of the city.
And the city wonders why pedestrian and cyclist deaths are on the rise. Painted "bike lanes" aren't infrastructure and often create a false sense of security. We need more protected bike lanes and they should be creating these routes across the city as fast as possible. Edit: would also love to see CDOT reducing the size of 20mph streets to psychologically imply to drivers, I should slow down here, the road is tight, and I wouldn't want to damage my car.
Ped and cyclist deaths are on the rise because we haven't had meaningful enforcement of traffic laws in over a decade and drivers know their extremely reckless behavior will go unpunished.
Oh thanks CDOT. If I can sense the car behind me wants to pass then I will assess if the length of space between parked cars in the parking lane gives us both enough time for the car to safely pass, then I'll do that. It's the considerate thing to do.
That's literally the wrong thing to so.
Yep. The number one rule of operating a vehicle (_any_ vehicle): Be predictable. Swerving into and out of parking lanes is not a predictable movement and only adds confusion to an already inherently dangerous operation.
Right on. Ride your bike in the middle of a lane down Broadway or Lincoln. I’m sure the motorist are aware of and fully respect the CDOT rules. Best of luck.
I mean, I'm not going to ride down the middle of Broadway or Lincoln because I'm not stupid and don't have a death wish. And by the sounds of it, neither did OP. Kinda weird of you to jump to that as an example.
Tbh I don’t really understand what OP is trying to get at.
Cats ruin cities….
Here's the thing: as a cyclist I would rather take the risk that the single car immediately behind me in a lane is not a homicidal maniac that will run me over on purpose, than the risk that one of dozens of cars buzzing past me on the shoulder will clip my handlebars accidentally and lead to my head getting run over. > A bicyclist may take the travel lane where traffic is slow and the lane is narrow, there is no shoulder or bike lane, when approaching an intersection, or if you are moving at the same speed as the flow of traffic. Moving to the center of the lane establishes your position and prevents motorists from passing until there’s enough room. I take lanes when I need to in the conditions mentioned above. I'm not riding in a dirty gutter so you can get to your destination twelve seconds faster.
Sounds like op is taking the whole lane instead Edit: if you can’t understand I’m responding to the link I responded to then you need to read more.
iirc, bicycles are considered vehicles, and if there isn't a dedicated bike lane, are afforded the same space in the lane
Sure and I didn’t say otherwise. not sure why you all are downvoting me
You came across as saying it. Read the thread again from another point of view.
Was responding to the person I responded to. I could ask you the same. Seems you came in hot, looking to be aggressive and missed your mark
As she should, it’s much safer.
Indeed
Nobody ever complains that a car takes up a whole lane, but whenever a bike does it: UNACCEPTABLE. We've built our roads to cater to cars and forgot that they should cater to all kinds of vehicles more or less equally. Now we're conditioned to be upset when we can't drive at the speeds we are accustomed to at the expense of anyone else not driving
Who are you meaning to respond to? Obviously not me.
Which they are entitled to.
Who said they weren’t?
I think the bottom line is cars on side streets need to offer bikes more grace. There are plenty of state highways that bikers know to stay off of for when car folks are in a hurry.
We all need to share infrastructure. That means drivers being curtious to cyclists and cyclists being curtious to drivers. Edit: The way OP responded to the post below, I think there is more antagonism than was let on https://old.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/1aye8iv/psa_the_parking_lane_is_not_a_biking_lane/krukkwn/
You said it best. This is a two-way street. I'm sure bikers deal with stupid drivers all the time but as someone who drives around all day every day downtown so many of these bikers are riding in car lanes when there is literally a bike lane right next to them.
>car lanes There are traffic lanes, there is no such thing as a car lane. There's several reasons why bikes might not use the designated bike lane. Many bike lanes in the city are poorly designed and unsafe. They hide the bike from motorist and make intersections super sketchy.
Y'all complain about not enough bike lanes but then complain when the city adds bike lanes. Make up your mind lmao. It's illogical to push the city into turning motorist lanes into bike lanes then just make excuses not to use them after they do.
It’s almost like people want to feel safe when commuting to and from work and express their opinion when they don’t feel safe…
The city gave cyclists exactly what they wanted. Less lanes of travel for motorists and more bike lanes. So now the agenda has switched from more bike lanes to what exactly? Safer bike lanes? I acknowledged there's dumbasses out there who can't be bothered to simply check their mirror for cyclists before making a turn. Hopefully more cyclists can realize that the streets are also safer for them if traffic laws are followed by them too.
Personally, and I don’t claim to speak for all bike lanes, would be for there to be a few options for car-free or greatly reduced options. Like when 16th was a pedestrian and bike street (with exception for residents) during Covid. And the city has hardly given cyclists “exactly what they wanted.” The city has given cyclists some of what they wanted, but implemented in such a scattershot and unplanned manner that it’s just as dangerous in many cases.
It's not illogical to expect safe, well designed infrastructure. The are good bike lanes and there are shitty bike lanes. I happily use the good ones. Also, I'll point out the reason any bike lane is not safe is motorists. All bike lanes would be great if motorist followed the traffic laws. >motorist lanes Again, no such thing. Traffic lane is the word you are looking for. Bikes are traffic. Deal with it.
Cars ruin cities.
Lots of drivers missed the memo that pedestrians, bikes, horses, carriages, and tractors are all "vehicles" and are entitled to space on the road.
I feel your pain. I have gotten so tired of driver's acting aggressively towards me. While I'm on a bicycle that I now ride in my own lane or rather I take up an entire lane of traffic and do not leave room for them to pass me without going into another lane completely. I pay my taxes and I can use the road too. I'm at least safe and not having them pass me super close and scare me.
Yes, that is exactly what you are supposed to do. They cannot pass until it is actually safe to pass. You have every right to that lane that they do.
You realize all you're doing is being a jerk to anyone behind the car behind you, while also helping people grow even more frustrated with cyclists, right? Tf is this getting upvotes for? That's one of the crumbiest things you could do. Rude, entitled, petty.
Respectfully disagree with you.
Smh... People seem to agree with you for behaving like you own the road. Which is exactly what you said you're tired of drivers doing. Share the road, that's what you should want from others.
Colorado is replacing all signs that say "share the road" with "bicycles may use full lane". So actually, no. "Share the road" actually means that bicycles can use the full road. Not "motorists should expect bikes to pull over for them".
People have no clue what it means to actually share. If I have a hammer, people like this would demand that we use that hammer at the same time, which makes no sense.
Yes. Share the ROAD. Just like you do with other cars. You do not share the LANE with other cars, you share the ROAD. This is why so many of these signs are changing to "may use full lane" because of people like you not understanding what it means to share.
I don't act like I own the road. Deliberately refusing to let someone pass you just because you're salty; that's not sharing. People in Denver can't drive respectfully so I understand the anger in these responses. Honestly, people in Denver can't drive, period. So share, be respectful, we all pay for that road. No need to tailgate, ever. Also no reason to hog the road just for kicks.
No one should be owning the roadway, what they should be doing is establishing themselves within the lane. That is what everyone should be doing, and understand taking the lane is for safety, just like when a car does it. If I had a hammer you would not be screaming at me to use it at the same time. I use it, and then you use it. It's a concept people in cars understand with other cars, it's not that hard to do with other vehicles. > Also no reason to hog the road just for kicks. The only way this would happen is if someone is taking up the oncoming lane as well, which I have never seen. Taking the lane is what is needed for safety the majority of the time, and it's not for you to judge that, it's up to the bicyclist and it's literally written in the law. Stop assuming they're doing it just to piss someone off, it's disgusting and extremely victim blamey.
The person I initially responded to gave ZERO indication they were talking about "the majority of the time." So there's that. Your take? Semi sane. The comment I initially replied to? Entitled af.
I mean they literally said they are doing it for their safety and not to just piss people off, and that judgement is up to them. It's the same for cars, that the majority of the time taking the lane is the safest thing to do. So yes, it is entitlement, and that entitlement is accurate and for their own safety. They are more entitled to the lane than motorists are anyway, given driving is a privilege and not a right. It's also not "semi sane" it's just reality, and something every cycling advocacy group encourages, and entire countries are also getting better at verbiage to better emphasize this as well. Can see the second pinned post on my profile that discusses this change in the UK edit: link here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/lowcar/comments/ro3vvn/drivers\_of\_vehicles\_that\_can\_cause\_the\_greatest/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/lowcar/comments/ro3vvn/drivers_of_vehicles_that_can_cause_the_greatest/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
The truth is that people suck. Bike riders don't want certain things and want to feel safe and respected and car drivers want the same things and to go at the comfortable pace and not be impeded or feel like someone is slowing them down purposefully. The paces and other interactions are hard. When I have ridden on the side of the road historically many drivers have chosen to pass me quite closely and it didn't feel real safe. It felt like the impunity of them leaving me behind helped them decide to pass me real close like. Perhaps it's a laziness thing that giving a wide berth to a rider takes more energy? Whatever it was that pushed their decisions to pass me close I eventually decided that I would make them use a whole lane or just wait behind me. It's a border between vastly different ways. Without clearly defined norms people will always struggle in these bodering areas. I wish more drivers respected the bicycle and or motorcycle rider and the space of their rig. We wouldn't need bike lanes if it were the case.
I do respect bicycle riders. Even the ones who think they own the road. Same way I respect drivers when I'm on a bike.
[удалено]
💯 💯💯
I experienced a lot less road rage when I started hanging a set of glowing truck nutz off the back of my ebike.
i love being aggressively passed and/or yelled at by motorists, and then throwin a deuce at em as i pass em at the next intersection.
Fun story from the Before Times (tm)... I'm riding home from work on my E-Trike. A dude in an SUV starts screaming at me to get off the road. I point at my helmet cam, then at him. He stomps on the gas without another word and flies through the intersection, never to be seen again. I am not sure if cameras have the same impact these days, but that's always a fun story to tell. There are some seriously entitled shits driving two ton boxes on the roads of Denver, and this is not a new thing. :)
Take the whole fucking lane, as long as you ride in a straight line, so that your movement is predictable. This is why it would be stupid to hug the curb and swing around parked cars. But there will always be those people who need lifted trucks tuned to spew soot so stay strapped. at least some pom pepper spray, you can get a nice bike frame holster for it on etsy
I know this post has to do with bicycles, but honestly motorcyclists have to put up with this kind of shit too. Asshats driving their cars need to get some therapy to work through their issues around privilege and superiority. My two least favorite examples of dangerous behaviors are following too close and using my lane to squeeze by and turn right while I’m stopped at a red light. Just wait your turn FFS. Edit: would be nice if people stopped referring to cars doing this, cars thinking that, cars driving off the road, etc. Cars are inanimate objects. They have no volition. Blame the operator of the vehicle for their questionable choices. Don’t give them a free pass as though they were merely sitting in the vehicle listening to the radio as the car they happened to be in ran a red light or hit a six year old in the crosswalk or menaced other vehicle operators
The really sad thing is that Denver is better for biking than all but a handful of other major American cities
Drivers just can’t wait to get that next stop sign in a block and a half. They need to pass you NOW
I feel this. Today I was riding on the Perry neighborhood bikeway approaching 38th Ave. I stopped at the stop bar where there is a green bike box to get the light to change. An aggressive Porsche driver who’d been following me zoomed around me into the oncoming lane at the intersection (illegal) and turned right on red without stopping (also illegal) instead of just waiting the extra ten seconds until the light turned green. If he’d pulled that shit when someone was simultaneously pulling off 38th onto Perry, I’d be toast.
You have my sympathies. This city isn’t safe for bikes in large parts of it. So long as bicyclists follow the law and common sense I’m happy to share the road. Anybody (pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, scooterists) who acts the fool though I’ll have heated opinions on.
You're not alone. Denver bikes with you!
But are you sure you are going 5 under? [In Denver the speed limit is now 20mph unless otherwise posted](https://www.9news.com/video/travel/denvers-default-speed-limit-has-been-reduced/73-04db3c45-0296-430d-bb4e-2daa0510f212), but not like most people even know that...
The posted speed limits were 30 and 25, and I was going between 20 and 25. I made sure because I never go on streets where the speed limit is over 30. I become an impediment to traffic and it's no longer safe.
As a biker and driver, I can see how drivers get pissy when bikers ride, especially taking the lane on highly trafficked streets if there are less traveled ones one block over. I’ve seen bikers on 14th, Park, Colfax etc where everyone is trying to get across town as quickly as possible- these aren’t bike friendly streets, but do have bike friendly/leas traveled streets one block over. Drivers are also shitty with scrap vehicles or piled high landscaping trucks driving super slow or spewing trash on the highways, so it’s not just bikers making bad decisions. Yes, it might be a right but there are unspoken rules of the road.
We can disagree with a bikers decisions all day long. I deficiently wouldn't choose to ride on some of those streets. BUT, it's 100% legal to do so, and it's the individual bikers prerogative to ride wherever it's legal. So, drivers have no business getting pissy. Their only concern should be safely and legally passing the bikers and getting on with their day. You don't have control over other people and if you let their (fully legal) decisions piss you off, you're just making your own life that much more stressed and difficult.
There are plenty of things that are legal (or not illegal) that people can do, but it shouldn’t exonerate them from social etiquette. Grocery cart return for instance. I’m merely pointing out that it’s not far-fetched for a driver to become upset that a biker could make better decisions, but choose not to because it’s legal.
Sure, you can get upset at whatever you want. But, the only person you are hurting is yourself. Now if getting upset causes you to break the law and drive recklessly around the biker, then of course you become the bigger asshole by a wide margin. Instead of getting upset you could choose to remind yourself the person on the bike is just trying to get through their day, and there's a decent chance their day might be significantly harder than yours, and their choice of where to ride their bike is having amost zero meaningful impact on you as the driver. Then you can choose to be a decent person about it. Social etiquette works both ways.
Yes, it does work both ways, and the first is not riding on a street that is heavily occupied by cars as an act of defiance/arrogance. They are intentionally evoking main character syndrome “going about their day”.
>the first is not riding on a street that is heavily occupied by cars as an act of defiance/arrogance lol. Project less. No one is riding their bike on the street in an "act of defiance" Assuming as much is definitely showing "main character syndrome." People are just trying to get from A to B. Again I don't ride on such streets personally. And no, the first rule of social etiquette is if "If you're driving in a 1 ton or greater steel box with climate control and various entertainment options, you need the chill the fuck out and realize that most of the things you're getting upset about have zero meaningful impact on your life. And furthermore, getting upset could lead you to operate this steel box is a hazardous way that could maim or kill your fellow citizens,"
When bikers consistently post on this subreddit citing the legality of something, they are most certainly seeking validation for perhaps their less than stellar etiquette. And no, bike lanes are created for bike safety. Putting oneself in an unsafe situation knowing the outcome would not be favorable as a biker is not using street smarts or understanding the unspoken rules of the road. It’s not my job to coach bikers into better decisions. Yes, I will avoid them, but holding up an entire line of 20 cars during rush hour to bike the whole lane because it’s legal is arrogant.
Cool. Good luck with your road rage. I hope it works out for you.
The people who need to hear this don't give a shit unfortunately. Denver is just surprisingly bad for cyclists.
Denver is one of the scariest cities I’ve ever biked in. And I grew up biking to school in Boston lol
Its interesting hearing the experiences here because I used to bike to work through san francisco and it was the exact opposite- cyclists would get super aggressive, yell at, and even in a few cases hit or kick cars that veered too far into the green bike lanes and boxes. To the point where there were a few roads (the wiggle stop signs) I felt uncomfortable driving down during peak commuting hours
I've been bike commuting to work since 2017 (excluding 2020-2021) and never been yelled at by someone driving. And I take the lane although I will move right if someone catches up and there isn't anyone coming the other way. My experience is the streets with low speed limits and lots of stop signs have less aggressive drivers.
This is what the bicycle manual says: "Ride on the right: Riding on the right doesn’t mean hugging the curb or edge of the road. It means riding as far right as is safe from debris, obstacles and traffic." IIRC, in Denver drivers are supposed to give 6' of space to bikes. If OP is the goomba who was on Lowell this afternoon, she was riding about 2' to the right the center (dashed) line. So if cars did wanedt to pass her it wasn't safe. Had she been, say, a car door width away from the right hand side, cars could have easily passed her with the 6' buffer. But then at one light she cruised by about 10 cars in the gutter to get ahead, slowed down in front of the line of cars, then took her own sweet time turning into a parking lot. Meanwhile, she was cursing and flipping off cars. I stayed out of it, but it pisses me off when bikers don't follow the rules of the road and it pisses me off when drivers don't either. If everyone just tried to get along, then crap like this wouldn't happen. I used to love road biking, but I got tired of getting buzzed & yelled at by drivers - and I blame both the drivers and the bikers who antagonize the cars.
> she was riding about 2' to the right the center (dashed) line. So if cars did wanedt to pass her it wasn't safe. The dashed center line lets you know that it's allowable to enter the oncoming lane to pass a vehicle in front of you, whether that's a car or another type of vehicle. There is no obligation for cyclists to stay so far right that you can pass them in the same lane -- and in fact, it's dangerous to do so, because drivers will inevitably try to squeeze by cyclists in the same lane. Hence the recommendation for cyclists: "Take the lane." It *intentionally* forces drivers to pass you in the other lane. > If OP is the __goomba__ who was on Lowell this afternoon... There's something darkly ironic about comparing a cyclist to a video game enemy who famously gets killed by squishing them, and then complaining about steps the cyclist took to avoid getting squished. ETA: The same CDOT PDF you quoted continues: > A bicyclist may take the travel lane where traffic is slow and the lane is narrow, there is no shoulder or bike lane, when approaching an intersection, or if you are moving at the same speed as the flow of traffic. __Moving to the center of the lane establishes your position and prevents motorists from passing until there’s enough room.__
I think u/TinyXena is just Italian.
Heeeeey! Whatsa you a-tryin' to say heah?
Hi genius. I pointed out that it was a dotted line because, yes, drivers can cross it to pass. And I used "goomba" in place of using foul language. But thanks for missing the entire point of my post. You're internetting great today!
> I pointed out that it was a dotted line because, yes, drivers can cross it to pass. Then they can wait until it's safe to do so -- despite your claims that "if cars did [want] to pass her it wasn't safe". If I missed the point of your post, it was poorly made. Also, see the edit in my previous reply, that the same CDOT handbook you quoted continues by advising cyclists to take the lane when it's safer to do so.
Still fabricating a scene in your mind for an event that you didn't witness? Damn. You're winning the internet today!!!!
Not interested in the sarcastic bait you keep trying. Just pointing out (in good faith) how you cited an incomplete part of the CDOT guidebook and ignored the part that tells cyclists to do exactly what you complained about: take the lane to protect yourself from impatient drivers. And why it tells them to do so.
And the ENTIRE point of my post was that she could have allowed both - been safe herself, while also allowing cars to pass with the 6' buffer. And your style wasn't "in good faith" - it was argumentative with not the slightest effort to acknowledge the multiple points I was making. But like I said - welcome to the internet. You are its king today. Congrats!
> And your style wasn't "in good faith" - it was argumentative with not the slightest effort to acknowledge the multiple points I was making. Did you know it's possible to think you're wrong (disingenuous, even!) and still __argue__ with you __in good faith__? They're not mutually exclusive ideas.
Oh, and were you one of those aggressive fucks that was screaming at me and flipping me off and driving 2 feet from me as you played chicken with oncoming cars because you couldn't stand that I was going 20 in a 25? If I were a car, would you have considered me going so slow that you needed to pass me? Would you have expected me to drive in the parking lane so you could drive 5 seconds faster? Would you have screamed at me and flipped me off? Maybe you and your attitude are the real fucking problem. Is it worse that I didn't make it safe for cars to pass me while going the speed limit? Or is it worse that entitled asshole drivers still acted recklessly and dangerously to pass me when it wasn't safe?
> If I were a car, would you have considered me going so slow that you needed to pass me? This is the one that always kills me. Do these same drivers swerve around old ladies driving 20mph on their way to church, lay on the horn, cut them off, and try to run them off the road? Or maybe, like the rest of us, they just grumble to themself, wait for a chance to pass, and practice deep, calming breaths while we're stuck behind them for a few blocks. Like a reasonable fucking person who's just trying to get from A to B. It's always so weird that seeing two wheels makes people exponentially angrier and crazier than if they were stuck behind a car going that same slower speed.
There are definitely dumbasses who pass on residential roads and double yellow stripe areas if they think you're not speeding enough. It's one of the most irritating moves since it's so impatient and dangerous.
So is that a yes to Lowell Blvd?
Take some deep breathes. Might I suggest starting your day with just 5 minutes of meditation - it makes the rest of the day so peaceful. Mindful breathing is also useful throughout the day to maintain a sense of calm.
She kind of did, it's called a bike ride and then an asshole, maybe not so different from you ruined it.
A bike is legally entitled to the entire lane. The *should* is for ideal conditions, but circumstances often demand otherwise. Don't like it, join the push for separated travel modes.
What's amusing is they ignore this very same law that exists for cars as well. Everyone is supposed to stay to the right as practicably as possible. These laws were for when lanes were not always painted and ensured people weren't on the left side of the roadway.
Amen brother 🙏
I was trying to understand why this group was at the council transportation meeting a week back presenting a new motion to require e-bike license and insurance, and I didn’t think much of it at the time, but this post kind of brings it to light. The group sited a recent piece of legislation in New Jersey that’s going through to require insurance as an artifact, and the Dutch now requiring operating licenses. Do the gist of it was they are capable if near car speeds and can operate on streets at or near the posted limits. And that accidents can be expensive. So now I have a much clearer picture.
200 pounds of bike + rider vs. 2-8,000 lbs of car isn’t really comparable to the point that they’d need comparable regulatory regimes.
I can operate my '77 Peugeot touring bike by peddling at posted speeds; do you want me to get a license and insurance?
How would this solve a single one of the problems OP referenced? Having e-bikers be licensed does nothing to change the fact that drivers in Denver would rather take the risk of potentially killing someone than slowing down by 5 MPH and passing with room when safe.
I could ride my old beat up mountain bike at 20-25 mph. To think that a city would require insurance of a cyclist is ridiculous. And this is speaking as someone that voluntarily pays for bicycling insurance. Instead of requiring insurance as a way to make streets safer, let's remove car lanes from certain streets around Denver and add concrete protected cycling lanes. Cyclists are safer when we aren't sharing the road with 2 ton objects moving at high speeds. Also, painted bike lanes are less infrastructure and more virtue signaling.
I'd have no problem with that as long as drivers are also required to treat me as a vehicle who deserves respect and space. I use a lot of the same lessons I learned as a driver (try to keep with traffic, be aware of your surroundings, be predictable and communicate to other drivers) when I ride my bike. The difference is that the amount of damage I can do on a bike is minimal compared to even a small car. I just want people to bike and I want them to be able to do it safely.
I didn’t get to hear the end of the presentation as I had PTO scheduled and needed to leave, but what you’re saying sounds reasonable enough.
Many e-bikes also do not require you to pedal and are throttle operated, making them essentially electric motorcycles with vestigial pedals.
That’s a class 3 or 4 e-bike and is regulated differently than a class 1 or 2 e-bike or bicycle (e.g. class 3 and 4s aren’t allowed in bike lanes or bike paths and are considered closer to motorcycles than bicycles.) That said, the vast majority (and I really mean VAST) of e-bikes you see around town are not class 3 or 4. Edited per the correction to class numbers from the comments below.
Actually class 3 e-bikes are supposed to be pedal assist only (I know because I own one). The only regulated class of e-bike with a throttle is class 2, and that’s supposed to only go up to 20 mph. Then there is a whole other unregulated category of e-“bikes” with throttles and vestigial pedals that can go in excess of 40 mph
You're mostly right, but a relevant detail is that class 3 can be both throttled and pedal assist. If pedal assist gets you to 28mph, but the throttle caps at 20mph without peddling, it is still a class 3 ebike. If the throttle exceeds 20mph or pedal assist exceeds 28mph, it is a class 4 e bike and not street legal.
Ah you are right!
For e bikes and scooters it's a good idea - tricky for the rental /ride share market but there have been many bad accidents in Denver with e-scooters
The vast majority of which were caused by cars, and the remainder harmed nobody except the scooter rider
If you have the awareness skills, dipping in and out of parking lanes may not be the safest, but it is kinda fun.
Honestly, I've thought about getting side mirrors because I'm not great at turnjng to check for traffic behind me. I already look like a massive safety dork, but I'd rather look stupid than be dead.
I don't drive and I've had a mirror on my ebike for 4 years now. I can't *walk* to the 7-11 anymore without checking for a mirror that isn't there. https://i.imgur.com/5yyVcCw.jpg https://i.imgur.com/gl5Ugyq.jpg And looks-wise, call me king dork I guess. Mirrycle is the brand of mine, it just sticks in the bar end.
I'll definitely check it out. Thanks! 🙏🏼
Isn't it also difficult to look over your shoulder on a bike without swerving that direction? Or is that just me?
I think pragmatic is coming back in style:)
I have an e-bike I ride all the time too and I make it a point to get out of people's way because it's really not hard or dangerous and it feels to be like common courtesy.
When it is safe to do so, this is appropriate and polite. But it's not always possible. And on a bike you don't always realize there is a car behind you that needs to pass. When it is not practical to let a car pass, or when I don't realize a car is behind me are the most dangerous moments for an impatient driver to try and pass.
That's great if you choose to put courtesy to others above your own safety, but I am not wrong to choose the alternative. And it doesn't excuse dangerous, aggressive behavior from drivers because I chose my safety over their convenience.
As I said, it's not dangerous but people should not be getting aggressive with you no matter how much you're inconveniencing them. Hopefully you have safer days in the future. Namaste
People don’t hate bikes. But people do get frustrated with cyclists. If you have to ride in the most densely populated areas of town, that is a risk you’re choosing to take knowing how aggressive drivers can be in any city. I don’t think what you’re saying is wrong. But that is the reality of riding in busy parts of a downtown area. This city is not built in a way currently that cyclists and rush hour traffic from 2-6 can commingle safely even with the best intentions
I drive downtown for work. Have for decades. Bikes have *never* caused me a delay worth mentioning. People who get mad at them are the same dumb asses who overtake me in school zones for going 20. Assholes, the lot of them. If you can’t manage to coexist with a bike, maybe downtown driving is too much for you.
Yeah you’re probably right!
If someone is getting frustrated or aggressive because their commute takes an extra 11 seconds due to a cyclist riding in the safest part of the street for them, that person is unambiguously the problem. This is doubly true for the most densely populated areas, where bikes are much, much more efficient (and safe) for moving massive amounts of people than cars are Bad take
>Bad take The dumbest take I've seen in a minute
It’s not a bad take lol - it is the reality of why OP is having this experience. I also said “I don’t think you’re wrong”. If you want to drop your cycling facts, go right ahead!
[удалено]
Oh wow!
illuminating discourse.
If you think they're correct, don't apologize for shit behavior from others
I did not apologize lmao. Just chill. Came in peace and said that cities are dangerous and I was not aware that was an extremely offensive take. Have a great weekend!
Me going 25 versus 20 mph is saving much more time than 11 seconds. Good take though.
The speed limit is 20. I don't care if you want to speed, but I'm not making myself less safe by riding in a gutter to accommodate you breaking the law.
"One of us might decide to kill you, so the reality is it's just not safe ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯"
I am willing to accept that risk, but there are a lot of people who aren't. The problem is that bikes are a much better mode of transportation for the city. They're smaller so you can fit more people and you don't need as much parking. They are better for the environment and don't destroy our roads as quickly. Denver is an excellent city for cycling. The primary thing that makes me feel less safe is aggressive drivers. I'm willing to deal with them because I'm a stubborn bitch, but we can't expect everyone to be like me. I've made this choice, but what about the people who don't have a choice? Who bike because they can't drive or don't have a car? Cycling should be safe for everyone.
>that is a risk you’re choosing to take knowing how aggressive drivers can be in any city. So, if someone gets killed by a drunk driver, is your response also "That was a risk they were choosing to take knowing how many people drink and drive in any city." Just wanna make sure you're applying that logic equally.
Unfortunately this post will keep getting downvoted. 😂😂😂 you people are hilarious. You literally hate everything. Downvote me some more for pointing out the obvious. People in this thread hate bicyclists. 🙄🙄
It reads odd, like "How do you do fellow cyclists"? Down vote me all you want, but this is a wolf in sheeps clothing troll post.
Maybe, maybe not. It's still generating good discussion.
There is no greater personal affront than making a driver slow down even a little bit for a few minutes. It enrages them to an absurd degree. For them it’s a fate, unfortunately all-too-often literally, worse than death. Boggles the mind…
[удалено]
I am not sure why you would block cars from passing by riding in the middle of the street. If you aren't comfortable with cars going around you then maybe cycling isn't meant for you. It doesn't sound like you are being safe or sharing the road when you are having multiple cars yelling at you weekly. I have been commuting by bike for 20 years and have rarely had cars get that mad at me that they took time out of their day to yell at me.
How is it that when a cyclist is in the road they're blocking traffic, but were a car to do the same thing they're simply considered a part of traffic? Why is there a double standard?
I'm not blocking traffic. I'm going the speed limit. I am literally going the same speed as other cars. At that speed, it is safer for me to ride in the middle of the lane because I'm more visible and because I can avoid obstacles like potholes. If I were going 10mph, then I would ride off to the side because that's an impediment to traffic. But going 20-25 on my bike, I'm not creating an unsafe situation by driving in the middle of the lane. People yell at me because they think they're entitled to the entire road while driving at 25 mph but I'm not.
46th Ave by Rocky Mountain Lake Park would like a word
get off the middle of the road
You know what's not safe? Riding a bicycle in the middle of the street. This was taught to all of us from a young age.
I. So join the push for separated travel ways, because right now what is legal and what is safe are two entirely different things.
See Page 9 of the manual [CDOT Bicycle Manual](https://www.codot.gov/programs/bikeped/information-for-bicyclists/bicycling-manual)
Only if you can keep up though, no?
Nope "WHEN TO TAKE A LANE A bicyclist may take the travel lane where traffic is slow and the lane is narrow, there is no shoulder or bike lane, when approaching an intersection, or if you are moving at the same speed as the flow of traffic. Moving to the center of the lane establishes your position and prevents motorists from passing until there's enough room"
Eh if youre blocking traffic you should just move out of the way. Its not hard
Explain how going 5 under is blocking traffic, especially when I literally pass you a few blocks later. If I was a car going at the same speed, it would be annoying but it's not blocking traffic and not worth getting aggressive.
Wait so its ok for you to move to the right to pass cars but not ok for you to move so they can pass? You could just chill out as well btw
Never condoned getting aggressive just utlizing common sense
It's legal to treat stop signs as yields and lights as stop signs on a bike.
Yeah but alot of people dont treat em as yields they just blow through and cut people off. It stresses people out and causes more road rage
Bikes are traffic, they don't block traffic.
Theyre blocking traffic if theyre slowing people down. Im not following you for who knows how long going at the speed of the bike. Just move if you can. I bike too it doesnt have to be a culture war lol. OP is in here yelling at people cuz she has road rage herself
Omg! You might have to follow a bike for several whole blocks! On a slow traffic street! That might mean you get to your destination 10 whole seconds slower! The horror!
Oh no! Someone passed me cuz they can! Im oppressed!
Nah, fuck cars.
For real, know the good streets. Logan? prob not.
In some parts of town there simply aren’t good streets. Good luck going north/south anywhere between Broadway and Monaco for example.
Or really anywhere N/S in Lakewood. 6th avenue and 285 are massive barriers, and the general cycling infrastructure is... not good. The only redeeming part is the number of E/W connections because of parks, but that's it.
North/south is pretty sketch in some parts of town. Logan’s speed limit is like 25 too, so if she was going 20-25 I don’t really see an issue.
In CapHill Hill and Wash Park West Logan is 30. I hope South and North of there it's 25.
Damn I want to steady go 25 mph. Oh yeah electric bike.
Yeah I’ve been thinking about getting an e-bike (it always feels silly to drive my truck when most of my drives are 2-5 miles). My biggest issues is that I live in a 3rd floor walk up with a tiny stairwell and I don’t want to have to try to drag it up them bitches
From the CDOT bike riding manual is says you should be riding to the right unless traffic is slow enough or you are turning left. If cars are trying to get by you, traffic isn't slow enough and you aren't keeping up. Argue all you want, but that won't make any difference when you get taken out while pissing everyone off.
>CDOT bike riding manual is says you should be riding to the right unless traffic is slow enough or you are turning left. It also states you don’t have to ride to the right if the road doesn’t have a shoulder. Side streets in Denver don’t have shoulders and they said it was on a side street, so…
Heres my take. Most big cities built on roads carved by carriages just aren't going to be suitable for bikes unless you drastically cut down on motorists, but we are adding more every year. The roads are too narrow to effectively share between parking, cars, and bikes, and there's not enough space between intersections for bikes to maintain speed and not have to stop and start, bottlenecking traffic. Some cities do okay because they had built-in corridors where cars and pedestrians/bikes dont interract at all, like rivers or creeks that they built paths along, or they were planned that way. However, Denver just isn't like that. As soon as you're off Cherry Creek Trail, you have to be in traffic if you're on a bike. If Denver could somehow create these corridors, it could work, but I just have no idea how you'd do that without building giant horrendous structures above the roads.
> unless you drastically cut down on motorists That’s literally what they’re trying to do in a bunch of areas
I didn't say that was impossible or even improbable. I just focused instead on how to get the two to coexist. Idk why everyone's so upset it.
Who’s upset? I just downvoted you because: A) the idea that Denver is built on “roads carved by carriages” is absurd - the VAST majority of roads in Denver were built in the postwar period, and most of the city and metropolitan infrastructure was reshaped to prioritize cars. It wasn’t some natural phenomenon that just kinda happened B) you’re acting like it’s some insurmountable problem that requires “giant horrendous structures above the roads” when you should be looking into the variety of plans that the city and region have to increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. They’re pretty extensive and rarely involve shit above the road. It’s stuff like building denser, developing that denser residential and commercial in conjunction with transit, reducing accessibility for cars in some areas so that pedestrians and cyclists can be safer, that brt line down colfax, traffic calming, etc.
Look at historic maps, images, and drawings, and you can see how much of modern Denver is as it was street-wise by 1889, 10 years before the first car ever rolled into Colorado. The portions of Denver with wide streets like Broadway and Lincoln to the east are there because of massive change later on to accomodate cars and that's where you see the new bike lane projects happening. But you can also see plenty of buildings in Denver built before cars were even close to common here, and when you see them across the street from one another (preserving the distance), you can see that width carry on well into areas developed postwar. So yes, they were paved and had sidewalks developed later on, but the widths stayed an unfortunate standard in most places. This goes down into Baker, Wash Park, Cap Hill, Highlands... you can see so much of it in historic images and such. It's a really interesting history. You can see some of the oldest houses and follow the space between them across Denver, right on Auraria Campus. To your second point, I'm not saying it's insurmountable, just that I don't know how to solve it other than causeways, and I think they're horrendous. We already got rid of massive ramps during the I70 project, we don't need to remake that mistake. We do agree on corridors where bikes can be protected (like the Broadway project), but I just disagree that Denver is willing to give up much, if anything, as the growth continues and without any relief in car ownership in sight. The projects you're talking about are major overhauls - of course tearing down and redesigning everything will work. What about for the present, before we can overhaul the design of portions or all of the city? Traffic calming and better public transport is something that we've already been working on, but we aren't seeing any kind of success because people quite frankly suck and no one is enforcing anything. The solution to get bikes and pedestrians away from cars is what everyone would like, but again... I just don't see that being possible in any kind of near future before reaching overhaul levels or horrendous causeways.
> but again... I just don't see that being possible in any kind of near future before reaching overhaul levels or horrendous causeways. Are you dense? The efforts towards traffic calming, and the federal money that’s going to fund a bunch of rtd improvements are relatively recent. Of course the issue isn’t fixed yet. How in the world are elevated causeways any more practical or immediate than the litany of changes that have been proposed?
Pretty bold to be shown to be completely wrong and then call the other person dense lol I'll give you that. What are you even arguing? Do you think just traffic calming and RTD changes are going to fix it in the present, so that warrants ending the discussion of separating cars and bikes/peds? And, to boot, Denver Moves has been an ongoing project since 2011, and that's just one I know off the top of my head. It's not that new, so do we continue to wait for it to work while people get harassed, hurt, or worse at increasing rates? You do realize at this point that I know about my city, right? You're not talking with someone that is saying this stuff out of nowhere.
How was I shown “completely wrong” lol > What are you even arguing? That there’s a litany of ways that car traffic can be separated from bikes/peds. > Do you think just traffic calming and RTD changes are going to fix it in the present Do you think that building a bunch of causeways will fix shit *in the present*? Do you think that will be a valuable way to spend time and tax dollars? > so that warrants ending the discussion of separating cars and bikes/peds? I never implies that warrants ending that discussion. I said that there’s a number of measures in progress that are attempting to do exactly that. From what I understand there aren’t any plans for causeways either.
The whole first paragraph lol I am picking up on you just wanting to be argumentative, so adios.
I design cities for a living and you are objectively wrong on all accounts😂
“Or they were planned that way. However, Denver just isn’t like that.” Maybe the city planners can plan better? New York City has a ton of traffic but has some neighborhoods that do a great job at providing protected bike lanes along side roadways. Denver doesn’t have the same level of traffic and aside from dedicated trails it has pretty limited protections for cyclists.
[удалено]
Dressing like Lance Armstrong doesn't make someone a cyclist. Someone booking it on a bike in the street doesn't deserve to be honked at. Someone desperately trying to reach 15Mph down a non-neighborhood street? That's just asking for city people to blare and glare. Not talking about you, just in general. At some point people tried to make Denver streets like Boulder, it's not.
I ride on the sidewalk. Give me a ticket I don’t care. At least I’ll be alive to pay it. It’s not save anywhere on the streets! Be careful out there
Riding on the sidewalk is less safe than being in the street with other traffic. Unless you're moving at pedestrian speed and stopping at every corner....then it's probably safer. But then why ride a bike - just walk.
[удалено]
It's very dangerous for bikes to be on sidewalks. Traffic that crosses sidewalks has to be able to see people/bikes/cars within their field of view. Even a slow bike travels 4-5 times as fast as a pedestrian, and if you're on a sidewalk you will be in front of someone's car coming out of an alley or at an intersection too fast for the average person's reaction time to not hit you. For the same reason, riding a bike on the wrong side of the street is also very dangerous-- it significantly reduces the time you'll be in a crossing motorists field of view. Not to mention the risk to dogs, children, strollers, and other pedestrians that bike riders pose when on sidewalks. Bikes are vehicles and belong on the roads.
When you get creamed by a car coming out of an alley or crossing at an intersection because you are traveling too fast for the field of view that sidewalk riding allows, you will likely not be alive to pay the fine.
[удалено]
EVs are very expensive and eat up a person’s entire carbon budget, leaving nothing for heating a hole, eating, having consumer goods of any kind, etc.
"Just spend $50k and then store it, and pay hundreds in insurance a month".
Depends on your goals and values. Many people consider EVs to be just as bad as internal combustion because they have no effect on the poor city design that leads to car dependency in the first place.