Freeways...
There’s been some discussion on several e-lists about riding on freeway shoulders. In some areas it’s legal. In others it’s not. And just recently here in Tulsa, Paul Tay was convicted of impeding traffic on a local freeway by riding his bike along it. I won’t go into the minutiae of the discussions, because in my opinion, they’ve devolved into a gnat-swatting contest.
In Oklahoma, the only roads that specifically prohibit bicycle travel are the turnpikes. But despite the legal aspect, is riding along a high-speed limited access roadway a good idea?
Some places in the west, the only road connecting two points may be an interstate highway. That’s one reason that cyclists use such roads. And quite honestly, I’ve ridden sections of limited access roads around the Tulsa area too, though it’s not part of my usual riding.
As a rule, I don’t like traveling alongside high-speed traffic. It’s very noisy and stressful. Some local motorists regard a broad, paved shoulder as merely another passing lane, for one thing. And another annoyance is the extensive collection of debris that accumulates. There’s no need to run a street sweeper along those shoulders because no one is expected to use them. Street sweeper sightings are rare enough around here anyway. So there’s an amazingly varied linear trash heap that requires constant vigilance on my part and a bit of quick maneuvering. And it’s that maneuvering that makes me nervous around overtaking traffic.
On the other hand, riding along a freeway is another form of one-man-Critical-Mass. Motorists slow down to gawk. “Lookit, Marge! A guy ridin’ a bah-sickle on the hah-way!” When one or two motorists slow down, others are forced to slow too. The chain reaction spreads back along the road and can last for quite a while, sometimes long after the cyclist is gone.
Street theater aside, there are a couple of dangerous points about riding along freeways. First, crossing on and off ramps is difficult and dangerous. Motorists are not expecting a cyclist in the lane or crossing the lane. They have little reaction time and that’s made worse when traffic is heavy. Also, many bridges have no shoulder, forcing cyclists to ride in the travel lane. When there’s a minimum speed limit, those cyclists are obviously in violation.
While I believe it’s necessary for cyclists to use the shoulder of limited access roads and the practice should continue to be legal, I don’t recommend riding there. It’s just not much fun, but I recognize that we sometimes have to get from point A to point B and the freeway is the only choice.
But what about a popular trail that runs parallel to a heavily-traveled road? Should cyclists be legally obligated to use the trail? Tulsa’s Riverside Drive is parallel to the hugely popular River Park Trail. Until a few years ago, a mandatory side path law required cyclists to use the trail instead of the road. Arguing against the law and advocating that fast cyclists use the road was not a popular idea, even among area cyclists.
The limitations of the trail become apparent on a nice weekend, when runners, skaters, joggers, pedestrians, cyclists, and dogs share a narrow strip of pavement. For fast road cyclists, Riverside Drive is much more appealing. Even a pudgy guy like me can ride at 20 to 25 mph with a tailwind, and there’s always some wind here. That’s excessive speed when mixed in with pedestrians. If I recall right, the crash rate for riding side paths is about 3 times that of riding on the road.
Still, there are some motorists and even law enforcement officers who are unaware of the change. And realistically, most of them wouldn’t care anyway. They simply want us off ‘their’ roads.
Give this some thought on your next ride. What roads do you like, and why do you like them? And what roads do you avoid?
One of my goals in writing CycleDog has been to attract new people to cycling, particularly cycling for transportation. I know there are people who’d try it, if only….fill in the blank. One big obstacle is the fear of traffic, so I may be writing more about this in the next few days. Or I might be writing comedy. It depends on how much coffee I manage to gulp down!
In Oklahoma, the only roads that specifically prohibit bicycle travel are the turnpikes. But despite the legal aspect, is riding along a high-speed limited access roadway a good idea?
Some places in the west, the only road connecting two points may be an interstate highway. That’s one reason that cyclists use such roads. And quite honestly, I’ve ridden sections of limited access roads around the Tulsa area too, though it’s not part of my usual riding.
As a rule, I don’t like traveling alongside high-speed traffic. It’s very noisy and stressful. Some local motorists regard a broad, paved shoulder as merely another passing lane, for one thing. And another annoyance is the extensive collection of debris that accumulates. There’s no need to run a street sweeper along those shoulders because no one is expected to use them. Street sweeper sightings are rare enough around here anyway. So there’s an amazingly varied linear trash heap that requires constant vigilance on my part and a bit of quick maneuvering. And it’s that maneuvering that makes me nervous around overtaking traffic.
On the other hand, riding along a freeway is another form of one-man-Critical-Mass. Motorists slow down to gawk. “Lookit, Marge! A guy ridin’ a bah-sickle on the hah-way!” When one or two motorists slow down, others are forced to slow too. The chain reaction spreads back along the road and can last for quite a while, sometimes long after the cyclist is gone.
Street theater aside, there are a couple of dangerous points about riding along freeways. First, crossing on and off ramps is difficult and dangerous. Motorists are not expecting a cyclist in the lane or crossing the lane. They have little reaction time and that’s made worse when traffic is heavy. Also, many bridges have no shoulder, forcing cyclists to ride in the travel lane. When there’s a minimum speed limit, those cyclists are obviously in violation.
While I believe it’s necessary for cyclists to use the shoulder of limited access roads and the practice should continue to be legal, I don’t recommend riding there. It’s just not much fun, but I recognize that we sometimes have to get from point A to point B and the freeway is the only choice.
But what about a popular trail that runs parallel to a heavily-traveled road? Should cyclists be legally obligated to use the trail? Tulsa’s Riverside Drive is parallel to the hugely popular River Park Trail. Until a few years ago, a mandatory side path law required cyclists to use the trail instead of the road. Arguing against the law and advocating that fast cyclists use the road was not a popular idea, even among area cyclists.
The limitations of the trail become apparent on a nice weekend, when runners, skaters, joggers, pedestrians, cyclists, and dogs share a narrow strip of pavement. For fast road cyclists, Riverside Drive is much more appealing. Even a pudgy guy like me can ride at 20 to 25 mph with a tailwind, and there’s always some wind here. That’s excessive speed when mixed in with pedestrians. If I recall right, the crash rate for riding side paths is about 3 times that of riding on the road.
Still, there are some motorists and even law enforcement officers who are unaware of the change. And realistically, most of them wouldn’t care anyway. They simply want us off ‘their’ roads.
Give this some thought on your next ride. What roads do you like, and why do you like them? And what roads do you avoid?
One of my goals in writing CycleDog has been to attract new people to cycling, particularly cycling for transportation. I know there are people who’d try it, if only….fill in the blank. One big obstacle is the fear of traffic, so I may be writing more about this in the next few days. Or I might be writing comedy. It depends on how much coffee I manage to gulp down!
posted by Ed W at 7:28 PM
1 Comments:
Mmm, I need some coffee.
I'm not sure I get Dan Chang's point or the dogma he thinks Ed is promoting.
Post a Comment
<< Home