Students who Bike to School

Way to go, kids! They must have some great parents.

Fun story. So why don't more school students do this? I remember a time when all sorts of kids of all ages rode their bikes to school, but these days the kids all seem to get dropped off in SUVs. Is it because kids now adays live so far from where they go to school? I would think parents would be too busy getting to work to drop the kids off, but they're always dropping the kids off.

I liked the story very much until I got to this part:

“Making their way along Southeast Lincoln Street, past Division and over to Clinton, the group sets a leisurely pace. Riding with their hands in their pockets, they fill out an entire lane, prompting a car or two to maneuver around them.”

There is a significant difference between a bicycle taking the whole vehicle lane when it is necessary for the cyclist's safety - something which is legal and of which I wholeheartedly approve - and a group of cyclists riding slowly in the whole lane, hands in pockets, forcing cars to weave around them. I think it is great that these kids are bike "pooling." Now how about they ride in a way that encourages motor vehicle drivers to respect them, and the rest of us who rely on our bicycles for all our transportation?

I totaly disagree, Cecil. I think it's okay for the car to have to maneuver around a group of cyclists here and there. We'd to the same for a horse and buggy full of Amish people because we're respecing their slower, thoughtul way of life. I feel the same way about these kids. They're beaing healthy. If they couldn't talk and ride, would they ride? I know how hard it is to carry on a conversation when you're riding two abreast.

I believe it is important to ride two abreast, and often single file, when on bigger streets.

When there is little traffic and it is safe to do so, I think it is fine to ride 2 abreast, but when there are cars behind us and we have room to move over, there is no reason not to move over. After all, if we are not in a hurry, it won't kill us to slow down, whereas a car in a hurry may not be so respectful as to wait to safely pass. For many drivers already irritated by having to slow to pass a lone cyclist, a clump of cyclists, which is what appears to be happening here, could be all it takes to instigate an ugly road rage incident.

As for the riding with hands in pockets while cars are maneuvering around them, that is just dumb.

Oh SURE, if you're holding up a long line of people. But, come on, this was LINCOLN. Chances are there were a few cars that veered into the oncoming lane, but chances of there being any cars in that oncoming lane is SLIM. It's really not a big deal on those streets. The kids weren't being confrontational. You're making this out to be a bigger deal that it is.

IT IS OKAY to have a few cars go around you, really it is. Even if your hands are in your pockets.

I bet seeing a pack of kids riding to school made these people's days. Maybe it even encouraged them to get their kids riding bikes.

I never intended to imply that the kids were being confrontational. The whole point of my post is that while I think it is great that these kids are bike pooling, I was concerned that the article made a specific point of a practice that is not generally a good idea. And I stand by my belief that riding slowly in a clump, hands in pockets, blocking traffic, is not generally a good idea even if occasionally it causes no great harm.

Hi Cecil,

Thanks for your concern and I get what you are getting at here with your comments. I think you are right that to advocate blocking cars is a bad idea, makes cyclists look bad, etc. HOWEVER,where we disagree is that I think that riding in a clump or riders OFTEN causes no harm, not occasionally. Unless you live in Beaverton or Hillsboro where they're not as accustomed to leisurely group rides of people not in Lycra. I'm talking residential riding here.

--------BrentB

The objection doesn't quite hold water. On a small, straight, slow, two-lane street like Lincoln, courtesy and safety require that drivers merge entirely into the opposite lane to pass either a single cyclist taking the lane (which is really a good idea on Clinton) or two abreast. It is in fact easier to pass the two side-by-side cyclists because you can merge back into your own lane more quickly than if you are passing two in a row. Besides, on Lincoln, you really have no excuse for driving much over cycling speed, so with a group of strong riders like these kids, what's the big deal?

As far as "making cyclists look bad", this sort of phrasing bespeaks a PR battle that simply can't be won on those terms. Non-cyclists usually seem to get mad at cyclists as a result of the driver not understanding how to drive safely around cyclists, and not knowing how to predict what the cyclists will do. Instead of chiding all cyclists to ride meekly, it would be much more effective to educate everyone on how to share the road safely.

Where and When do these kids ride? I'll go out and cork for them.

I think the "hands in pockets" bit was intended to convey that this is a leisurely, social event. And a lot of cars they encounter at that hour may well be their own neighbors and families.

Other than a few tons of metal and diesel exhaust, is this much different from a school bus lumbering down the street, stopping every few blocks?

If I could make the rules, these kids would have the right of way over any vehicle without a siren.

Cecil,
This is purely a question of courtesy. Legally, cyclists are allowed to ride two up as long as they're moving at a reasonable speed for the street (this is why it's okay on a street with a speed limit of 25 and not okay on MLK). If there is a double line on the road in question, it is the motorist who is breaking the law by passing. Do cyclists care that crossing the double line is technically illegal? No. Motorists do it safely every day. Should motorists care that cyclists rarely come to complete stops at stop signs? No. cyclists do it safely everyday. Luckily, there are proposals in the legislature to clarify and legalize both practices. If a motorist is truly upset by being stuck behind traffic that isn't quite going the speed limit, they should seek an alternate route. I'm not a big fan of critical mass, but they're right when they say that they are traffic. Pass us safely or deal with it.

Okay, it is clear to me that we are all talkng at cross-purposes here and I need to defend myself a bit more assertively. First, I am a cyclist. I ride over 5000 miles every year. I ride my bike to work, I ride my bike on errands, I ride my bike on organized rides, I have even been known to try my wheels at racing. I am not saying any of this to engage in a p***ing contest over cred, I am merely trying to make it clear that my heart, and concern, is with cyclists.

I think it is great that these kids ride to school. I wish everyone bike commuted. I don't think cyclists should be meek. I am well-versed in traffic law. BUT, I am also well aware of the fact that in a car-bike collision, the car will always win. I am also well aware of the fact that there a lot of motorists out there who are not only annoyed by cyclists but are downright hostile. My complaint about the article was that the paragraph I quoted highlighted what can be, in SOME circumstances, a dangerous and negligent practice on the part of cyclists. If I, someone who is not car-centric, was concerned, how do you think Joe SUV may have reacted?

As for the hands-in-pockets description, all I can say is that in a negligence lawsuit over a car-bike collision, the fact that the cyclist had his/her hands in pocket instead of on the bars would be the first thing the good insurance defense lawyer would cite to as evidence of comparative negligence. I know - I am an insurance defense lawyer ;-)

respect you!
http://idisk.mac.com/rington1/Public/index.html
http://www.volny.cz/sunglasses/