The two most dangerous animals in Orange County are Deer and Cyclists!

  We reduce Deer Populations during the hunting season but there seems no solution for the Cyclist….there’s no declared season on bike riders.....we’re lost!   Just yesterday, I watched 50-100 cyclist riding north on US 15-501.   I thought I had stumbled on Tour De Orange, but I couldn’t help but wonder about the riders lack of common sense.   Now,... I’m not trying to be mean, but when these riders dash onto the roads with no protection from passing vehicles other than a pretty little helmet they must have a death wish!   Driving from bright sunshine into shady areas of country roads you can’t see while your eyes adjust to the shade!   If a driver encounters a deer, cow, or cyclist in such a condition, we just might drive into a dreadful accident or frighten ourselves into a heart attack! We could prevent many accidents if we sprayed deer with “safety yellow” paint.   The problem is...who supplies the paint and who’s going  to hold the deer while we apply the paint?   We’ve  got a much better chance with the cyclist!   Of course, I don’t think these riders would appreciate our actions when we hogtie the riders and apply yellow safety paint to them and their fancy bicycles.   I guess it’s a matter of rights and responsibilities……..our rights and their responsibility’s!   The North Carolina General Statutes require us to be respectful of cyclists but is there not an equal responsibility for the cyclist to respect other drivers and their own safety?   Before cyclists ride onto our roads wouldn't it be nice if they adorned their body with bright safety yellow shirts, mount a safety yellow flag on the end of a 6’ pole, and anything else they could do to ensure that we, the operators of motor vehicles have some chance of avoiding encounters of the “worst kind”.   Now before someone says they can’t find a yellow shirt, they might contact NC-DOT, or the Department of Corrections and buy one of theirs.   As a last resort, hide in the bushes and steal one from a highway repair crew!These young riders know more than anyone else about safety but our elected officials and overworked insurance agencies need to step into the breech and bring some semblance of order to chaos!   Consider…..the price of good bicycle ranges from $100 to $12,000.   Upwardly mobile cyclist who use their bikes as a status symbol sally forth on bikes with price tags greater than an average F-150 pickup.   If you doubt these prices I invite you to walk into any of the local bike shops in Chapel Hill and prepare to be shocked!   As this is the case,  why don’t our elected officials require that these riders make use of safety yellow jackets, flags, etc.; why not list bicycles for property taxes; why not require all riders to maintain liability insurance specifically for cyclists; why not require riders to be tested and carry bicycle license;  Our leaders accomplish two goals.   They will increase revenue for the county and municipalities and they’ve taken steps to decrease the danger of the driving public from the cyclists!  


You must be new to this site to post that.  You are going to get absolutely whacked by people in response.  I generally agree with you though. Here is going to be the general response.  "Bicyclists have the legal right to the entire lane at all times."  And they do, even though it is extremely dangerous for them to exercise that right. So there is a "right" that exists but most people don't know it because (1) people assume something so dangerous wouldn't be a right and (2) most bikers value their lives enough to not exercise the right.  If something looks illegal and if most people don't do it then you naturally assume it's illegal.The problem as I see it is that too many people around here, especially on this board, worry about bikers being legally in the right in as many circumstances as possible and not enough worry about actually making it safe for both bikers and drivers to travel where they want to travel.  The former just creates emnity and makes conditions less safe for bikers, which ultimately discourages biking.  The latter would make things safer for everyone and consequently encourage more biking.
Your remarks are dead on!   It's almonst a study in human nature.   How many will raise their hackles over their rights and how many will recognize a rather funny approach to safety issues only?

I live in northern alamance but the orange line runs through our property, I so AGREE about the dangers of bikes.  Just a few weeks ago there was an event for cyclist and were I live there are only winding roads with very limited views and narrow country roads, I continued to run up on bikers in a 55 mph zone 2 and 3 wide, coming out of curves!  I know they have the "right of way" or something like that but they need to think of their safety and ours. 

I can't count the times I had to slam on breaks over a 6-7 mile stretch.  Just when I would think I was past all the bikers, a 1/2 mile up the road coming out of another curve where I could not see there were 2 more, riding side by side at that.  I do not know the legalities on the issue but common sense to me should prevail and tell them to at least ride as close to the edge of the road as possible, especially when they know they have just passed through an area with poor visibility. 

 Even my 8 year old commented "Mommy, isn't that dangerous? Someone is going to hit them"   At one point because they were riding side by side (again, is it legal to ride that way?) there were close to 20 cars backed up behind them, which in my neck of the woods is considered a major traffic jam and again, you can't go around them when they are riding 2 and 3 wide because there are few passing zones due to all the curves.

Not one of them had the manners or common sense to get in a single straight line as we are taught since grade school to allow traffic to continue on its way. - Brandy G

 I'm unable to understand why, when you have obviously observed that there are a large number of bicyclists on the road, you would continue to need to "slam on your brakes".  I find it interesting and scary that your child was more concerned for the cyclists well being than you, the adult, were.  A prudent person would slow down to adapt to conditions.

Mr. Grinch, give us your name and I'll reply to you.  It won't be an attack.   It'll be a well-thought through reply based on about 35 years of daily cycling in Chapel Hill.


This same message was emailed to all members of the Chapel Hill Town Council on Sunday .

Sender was shown as "J.P. Lloyd."

Apologies if this is a duplicate post, but am having trouble telling if posts are arriving to the blog.  

Ed Harrison

If you look at Mr. Grinch's profile, you'll see that he (?) does claim to be JP Lloyd. And also claims to be registered to vote in White Cross, ie: not Chapel Hill (or Carrboro).

I recommend not feeding the trolls.

Ms. Sinreich,

So if you don't live in Chapel Hill or Carrboro then your opinion means less???

 Mr. Grinch makes a good point it is not uncommon to see large groups of cyclists riding outside of town(s). When the cyclists start buying tags for there bike then they will have as much rights to the roads as those of us who pay taxes everytime we pay at the pump or DMV to build the roads.

I thought a Chapel Hill elected official (such as Ed) might like to know whether they are hearing from a constituent or a neighbor. We all get to make up our own minds about who we listen to and when.

I'm going to personally try not to reply to any more comments on this ridiculous thread so as to hasten what I hope will be a quiet death of these auto-centric ideas.

Ms. Sinreich, I was unaware that you were Ed's mouthpiece or any other Chapel Hill elected officials. Ed and other elected officials do a fine job speaking for themselves.

"When the cyclists start buying tags for there bike then they will have as much rights to the roads as those of us who pay taxes everytime we pay at the pump or DMV to build the roads."


The State of NC says that the cyclists have just as much right to the road as the motor vehicles, even if they aren't paying road taxes. If you think this is wrong then you should ask your legislators to change the law. You may not agree with it but cyclists DO, by law, have the right to be there and car drivers should abide by the law and give them that right in a safe and respectful manner.

Take the money from cyclist tags and build bike paths or add bike lanes on roads. When bike lanes are added that is coming out of the road taxes that cyclist do not add a penny too. Maybe we can add an education program for cyclists for them to understand that the traffic laws do apply to them as well. There  may be fewer bikes on the road vs. cars but the cyclist run far more stop signs and lights than motorist as a percentage, at least from my experience.


 - My tax money goes to all sorts of things that I don't use. Schools being the biggest one that comes to mind. That's the way the government works. You don't get to pick and choose just the ones you feel are worthy.

 - Second, the majority of my income is spent with companies who do pay gas taxes. 

Regardless, it's a moot point. I can legally ride on the road and I choose to do so. If someone passes some sort of bicycle tax I will consider paying it. If they choose to simply stop building new roads... well I would be thrilled about that as well.


The  breaking the law comments... well, those are just false arguments and we both know it. Just come out and say what you mean... bicycles annoy you and you wish they would go away. But maybe you really are concerned with motor vehicle violations... and maybe you really haven't noticed that virtually every motorist on I-40 is exceeding the speed limit, or that the vast majority of them roll through any random residential stop sign you choose to watch.

If you can come up with an accurate way of measuring it, I will match any wager you choose to place on who breaks more laws.

Again though, you don't really care about the law... red lights and packs of riders are just the two complaints people use to avoid what they're really thinking. That's good for me though... I don't ride two abreast, and don't run red lights. I also own a car that I pay taxes on. I guess you're fine with me right?  


Your comment about cyclists not adding a penny towards taxes that are used to make roads/bike lanes assumes that all cyclists do not pay road taxes. From this we can only assume that you mean to imply that all cyclists do not drive cars at any time either. Surely you are not suggesting this. If you were, your comment would be in error and only shows your excessive ignorance.

 Secondly, if you check the DOT website, it clearly states that cyclists have a right to use the road like everyone else. Most seasoned riders have the experience to ride safely amongst the cars and the drivers who do not think (incorrectly) that a cyclist has the "right" to be on the road. Your responsibility as a driver is to drive safely, looking out for all obstacles whether that is a bicyclist, a ball, a deer, pedestrians, etc, etc, etc. Instead of driving around in your car doing 10 things at once, perhaps paying more attention to the road is warranted because it's not just cyclists you need to be concerned about. Most seasoned riders know better than to trust any driver and will take measures to ensure their safety by wearing bright colors and avoiding situations that put both cyclist and motorist in danger. Problems arise because people are too preoccupied or are in too much of a hurry and take risks when passing cyclists. As with any other "vehicle", passing in a no-passing zone is against the law, so therefore, motorists should follow the law and only pass in a zone where it has already been deemed safe.  

 As for passing 50-100 cyclists at a time, please note that there are training rides virtually every weekend in the summer that all lead up to a charitable ride in the fall. These rides are always well marked for both cyclist and motorist and there are always caution signs alerting motorists that there is a high volume of cyclists on the road. Please take heed of the signs for everyone's safety. These rides are always approved by the appropriate authorities, so if waiting until you get to a safe zone to pass a group (ie. this would NOT be on a curve...would you pass a car on a curve!?!?), then please find an alternate route. After all, we ALL pay taxes to build multiple roads that go to the same place.

"When the cyclists start buying tags for there bike then they will have as much rights to the roads as those of us who pay taxes everytime we pay at the pump or DMV to build the roads."

Just a clarification: it's a misunderstanding that gas taxes pay for all roads. They were only ever intended to cover the expenses of the state and federal HIGHWAY system. In recent years, due to lobbying, they don't even do that. Local and county roads, which are certainly the majority of roads used by cyclists, come out of the general coffers.

I am familiar with the term internet troll, but I've got to say I'm disappointed that anyone would ignore two important concerns of safety and taxes to claim a submitter to be a Troll?   I plead guilty to the act of sending the same comments to the Carrboro and Chapel Hill leaders and to others as well.   Why?   I personally feel it is an issue that should deserve an intelligent examination by everyone.   As a matter of fact, why haven't you brought the subject up before?   Is it your opinion that cyclist are not a danger both to themselves and to other travellers on our county roads?   I have read and re-read the comments and for the life of me, I can't find what specifically you disagree with and if you disagree why call people names, why not participate in a sensible discourse on the needs to improve bicycle safety?   Such a discourse would seem more fitting for a Progressive Perspective as you proclaim to represent.   

Paint the deer? Overworked insurance agencies? I rather expected the usual criticism of cyclists' brightly coloured lycra, so I was pleasantly amused at the writer's suggestion to force cyclists to wear brighter clothing--an unexpected flip-flop from the fashion-police. He then goes on to describe the dangers of inattentive and irresponsible motorists. There's plenty of this sort of irrational and hypocritical nonsense being voiced these days. Enough to make one wonder from whence it springs. Why would adults abandon all reason to lash out at cyclists, couching their venomous rhetoric in disingenuous concerns about taxes or safety?

Clearly the high, and rapidly rising, monetary, social and environmental costs of petroleum fuels that are forcing uncomfortable changes to lifestyles that we adopted in the 20th century, and expected to continue through our lifetime, are now generating stressful situations with no easy solutions. Increasing population densities are also forcing uncomfortable adjustments as we increasingly need to share space with others. As "the grinch" points out, cyclists are hardly the only reason motor vehicle operators need to operate within the safety limits of their vision and stopping distance--wildlife, pets, farm equipment, mail carriers, fallen tree limbs, pot holes, stalled vehicles, road crews, emergency vehicles, children chasing a football, elderly or disabled neighbors fetching their mail, etc... all present real life obstacles to rural road drag racing. At least the cyclist can be generally expected to be moving in the correct direction and on the correct side of the roadway.

Cyclists don't pay taxes? I suppose it is human nature to attempt to blame a visible and vulnerable minority that appears to have found a partial solution to some of these problems. Many (most?) recreational cyclists do drive motor vehicles carying their bikes to and from rides, as well as to work, shopping, etc.--If there is a fuel tax exemption to which they're entitled as cyclists, I've never heard of it. It's the big, heavy trucks that pay the highest road use taxes (and they are rewarded with the highest restrictions) because those vehicles generate the most wear and tear on the roadways. Bicycles, weighing perhaps twenty pounds (or 10% of their payload), requiring very little roadspace, generating zero air and water pollution, add no measurable maintenance costs to the roads.

Regarding bicycles as an unrealized luxury tax opportunity: While you're browsing those bike shops seeking the most expensive bike offered for sale, take your time. Those high-end luxury models won't be flying off the showroom floor before your eyes. The bulk of those sales (which are taxed by the way) will be for bikes costing less than one payment on the Ford F-150 mentioned in the post. Meanwhile the vast hordes of elite utilitarian cyclists commuting past the storefront will be on older bikes--acquired used for between $200 and free. Any property tax collected on bikes wouldn't cover the administrative costs to asses and collect.

Were I ever to spend $2000 or more on a new bicycle, my buying options for such a luxury model would include many custom hand-crafted bicycles designed and built by independent artisian American craftsmen, some living and working in rural North Carolina. I don't think I have any such option when purchasing that F-150. An enormous amount of money flows forever out of our local economy to buy automobiles. Once upon a time, the bulk of that money flowed in to Detroit and the supporting manufacturing jobs in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois, but I think those days are gone. Feel free to keep buying F-150s though, the greenback may be in decline, but OPEC nations are still glad to take it for what its worth.

On narrow roadways that make safe passing impractical for significant stretches, traffic will necessarily slow, at least temporarily, to the speed of the slowest vehicle. NOBODY enjoys that, least of all the cyclist. Where traffic is light, motorists make up lost time after passing. As our population increases it becomes necessary to widen the outside lane to make it easier for motorists to safely pass cyclists. This makes for an improved environment for motorists.

We do collect taxes on motor fuel. Motor vehicles do contribute the bulk of wear and tear on the roadway. As noted in the original post, motor vehicle operators do create grave dangers on the roadway and a need for extensive emergency medical, fire, law enforcement and traffic control investments. Fortunately we are all more or less free to choose alternative means of transportation. Some economize by bicycling, others by minimizing road trips while others choose to remain unrestrained in their motoring, and fuel consumping, practices. Because the costs of such extravagance is a bit deferred, and rapidly rising, they feel somewhat cheated when payment is due and sometimes lash out at those who appear to be getting a better deal, instead of joining them in a more efficient model of paying for transportation--paying with the sweat of physical labor instead of dollars.

If you are "slamming on the brakes" countless times in a 6-7 mile stretch, you'd do well to stop "slamming on" the gas pedal between such events. Forming a single line makes the line twice as long, and that much moe difficult to pass. Who has been teaching you otherwise?

I recently had the pleasure of conversing in person with a pair of disgruntled motorists who specifically expressed three concerns:
1. Cyclists pass cars on the narrow, slow section of weaver street in front of wsm where there are no bike lane.
2. Cyclists pass stopped cars on cameron street where there is a bike lane.
3. Cyclists run red lights.

Okay, #1 and #3 sound like illegal operation. #2 involves two vehicles in separate lanes. This guy's buddy who opened his truck door into another travel lane was clearly in the wrong when another vehicle hit the door, yet somehow he rationalized that the cyclist was at fault--incredible!
Regarding #1: I tend to queue up within the lane behind other vehicles where the lane is too narrow to share. I imagine that some motorists appreciate that I am assuming responsibility and operating under the same laws they are. But I suspect that other motorists feel that I'm being "extremely dangerous in exercising that right", as some have posted here, and others wish I'd ride in the gutter, creating a secondary lane, flowing at a seperate pace. I guess you just cannot please everybody?
Regarding #3: Listening to some of these motorists, you'd think that cars are screeching to a halt at green lights to avoid cyclists dashing through red lights all over town, but the dearth of splattered bikes at intersections belies the falsehood of this assertion, so why the perception, made all the more startling when one realizes that this is a town where MOTORISTS are so vocally protective of their "right" to run red lights that they forced the town to remove all red light cameras? I stop at red lights and wait for them to turn green, as much as motorists do, but again I'm not sure that all motorists are in agreement that this is correct or courteous behaviour on my part--If I crept up to the light and treated it as a stop sign, yielding to cross traffic and proceeding when clear, I'd avoid delaying cars behind me. Furthermore, traffic lights in North Carolina are controlled by inductive loops which often do not detect bicycles. Last year the GA passed legislation to provide for this circumstance for motorcycles. The House amended to include bicycles, but the tight-lipped Senate sponsor refused to adopt that revision, leaving one to guess why--perhaps it was his intention that cyclists continue to treat traffic lights as stop signs, or as defective, when they fail to detect a cyclist. In any case, as the risk is overwhelmingly the cyclist's, the decision is best left to the cyclist. After all, the one-million dollar per intersection cost of these traffic control devices is primarily driven by the immense danger of motorized traffic.

It would seem that these irate motorists are not being "cut off", just being passed. So its really envy that's getting to them--we all know those cars would be slipping past too if they could fit--just go watch southbound motorists pass on the shoulder squeezing around cars stopped to turn left onto roberson (in front of open eye) all day long.

No need for narrow vehicle envy--Join us! We can set you up with a clean, efficient bicycle for far less than that F-150 gas guzzler and you can get in on the fuel and tax savings too!

On trolling: An incoherent, rambling post, worded such that it would not earn passing marks in grade school and resembling nothing so much as a drunken rant from an anonymous poster, subtitled "This should stir the pot!" pretty much epitomizes trollishness.

"No need for narrow vehicle envy--Join us! We can set you up with a clean, efficient bicycle for far less than that F-150 gas guzzler and you can get in on the fuel and tax savings too!"

Joining you on bikes isn't an option for most people.  Other than a minority, people aren't going to wantt to feel like they're putting their lives in danger just so they can ride a bicycle.  The Lance Armstrongs of the world are in the minority and they're always gonig to be.  If you want to affect change you have to affect the masses rather than symbolicially sticking up your middle finger to them.

 And despite apparent beliefs to the contrary, this isn't a biker friendly area.  Many of those people you see driving cars are donig so because the way this area has developed has given them no other choice.  All that sprawl you see south and east and north belongs to CH/C.  People that work at UNC have to live somwehre.

 Look at it this way, suppose only 10 people lived in all of CH/C and they all biked to work and virtually all of CH/C other than UNC was grass and trees and gardens.  Would that mean CH/C is environmentally friendly?  Or environmentally hostile?  If you said the former then you need to think a little more deeply.

"Joining you on bikes isn't an option for most people."

This excuse is the largest load of crap I have ever heard. What you are actually saying is I have chosen to live my life in such a way as to require a car to get to the grocery store and to work. [although I would argue that literally anyone could bike to the store and work if they chose to] If you have a family and bills that require a six figure income then yes, it could be pretty difficult to adjust so that you can bike to work. I still argue that anyone can cycle to some degree. Even if it is just for grocery shopping once a week. But let's say, for arguments sake, that your current lifestyle does not allow you to climb on a bike AT ALL, EVER. Then there was a time, when you didn't have a mortgage, when you could have found a job a little closer to home so that you could do without a car and you could have commuted to work.

You chose to live and work in two locations that made it easy to say 'I can't'. When your neighbor is able to commute by bike please don't make excuses.  Please simply say 'I don't want to', 'I don't understand why anyone would do that', or 'I am afraid to.'

Dear The_Grinch,

Your article above is very confusingly written. The title claims that Deer and Cyclists are "dangerous animals", yet nowhere in the following text do you describe either one of them causing harm. Instead, you imply that careless, distracted motor vehicle operators will smash into and kill them. Am I the only one who thinks you have it backwards?

Next, you complain that the bicyclists are not sufficiently visible, to the point that you either want to apply reflective paint to them or make them wear bright clothing (and have other reflective equipment). This makes me fear for your eyesight. NC law already requires bicyclists to have reflectors in daylight and lights at night. As Adrian Hands says above, the vast majority of bicyclists wear the brightest, most reflective clothes they can afford when using roads frequented by potentially distracted motor vehicle operators.

You cap off your fulmination by implying that charging cyclists a tax on the cost of their fancy, expensive bicycles will somehow reduce the danger. Do you really think that most cyclists buy bikes that cost anything near the cost of a good used car? If so, I suggest that the next time you're in that bike shop, ask the owner how much the bikes cost that 95% of their customers purchase. There are fancy cars that cost more than a lot of houses, but you won't see a lot of those on the road either.

Disregarding all that, the danger you described is the risk to the cyclists themselves caused by careless motorists. So how does charging the bicyclists fees help make them safer from distracted car drivers? Whether you drive a car or not, you pay for our nation's inefficient transportation system via taxes at every level. Gas taxes underpay for our road and highway infrastructure by more than forty billion dollars per year. The balance has to be made up by state and local taxes.

There is at least some good news. It turns out that bicycling isn't as dangerous as it looks. Over forty five thousand people in this country are killed on our roads and highways every year, and less than a thousand of them are bicyclists. That's no reason to stop being careful though. Now that we've properly identified the cause of the danger, we all need to do everything we can to prevent it.

Scott Chilcote Cary, NC USA

"This makes me fear for your eyesight. NC law already requires bicyclists to have reflectors in daylight and lights at night. As Adrian Hands says above, the vast majority of bicyclists wear the brightest, most reflective clothes they can afford when using roads frequented by potentially distracted motor vehicle operators."

 I don't know what bikers are like in Cary where you live but I challenge you to come to CH and see if the bicyclists use lights at night or wear bright clothes to get the attention of motorists.  I GUARANTEE you that on the whole, they don't.

 I am not kidding.  If you want to come where and meet me and have the two of us go to some spot in town and sit and watch and count what the bikers do, I will do so.  Preferably we can also involve a stop sign or a stoplight in the process so you can also see how many of them ignore those too.

 Actually, if I were king then bikers not obeying stop signs or stoplights in the same way that cars do would be fine.  Cars are a whole different animal and should have different rules than bikes.  If a bunch of cars are stopped at a stoplight then it doesn't make sense for a bike to act exactly like a car and sit there in traffic.  But then again it doesn't make sense for a bike to act like it's a car on a regular road with moving car traffic too.

Does this mean that a bycicle enthusiast is not concerned enough about his safety to even consider wearing a dayglow orange or safety yellow vest or a safety yellow flag on the bicycle?   It boils down to this.....Personally I could care less where you ride.   My concern is your safety and my liability.   If I had to choose between putting myself in the trees or hitting an innocent cycler, the choice would be difficult.   Actually it wouldn't, I not going to kill myself to avoid an accident with a cyclist.   Sorry.   So you ride where you like and how you like.   I too feel you are correct that most motorists are careful and considerate.   Are we playing percentages here?    That's ok as long as you are not the percentage in question.   Why is it so hard to simply put on a vest of safety yellow and a 6' pole with a safety yellow flag?   Why do you even bother to place a safety helmut on your head?   It doesn't make sense to me.   Of course I have met several riders in their 50's and in each case the individuals I have met and commended were wearing safety yellow and even safety flags.   When I asked why they did that, their response was that they hoped it would make them more visible to a motor vehicle traveling 35 mph plus on the roads.   Apparently they recognize that they are not infallible and they do not want to end their life lying in a ditch just because they were to proud/ignorant to ride as safely as possible.

Please reconsider your viewpoint. You wrote "If I had to choose between putting myself in the trees or hitting an innocent cycler, the choice would be difficult.   Actually it wouldn't, I not going to kill myself to avoid an accident with a cyclist.   Sorry." 

So if you make a mistake by over running a cyclist while going down some country lane, then a really good lawyer can show "intent" with the previous statement.

There is going to be an increase of "low speed vehicles" other than cyclist.  Do you want them to have a six foot flag pole? 

I actually like the six foot flag pole idea.  I think I will mount one on my bicycle "sideways!" 

More than half of the cyclists whom I see have a blinking red multi-LED light mounted on the back of their bike. These are quite visible to a motor vehicle driver who discovers a cyclist when rounding a curve. They work better than a vest or flag in shade - those passive reflective surfaces rely on a headlight to cast light and get reflected. A blinking light is powered by battery or generator, and is casting light whenever it's turned on.

I can usually see the blinky light on a bike from my car, or from my bicycle.

I am concerned that you have not seen a number of these blinky lights. I urge you to visit an eye doctor and find out if you need a prescription, or special colored lenses. If you have, for instance, undiagnosed diabetes, that can affect your vision.

Esther Lumsdon

Cary resident

Grinch while I disagree with your entire post I do find it informative to understand the mindset of the motorists passing by me. Maybe to make it safer for the cyclist you could paint your F-150's blaze yellow and adorn them with loud whistles. That would certainly alert the deer and also the cyclists so that they could move into a single file line. As to the other concerns you voiced I feel that AHand did a superb job of responding to those issues.

How many of you have heard of the Highway Trust Fund? That is where our gas taxes and registration fees go to build roadways. I will grant you that the Democatic controlled Generall Assembly annually robs the Highway Trust of millions of dollars for non roadway projects and this is approved by the Governor. Cyclists provide another revenue source, earmark the funds for bike lanes and paths. So many of you have used DOT to point out your right to be on the road, don't you TRUST our State leaders with fees earmark for your direct benefit?

As for where I drive 80% on 2 lane roads, 18% on 4 lane roads and 2% on the interstate roads. I would say 70% of the time I am driving in rural areas. I routinely use my horn to alert cyclists I am approaching and I have deer whistles on our vehicles. I am not sure either works very well.

Don't honk at cyclists, please! It's incredibly jarring and startling and more likely to cause an accident than simply approaching with caution. I used to road bike quite a bit, both in the NC mountains and in Orange County, and I can't recall one time a car passed me that I didn't know was there.

When you're cycling, honks come across and hecklers and harassers.  

What can be really frustrating, as a cyclist, are the cars who seem willing only to go entirely into the other lane and pass, after hemming and hawing and idling right behind you on a flat, empty road for ten minutes.

Of course it's important to give cyclists space, but you don't need to cross all the way to the other side to do this. And honking won't help anyone.  

To respond to what Brandy said: in my experience, cyclists bunch up at two specific times. First, when they are starting a group ride and just getting going. It takes just a little while to spread out. Next, when it's unsafe to pass anyway, cyclists might ride two or three together. It's not always safe to ride right next to the edge of the road, for example if the shoulder is soft or filled with debris.



Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.


Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.