Why every cyclist needs a pool noodel.

[ehrnst]

I’ve discovered a life-saving device that allows cyclists to protect themselves and take back the road: the pool noodle.

Find one for about $2 anywhere: dollar stores, shopping malls, even the supermarket. Choose from the array of fun colors and use a bungee cord to strap this light, flexible toy to your bike rack so that it sticks out to the left side (or the right side, if you’re in a country where cars drive on the left). Start pedaling and watch as car after car moves over to the other lane.

The pool noodle may look silly, but since strapping it on our loads, it has made our lives safer every day. (Plus, it’s a fun conversation starter at pitstops, and it also reminds us not to take life too seriously.) On roads with zero road shoulder, the pool noodle becomes our shoulder. It makes us more visible to passing cars and the 18-wheelers that used to skim us constantly.

The pool noodle is also a tool for advocacy. To every other vehicle on the road, that $2 piece of foam visualizes what the minimum three feet of safe passing distance looks like that is our legal right in more than 30 states in the US. As more urban dwellers take up cycling, think of the attention we can bring to sharing the road if we all strapped a pool noodle to the back of our bicycles.

Of course, the pool noodle is not a substitute for the helmet. While the helmet protects your head just in case you fall, the pool noodle lowers the chances of that potential accident being caused by a car—and a lot of calamities happen sans car. (Personally, my helmet has saved my life twice: in 2008 when my friend, who had been drafting behind me, ran her bicycle over my head, and in 2011, when I got a concussion on a gravely bike path.) While studies have shown that helmetless cyclists are given slightly more room on the road, the pool noodle guarantees that most cars will not only move over, but often move over to the other lane.

https://qz.com/1620913/the-best-cycling-hack-is-a-pool-noodle/

[gratuitous]

1. Not a bad idea

I tend to avoid roads without a shoulder because there are a lot of motorists who don't quite grasp that three foot clearance law. And yes, wear your helmet at all times while cycling.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

2. Just watch out for the fools trying to grab your noodle.

That could hurt!........

[Kurt V.]

3. no doubt some will try.

[Flaleftist]

9. Yes and it would suck for that person if the cyclist glued a razor blade

to the top of the noodle.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

15. Well, it would be the LAST time they'd try that.

[mitch96]

33. Devious but I like it!!! nt

[yonder]

4. K&R

makes sense to me.

[Jane Austin]

5. Seems like a good idea

If you're not in a race.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. In the photo, the cyclist forces all traffic to queue up behind him until the bend is over

because you can't overtake on a blind bend like that. And he's riding in the middle of the lane, unnecessarily. Very antisocial. I suspect that in many countries, attaching a pole to your bike to make it wider would be illegal.

[Brother Buzz]

17. That cyclist is necessarily riding in the road to protect his tires from damage...

and will pull over to the right when traffic approaches. Cyclists are permitted to ride in the roadway, but depending on the state, are not required to move to the right of the 'fog line' which is actually is the legal end of the road, and where all the road shit is that can destroy even bullet-proof bicycle tires. Smart cyclists DO move to the right of the solid line when conditions merit it.

[Ms. Toad]

27. Generally not.

In most states, at least, bicycles are entitled to the full lane.

And using the full lane (or at least the right half) is more frequently than not necessary for the bicyclisyt's safety.

[MineralMan]

38. Actually, that's OK. At major curves in the road

drivers are more tempted to pass a bicycle too closely, out of fear of oncoming traffic. That can force the bicyclist to edge farther right and risk dropping off the paved surface.

Drivers can slow down. Every automobile has the means to help them do that. That bicyclist is well within his rights for his own safety.

[cwydro]

54. In many countries, motorists respect cyclists.

I’m betting you’ve never done any road riding.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. No, you're wrong, I've done plenty in Britain

and a little in a US city too. I don't think I've ever come across a single cyclist taking up the whole of a lane of an open road. And doing it on a blind bend, thus forcing anything faster to wait behind them a couple of minutes, is not showing due consideration for the other road users.

[obamanut2012]

65. They are LEGALLY allowed to do so

Too bad, so sad.

[cwydro]

67. Wow, you've been lucky.

I’ve seen it in both countries.

Here around Charlotte, NC, there are some who love to ride in a pack in a lane...usually during rush hour. They don’t do much for cyclist/motorist relations, that’s for sure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. I've seen cyclists riding double (and done it occasionally myself)

which is allowed; when doing it myself, if something comes up behind, I try and reform into a single line. But riding in the middle of the road on your own (with several feet of clear space to the side, and no parked cars that might open doors) just seems designed to annoy drivers.

[whistler162]

63. Sadly, in this country some cyclist don't respect vehicle laws

Seen enough blow through stop signs while riding and even one on their sell phone.

[maxsolomon]

7. America is just not built for Bicycle Touring.

It's built for fossil fuel consumption.

but I like this solution. it's not aerodynamic by a long shot...

[Hoyt]

8. As a long time cyclist, I get it. But I think it will just antagonize

ignorant white wingers, the ones most like to yell at, throw things at, see how close they can come to cyclists, want to start a fight, etc.

Although I don’t ride anymore, I’d be more likely to carry a bat (although a helmet, quickly removed rear wheel, or the whole bike, will work in a pinch).

[hunter]

10. So I'm not the only person who has smacked someone with a bicycle in self defense?

Even at my worst I could always make the cops laugh.

[Hoyt]

11. I was always quick with the finger. Several times the offending drivers stopped. Pick up your bike,

like a crazy person, hold it over your head and threaten to throw it through the windshield. They always left. Probably lucky I wasn't shot.

I swear, once in the deep South I was riding on the highway, at a pretty decent clip (close to 30 MPH), right on the right edge. A darn policeman stopped me with sirens and lights. Said I had to ride against traffic. "Nope, officer, not gonna do it, you are wrong." I had to sit on the side of the road for at least 30 minutes waiting for his supervisor to arrive. The supervisor, fortunately, knew the law and all but kicked the officer's ass while apologizing to me.

Riding in the South is bound to get you into a few confrontations -- I think the rubes got offended by someone pedaling pretty fast.

Truthfully, I really think they were confused by being attracted to the tight biking pants.

I miss riding nowadays.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

16. Jogging in the South was just as dangerous.

I swear some of those people TRIED to hit me. I actually got stopped by a cop in rural South Carolina who wanted to know "What the Hell are you doing ?" My explanation went right over his head. So, I told him that, being in the NAVY, I needed to stay in tip top shape. Now THAT he understood and accepted.

As for cycling, I used to ride my Schwinn to Base and back when stationed in TX. The problem there was dogs. I'd get chased all the time by some nasty, aggressive canines. I started carrying a small squirt bottle of windex. One snoutful of that and they didn't bother me a second time.

[Hoyt]

18. The Good Ole Boys never got it. The rural south has some killer dogs, and they'd always chase me

on the way up a long, steep hill. I couldn't outrun them nowadays on those hills.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

22. Junk-yard dogs are MEAN.

Try the windex. Small squirt bottle. Worked every time.

[albacore]

47. Windex?? Try wasp spray. 22 ft range, and it REALLY discourages them. nt

[ProudLib72]

21. I once got spat on in Idaho

Like WTF? There was plenty of room. They just wanted to be redneck assholes.

[caraher]

34. I also had a bad experience in Idaho

Just outside Winchester a semi truck deliberately ran me off into loose gravel. There was zero traffic on a 2 lane road and he hung back for what seemed like forever, then made a move to pass me as soon as the paved shoulder ended. Once the cab cleared the front of my bike he swung all the way over to the right. I was unharmed but came to a less-than-graceful stop, and it was clear that he was waiting for that opportunity.

[Ms. Toad]

26. I kicked a truck once.

Idiot lived an a street that was on the route of a 1500 person bike ride (well publicized, happens every year at the same time, same route). He started backing out of his drive, stopped at the sidewalk - so it seemed clear he saw us, then he backed right out into us.

I kicked his pickup truck and screamed - got shoved into the bike passing on my left. We jammed pedals, but miraculously both of us remained upright.

[sakabatou]

12. This is for roads without a bike lane, right?

[mcar]

13. Great idea!

I teach water aerobics. I love me some pool noodles. They are wonderful toning tools.

[Honeycombe8]

14. Great idea. nt

[pnwmom]

19. Why is the biker in the middle of the road, instead of on the right?

https://bikeleague.org/content/smart-cycling-tips-0


USE THESE TIP SHEETS TO LEARN MORE ABOUT HOW TO RIDE SAFELY AND PERFORM MAINTENANCE ON YOUR BIKE.

(SNIP)

Keep Right

Stay as close to the right as possible, except when passing

[hunter]

20. The shoulder of roads like that is covered with crap that will shred your tires.

Broken beer bottles are not the worst of it.

[pnwmom]

23. I'm not saying he should ride on the shoulder. He's riding in the center of the road,

not near the right. There appear to be 4 or 5 feet between him and where the shoulder starts.

[Ms. Toad]

25. That's a good distance for safety.

See my post below.

[Ms. Toad]

24. I suspect you don't ride bikes on roads much.

Last edited Tue May 21, 2019, 12:21 PM - Edit history (1)

What you quoted from has to do with trail safety, not road safety. If you click thorugh the other items in the list, they are clearly discussing how to share a trail with other bikers and walkers. Sharing the road with a car is a very different riding experience.

For sharing the road with cars:

Don't hug the curb too closely. Maintain a comfortable distance from the pavement edge.

https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/riding-traffic.html

Take the whole lane when appropriate.
It's often safer to take the whole lane, or at least ride a little bit to the left, rather than hug the right curb.

https://bicyclesafe.com/


Bikes are entitled to the full lane, just like cars, and there are safety reasons to ride at least 3 feet trom the right side of the road.

When cars, intentionally or otherwise, pass too close and you have to move to avoid being hit, it is critical (i.e. necessary for survival) that you be able to escape from them without losing control of your bike (or you will end up under their tires, or those of cars that follow).

If there is a 3', well-maintained berm, you can ride on the right edge. It is clear from the picture that there is no berm on that road, so the biker needs at least 3 feet of clear road to her right, in order to be able to do a controlled emergency escape from a car that insists on buzzing their elbows.

[pnwmom]

28. Different states have different laws. Many say the biker should be toward the right side of the road

For example, this is from the WA state licensing site, and it says nothing about a 3 foot berm. There is a visible shoulder on this road, though it is hard to tell from the photo how wide it is.

I live in an area with a high number of bikers (including multiple members of my family) and, when they're not on a bike path or making a left turn, I always seem them riding toward the right.

https://www.dol.wa.gov/business/drivertraining/docs/bicycletestanswers.pdf

Bicycles are considered “vehicles” under Washington law. In
Washington and most states, bicycles have a legal right to ride in the roadway even if a
bicycle lane is present. The only exception is where a road is specially restricted for
bicycles. Bicyclists are required to stay on the right side of the road, unless turning,
avoiding an object, or safety requires they ride in the center or left part of the lane. The
fact that bicyclists may travel slower than the posted speed limit does not limit their right
to use the roadway. Drivers and bicyclists share the road equally. Both should take
turns according to standard right-of-way rules. These rules apply to all vehicles, bicycles
included.

[Ms. Toad]

30. Again- you must not ride on the road much.

3' is approximately the distance a bicycle needs to be able to maintain control if they have to move to the right to avoid aggressive cars.

It is very clear from the photo that the shoulder is no more than a foot wide. Compare it to the length of hte 3 foot noodle. That is not a safe place for bicycles to move in an emergency.

As for Washington law, the law itself is a better source than a summary.

(1) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place shall ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe except as may be appropriate while preparing to make or while making turning movements, or while overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway or highway other than a limited-access highway, which roadway or highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near to the left side of the left through lane as is safe. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway may use the shoulder of the roadway or any specially designated bicycle lane if such exists.
(2) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

RCW 46.61.770

As a bicyclist who shares the road with cars, I can tell you from personal experience that it is not safe to ride closer than 3 feet to terrain on which one's bicycle cannot be controlled.

[pnwmom]

31. No way is that a 3 foot long noodle! Look how much longer it is than a bike tire.

That said, I never bike on the road. But I frequently see bikers, and they ride toward the right.

The definition of "as is safe" seems to be very subjective. By your definition, a biker would almost never be riding toward the right.

In any case, the law doesn't say that it's not safe unless there's a three foot shoulder or berm.

Here is another picture of the noodle. He's on a different road here, and appears to be in the shoulder.

https://qz.com/1620913/the-best-cycling-hack-is-a-pool-noodle/

[caraher]

35. Right - it depends on the road

On my 3000 mile ride from Indiana to Washington I didn't have a pool noodle and did tend to hug the right side of the road more than many are advocating here. Everything depends on what kind of shoulder conditions you have. In parts of North Dakota I had to ride on Interstates like in that first photo in the article and while there's often a lot of debris on the shoulder, the shoulders are wide and often have those rumble strips that at least give hope that an inattentive driver will stay off the shoulder.



In the last image of the article I think what the cyclist is doing looks about right. I would probably be over to the right a bit more but no matter where I was in the lane, no car would be able to pass me safely in the presence of opposing traffic. So what she's doing is actually safer than the way I rode (where drivers might be tempted to pass close to me). That road looks like it's in good shape but there is no meaningful shoulder to ride on (and it may drop away rather abruptly). I remember roads like that where they also had rumble strips along the white line; there's no choice but to be well into the lane on those roads, because the micro-shoulder is dangerously narrow.

[Ms. Toad]

41. The 3' is the part sticking out to the left of the driver

The point is to create a visual reference for drivers about how much distance they should give a bike rider.

You are correct that drivers should almost never ride on the far right of the road. Most roads are well-maintained only to the white line. The riders you see riding to the far right are almost certainly dumb, inexperienced, or slow (if you're creeping along, you don't need as much space because you can stop very quickly by just putting your feet down - and have better control over which direction you might fall).

The laws would never articulate all of the hazards that might prevent drivers from hugging the right side of the road. That is a silly suggestion. That assessment has to be left up to bikers who are able to assess the situation first hand. As an experienced road rider, I would never ride without 3' of well-maintained road to my right (unless I was creeping up a hill that was moderate enough that there was no wobble - the slower speed means I need less room to safely come to a stop, because my momentum is lower). To do otherwise would be suicide, because I would be unable to control my bike when an aggressive driver buzzed me (I've had them come within 5" of my elbow). If I lose control, I will end up under their tires - or under the tires of the driver who follows them.

I strongly suggest that you spend some time ride your bike on reasonably busy roads so you can (1) experience for yourself what it is like to share the road wtih aggressive (intentionally or otherwise) drivers (2) see up close the condition of most roads outside the white line, and (3) feel what it is like to have even a non-aggressive semi (or large pick-up truck) fly by at 45 mph or more at a safe distance - and feel the tug on your bike. I guarantee it will change your perception of how bikers need to ride in order to be safe.

Unless you've had that experience enough to really understand the dynamic, please don't tell those of us who regularly do so that we should be riding in a manner we know is not safe.

[Tipperary]

56. Well said.

[Mariana]

55. On a curve in the road like that pictured

safety requires they ride in the center or left part of the lane, just as Washington law prescribes.

[pnwmom]

58. Why would they be less safe from oncoming traffic if they were a couple feet more to the right?

Why wouldn't they be safer from oncoming traffic, which could cross the center line?

[Ms. Toad]

59. The biggest danger is from the cars behind -

Not cars up ahead.

On a curve where the cars know they don't have clear vision, far too many drivers will believe that "it's only a bike - I can make it," and will pass quickly, very close to the bicyclist to spend as little time across the center line going around a curve as possible.

That is less likely to happen when the cyclist rides farther out in the road. While foolish drivers might think they can ease past the cyclist who is riding clear at the right, most are not suicidal enough to attempt a pass on the curve when they have to cross almost completely into oncoming traffic they cannot see to get around the bike.

If they misjudge the passing distance/the lack of oncoming traffic when they pass a bicyclist riding clear ot the right, they are going to veer into the bicyclist hugging the curb, rather than take a head-on collision with the car they couldn't see when they passed the bicyclist who was foolish enough to not own the lane.

Driving that far out into the road - especially on a blind curve - discourages foolish drivers from attempting dangerous passing maneuvers that put both the bicyclist - and other traffic on the road - at risk.

[pnwmom]

60. Okay, thanks. n/t

[triron]

32. Right on! Thanks.

[obamanut2012]

64. Because he is legally allowed to hold the entire lane

There is no bike lane, and in most places it is illegal for a vehicle to ride on the shoulder (and, this shoulder would pop a tube in a minute).

A bicycle is legally a vehicle that is allowed to hold the entire lane when needed.

Also, what you cited is for MOUNTAIN BIKING ON TRAILS. Good grief.

[Dave Starsky]

29. The noodle in this photo goes over the double yellow line.

Which implies that no one can pass the bike rider.

I'm not sure how much traction this idea will really get with drivers who would otherwise gladly share the road.

[caraher]

36. I think the perspective gives that impression

but the noodle is actually all in her lane. (The noodle is horizontal, so imagine lowering it in the photo until the right side is at road level next to her bag; the left side would no longer extend to the double yellow line.)

There's no doubt, though, that American drivers expect cyclists to hug the curb/right edge of the shoulder. I think this is about raising awareness and changing norms. Along the way, that might involve getting sworn at or spat upon from time to time, unfortunately.

[pnwmom]

44. It should also be about changing laws. Many of us have lived in states where the laws

say some version of: drivers should keep to the right side of the road unless they are turning left, there is an obstruction, or it isn't safe. That leads most non-bikers to believe that the "unsafe" times are the exception. My impression from bikers here is they believe the unsafe times are the rule.

[MagickMuffin]

39. No one should be crossing double yellow lines

those lines indicate No Passing at all.

[Dave Starsky]

40. I know.

But now you also can't even get past the bike rider.

[Ms. Toad]

42. Yes. NO ONE should be passing when there are double yellow lines

Including cars passing a bike.

If a car passes a bicycle, giving them enough room to be safe, they will cross the center line. That is the reality of road sharing. When there is a double yellow line, that means no passing - because safe passing requires crossing the center line.

The rules of the road apply to everyone - not merely cars passing other cars.

[Dave Starsky]

48. So, is it safe to assume that the cyclist will pull over...

When there are five or more vehicles piled up behind him/her?

[Ms. Toad]

49. Is it safe to assume a semi-truck going up the same hill will?

Bicyclists often do, since angry motorists are deadly to bicyclists. But there is no more obligation for a bicyclist to pull over than any other vehicle on the road to pull over.

[NutmegYankee]

57. It differs in some states.

Some have codified exceptions for vehicles traveling less than half the speed limit. This is logical since the design basis for the double yellow was to ensure there was enough sight line ahead for traffic to safely pass a vehicle traveling just under the speed limit. Obviously far less would be needed for a bike or farm tractor.

I think the states that haven't implemented that law have only done so because they don't enforce the ubiquitous passing of slow moving vehicles with tickets. If they did so I suspect the laws would change rather quickly.

[planetc]

37. First of all, I'm not going to pass a cyclist with three feet to spare. I like ten feet to spare.

These are my rules as a driver encountering a cyclist: 1) slow down, 2) assume the draft from my car will make things uncomfortable for the cyclist when I pass, so pass as gently as possible, 3) if the cyclist is in the middle of my lane, they must be treated like another car, and if that means slowing down to their speed until I can pass safely, well that, duh!, is what I need to do, 4) obey the rest of the traffic laws while I negotiate a pass, e.g., don't cross a double yellow line with any more than two wheels if absolutely necessary. To summarize, the cyclist's safety is MY responsibility, because my car weighs a couple of tons, can go 145 mph (although not in this country), and the cyclist and their bicycle together weigh some fraction of my vehicle, can't go as fast, and the cyclist's body is totally unprotected from accidents, while I have two tons of metal to protect my body. Cyclists are not PREY. They are fellow road users, who are contributing nothing to global warming as they get to where they're going.

I had this really good driving instructor in high school, and I wish everybody had had his class. Especially that semi driver mentioned above. I would have him in remedial driving school so fast it would make his head spin. I would like to be the Road Courtesy Czar of the entire country. A last word: the semi drivers who roll frequently through my town are models of patience, courtesy, and good driving. But when semi drivers go bad, like Darth Vader, they go very bad.

[Ms. Toad]

43. Thank you!

I use the road both with my car and my bike, and when I'm in my car I follow pretty much the rules you've outlined.

[pnwmom]

46. I also never pass a biker, unless he's in an actual bike lane (and we have many real ones).. However

sometimes that means I am driving at 10 or 15 miles an hour behind a biker with 10 or 20 angry drivers behind me, and then someone in the line behind me decides to try passing . . .

There's no good solution except bike lanes.

https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a23676188/best-bike-cities-2018/

[Ms. Toad]

50. Bike lanes would be fanastic.

Unfortunately, since most roads were not planned with bikes in mind it requires widening the road, in most instances. Very few cities are willing to invest that kind of money into making their cities more bike-friendly.

[pnwmom]

51. They widened the road behind my house for bike lanes on both sides, and I heard no protests

about the cost or even about homeowners losing some of the right-of-way.

But the Seattle area is pretty proud of its green.

[Opel_Justwax]

45. If your pool noodle leads to an accident you can be found liable in court. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

53. That's a pretty broad statement, and not legally accurate.

Unless there was negligence involved, the bicyclist is not liable.

Merely riding down the road with a noodle that marks assured clear side distance is not negligence. Nor it is the bicyclists negligence if a driver decides to pass too closely and whacks his car; if the driver is passing within the noodle, they are not leaving an appropriate distance between them and the bicyclist when they pass. Nor is it negligence on the part of the bicyclist if the driver unsafely crosses the center line to avoid hitting the noodle (if they unsafely cross the center line to avoid the noodle, they could not have passed the bicyclist safely, since all the noodle does is mark the safe side distance for passing.

Finally, it is not negligence on the part of the bicyclist if some fool driver decides to pick off the noodle - that would more likely be battery by the fool driver.

[Mariana]

61. How would that happen, exactly?

Please describe a hypothetical scenario, in which a pool noodle used as described in the article causes an accident.

[obamanut2012]

66. Wrong

[yortsed snacilbuper]

52. Good idea.