Cycling TO Burning Man

[fernley1]

If I wanted to ride a bike from BRC from Reno, I would ride north out of Reno to Pyramid Lake on 445. Then I would go West to Surprise Valley/Smoke Creek desert road and then north to 447. Then 447 south to Gerlach. Hardly no traffic till the last miles on 447. Lots of dirt roads, but well maintained dirt roads.

[lucky420]

Yeah but there is a lot of traffic between Sparks and Sutcliffe.

[pink]

A couple years ago I passed the guy who was biking to BM from Brazil. It was Thursday pre-gate so there was minimal traffic at that point. Not too difficult to pass then. But the remark about the drivers going to to the opposite lane?? Pure as asshattery there. Before Gate opens, we EAs have in & out privilege. So although the gypsum trucks are history, there are lots of DPW and other folks cruising to Reno for supplies. Trucks that dropped off infrastructure. The death rate on that road is not good. Leaving by bike? Insane.

If you are insistent on this (and be aware it WILL trash your bike) The advice about bypassing 447 is good, as is to go up early. Maybe reserve a room at Bruno's in Gerlach until Gate opens. Go out to gate road early and make your way very slowly to the actual Gate. Try not to choke on the dust on the way in (it's so bad at times I've been blinded and had to completely stop). Once off the road you should be ok.

Also, you WILL have to arrange for water to be brought in for you. There is no way to carry all you need and all your other camping gear with you. As mentioned before, burners hate mooches and your OP indicated you thought of this as a survival plan. Not good.

[theCryptofishist]

Maybe reserve a room at Bruno's in Gerlach until Gate opens.

Don't the law enforcement agencies have it all booked by now?

[ranger magnum]

It's particularly troubling that your main concerns seem to be around ruining a bike and not around how horrifically dangerous driving a bike the last stretch. To reiterate what other folks have already said, the road out there has absolutely NO shoulder for VERY long stretches, has curves and hills which would mean you might not be seen, has large cumbersome vehicles driving down it, has a large number of vehicles driving down it, yes for several days if not weeks before the event, there really isn't any "alternate route"... Basically anyone who has driven down that road will tell you that you are fucking crazy for even contemplating trying to drive a bike down it, period, full stop.

LET THIS BE SAID
to a cyclist this is the most annoying thing that can ever be said by auto drivers. cyclists know that roads are dangerous yet we still ride. we wont stop riding because it is "dangerous" and people implying that there is no shoulder to ride on, fuck i'm going to take my right to a lane as a cyclist. i live in one of the most dangerous cities for cyclist and have been hit, that hasnt and wont stop me from riding. no matter how many people tell me that a road is dangerous, it will not stop me from riding. shit i may even unload my bike at Gerlach to ride in from there now. 16 miles, meh thats about a hour ride.

Holy shit.. I don't think I've ever read a more selfish post eplaya. You, sir, are a Grade A douche canoe.

Instead of thinking about your own selfish ass, how about taking into consideration the hundreds of other lives that are at stake here. This is a dangerous road. Blind corners, no shoulders, and oversize vehicles. But you are too much of an ignorant fuck to realize this. Yea, go ahead and ride your fucking bike asshole. Because if it comes down to going head on with another vehicle, or running you over because there isn't enough fucking room on this shitty little road, you can bet your ass I'm going right over the top of you.

[Captain Goddammit]

Those road bikers ARE mostly douche bags.The problem is they LIKE being annoying fucks. Best we can do is hope it doesn't take too long for this problem to solve itself.

[maladroit]

On a highway that has one lane for traveling in each direction,
where passing is unsafe because of traffic traveling in the opposite
direction or other conditions, the driver of a slow-moving vehicle,
behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall, to
allow the vehicles following behind to proceed, turn off the
roadway:
(a) At the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs
erected by the public authority having jurisdiction over the
highway; or
(b) In the absence of such a designated turnout, at the
nearest place where:
(1) Sufficient area for a safe turnout exists; and
(2) The circumstances and conditions are such that the
driver is able to turn off the roadway in a safe manner.
(NRS 484B.630)

Biker dude can't form a sweating roadblock. As soon as 5 cars pile up behind him, he has to get off the road and let them pass, or else risk a traffic infraction (and you better believe the police will be watching that clusterfuck closely). And with Burning Man traffic? Haha...you'll be sitting next to the road for days waiting for less than 5 cars to pile up behind you.

Edit: Technically that law also applies to your dying, overloaded RV.

[Sham]

On that same note, it should be known that if you see a jackrabbit in the road, you must not swerve to try to avoid hitting it. You will get killed when your car goes screaming out of control. It takes some concentration, but drive into the jackrabbit as if it's not there.

It's hoped that this would never be the case with a bicyclist. The roads have no shoulders, there are hundreds of blind curves, drivers are fatigued, vehicles are overloaded and have shit tied onto the roofs. Large semi trucks are traveling in both directions. This caustic scenario goes on for about 120 miles.

To anyone planning on riding a bike on this route, please be sure that your affairs are in order, and that you have ID and contact information so next of kin can be notified. You have a better than reasonable chance of dying there.

I can forgive someone who has not actually driven this route in a car and thinks it should be a breeze. Those who know this route from past years and are even thinking of riding a bike though this route---well, you're just a foolish moron.

There, I said it.

[Elliot]

As I see it, this is not about the back-up of five vehicles going ten MPH behind the bicycle. It is about the one vehicle that suddenly comes upon something -- anything -- going ten MPH in his lane, with oncoming traffic in the other lane.

Yes, strictly by the law, the wreck would be all his fault. And the victims would be just as maimed or dead, and would have little interest in that law.

[ygmir]

As I see it, this is not about the back-up of five vehicles going ten MPH behind the bicycle. It is about the one vehicle that suddenly comes upon something -- anything -- going ten MPH in his lane, with oncoming traffic in the other lane.

Yes, strictly by the law, the wreck would be all his fault. And the victims would be just as maimed or dead, and would have little interest in that law.

I would wonder about fault, if a vehicle (bike) was in "blind" position, on a road, going substantially below posted and safe speed. IIRC there is something about going "too slow" and not being visible/warning others.

and yeah, the bottom line is not hurting or getting hurt.

[FIGJAM]

Obstructing traffic?

[ygmir]

484B.653.
7.  The operator of a bicycle or an electric bicycle shall not:
(a) Intentionally interfere with the movement of a motor vehicle; or
(b) Overtake and pass a motor vehicle unless the operator can do so safely without endangering himself or herself or the occupants of the motor vehicle.
(Added to NRS by 1991, 2228; A 1997, 739; 1999, 1664; 2009, 398; 2011, 294, 1633)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.324)

[Elliot]

As I recall it, a fundamental rule of the road is to never drive faster than you can stop for something that comes into view. Of course, nobody does that. If everybody actually did that, the term "blind curve" would never have been thought of. And there would be more wrecks, not fewer.

But when a rear-end-crash occurs, the blame generally belongs to the rear-ender, not the rear-endee. That said...

...
IIRC there is something about going "too slow" and not being visible/warning others.
...

...I believe you are correct. Blame belongs to the rear-endee when, for example, his tail lights do not work while driving at night.
We had a case of this at the trucking company. Our driver (whom I had personally hired!) was cruising across Nevada at 70 MPH at night when he drove "right thru" an ancient VW microbus going half his speed. The investigation centered on the dimness of the microbus' tail lights.

It seems reasonable to me to expect a bicycle on 447 to have a slow-moving-vehicle triangle, or a flag, or the rider wearing an orange vest, even in daylight. But we would have to look up the law on that.

Blah, blah, blah....

Oh... "intentionally interfere".... My gut tells me this means jumping out in front of traffic on a lark, and not legal use of the road.

[ygmir]

As I recall it, a fundamental rule of the road is to never drive faster than you can stop for something that comes into view. Of course, nobody does that. If everybody actually did that, the term "blind curve" would never have been thought of. And there would be more wrecks, not fewer.

But when a rear-end-crash occurs, the blame generally belongs to the rear-ender, not the rear-endee. That said...

...
IIRC there is something about going "too slow" and not being visible/warning others.
...

...I believe you are correct. Blame belongs to the rear-endee when, for example, his tail lights do not work while driving at night.
We had a case of this at the trucking company. Our driver (whom I had personally hired!) was cruising across Nevada at 70 MPH at night when he drove "right thru" an ancient VW microbus going half his speed. The investigation centered on the dimness of the microbus' tail lights.

It seems reasonable to me to expect a bicycle on 447 to have a slow-moving-vehicle triangle, or a flag, or the rider wearing an orange vest, even in daylight. But we would have to look up the law on that.

Blah, blah, blah....

Oh... "intentionally interfere".... My gut tells me this means jumping out in front of traffic on a lark, and not legal use of the road.

I could see "intentionally interfere" as being riding in the middle of a lane, at 5 mph on a hill on a blind corner, too, though.

[Elliot]

...

I could see "intentionally interfere" as being riding in the middle of a lane, at 5 mph on a hill on a blind corner, too, though.

Yes, put that way, I agree completely. Because... Another fundamental rule of the road is to do all one can to operate as safely as possible, and avoid any danger one can reasonably be expected to be aware of. So, anyone who has read this thread is now aware....

[Sham]

I've looked up the width of the lanes in each direction and it appears that they are 10 feet wide. Standard vehicles can be no wider than 8 feet. Wide-load vehicles are a different story. During the weeks before, during and after Burning Man, these roads have many thousands of vehicles traveling in both directions. Trucks, trailers, motor homes, mutant vehicles and many old clunkers used just for this event.

Virtually every one of the thousands of vehicles are going to have to swing wide in consideration of a bike just one foot in the road driving surface. (remember, no shoulder or breakdown lane here) If a vehicle is coming in the other direction, there is no swinging wide since it would cause a head on accident.

I think it's a good thing that this thread was started, since it gives us a chance to remind anyone even thinking of doing a bonehead bike ride to BRC, to rethink their stupidity.

[Elderberry]

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2014/07 ... the-devil/

[media]

Cyclists killed on PCH

You do have the right to ride on any highway, but you just might end up being dead right.

I really can't believe that this thread is still going on, and on, and on. Obviously nobody is going to be changing anybody's mind. We'll probably all be hearing about it on news at 11:00.

[Captain Goddammit]

Actually you can go 8 1/2 feet wide, and that doesn't include mirrors, handles, and such which are legally permitted to be wider. If you actually measure from one extreme end to the other, you can take up the whole ten feet, no problem.

[trilobyte]

I think that the mistake the the people who want to bike to the event appear to make is that they dismissing all the nay-sayers as people who hate bicyclists. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Most of us are cycling advocates, and let's face it we're all investing a fuckton of time, energy, and resources to get to a city where bikes outnumber motor vehicles on the streets. If it were possible to cycle to the event safely, we'd all be big supporters and offering up tips and tricks to make the most of the journey.

To all would-be bikers (because I don't think the OP's been back to this thread for weeks), please take a few minutes to peruse the boards. You'll find that yeah there is some snark... but for the most part this board is all about tips and advice on how to get things done. This community is overwhelmingly generous with sharing their experiences so that others can get the most out of their adventures. It's also pro bicycles - we've got threads about bikes, trikes, pimping them up, and even building your own. There's a reason the majority of advice you get is to not do it.

[ygmir]

I love my bike riding friends.......I have no sympathy though, as regards getting a ticket. At the bottom line, I don't see that bikes pay any fees towards roads in the form of license or fuel (or some such) tax. Now, if I am wrong there, I accept that.
That said, the vast majority of bikers are not out there "saving fuel" , they are recreating/exercising. As such, I just don't see why it should be ok, to cause the issues and delays, let alone angst, they do, for recreation. Yeah, I get, a very small number of bike riders and mostly in cities, commute. But even then, they pay nothing towards the roads, why, should this be ok.
And by this, I don't mean they should be hurt. I mean, either they only ride where there is room, out of a lane, (by the good graces of government or private bike lane construction). Otherwise, no go. or get a bike whose design and equipment allow you to ride an unpaved shoulder, again, out of a lane.

ETA: why is bike riding any different than walking in a lane?

*flame shields up*

[theCryptofishist]

Not being a particularly pro-bike person, I have to say, Yggy, that they do contribute to the roads, in so far as they don't cause the wear and tear a regular car, or a large truck, causes. And they are paying through non-gasoline tax taxes--income and maybe sales.

[Captain Goddammit]

My buddy Jim at work had his car totaled recently by a Latin immigrant gentleman with no insurance. Fortunately Jim had coverage for that, but no rental car.
So he's forced to ride his bike to work and back.
The other day he was riding home, in the designated bicycle lane (he does his damn best to stay the hell out of traffic) when a car, who's driver wasn't paying attention to driving, swerved toward him. He was able to ditch, but went over the handlebars and broke his collar bone.
The car driver drove off into oblivion.

Jim was trying to stay as far away from traffic as he could.
This SHOULD have been mister douchebag "I'm riding my bike to Burning Man", not Jim.
But hey, there's still time.

[maladroit]

This SHOULD have been mister douchebag "I'm riding my bike to Burning Man", not Jim.

I want to edit that to "I'm riding my bike on a two-lane 70mph highway to Burning Man where I will beg for water if I didn't figure out how to provide that for myself."

[ygmir]

Not being a particularly pro-bike person, I have to say, Yggy, that they do contribute to the roads, in so far as they don't cause the wear and tear a regular car, or a large truck, causes. And they are paying through non-gasoline tax taxes--income and maybe sales.

and, you may have missed my pointed statement, referring to specific taxes and fees. I do acknowledge sales taxes and such as funding for roads. But, then, why do they get a break? yeah, little wear and tear, sure. but traffic hazard and EMS calls may make up for that.
Wear and tear are not the issue. and again, I'd bet, the vast majority of bike/auto traffic issues are between recreational riders and autos, not the very few who commute. And again, I acknowledge that most commuting is in cities.
But for a person out riding, for exercise/recreation, to claim they are "saving fuel/environment"? well, how is that? you'd not drive your car to get exercise, or at least don't have to, so..........

It's illegal to walk down a lane, of a public road, with traffic, yes? And I'd bet, that's because you are totally vulnerable, and, very slow in comparison. How, does that differ from a bike?
I also note bike lanes, and agree with their existence and use. I'd love to see on the road bikes, licensed, and fees directed towards making bike lanes. Much like license and fuel taxes for autos........

**much of my opinion, comes from living in a rural, heavily bike populated area with narrow roads, where many, many bikers are aggressive and take lanes, won't pull over to let people pass, and generally cause the issues they encounter, IMHO, YMMV**

I love my bike riding friends.......I have no sympathy though, as regards getting a ticket. At the bottom line, I don't see that bikes pay any fees towards roads in the form of license or fuel (or some such) tax. Now, if I am wrong there, I accept that.
That said, the vast majority of bikers are not out there "saving fuel" , they are recreating/exercising. As such, I just don't see why it should be ok, to cause the issues and delays, let alone angst, they do, for recreation. Yeah, I get, a very small number of bike riders and mostly in cities, commute. But even then, they pay nothing towards the roads, why, should this be ok.
And by this, I don't mean they should be hurt. I mean, either they only ride where there is room, out of a lane, (by the good graces of government or private bike lane construction). Otherwise, no go. or get a bike whose design and equipment allow you to ride an unpaved shoulder, again, out of a lane.

ETA: why is bike riding any different than walking in a lane?

*flame shields up*

[some seeing eye]

I find it interesting that people who are generally anti-tax are the ones suggesting that bikes be taxed. "We should tax pedestrians - sidewalks are expensive! How about skateboarders, kids walking or biking to school, small children on tricycles, the grandmothers with their 2 wheel grocery carriers, poor people who get around by bike? We should definitely tax those retired people with the motorized wheelchairs!" (Actually I think we are going to end up with a bike lane, a motorized wheelchair lane and sidewalk for foot travelers in the future)

"I just drive my vehicle from my heated garage to my work garage, and my children are grown, so I don't need any of that! I'm a victim, because I'm taxed for something I don't use!"

I hope the original poster comes back to ePlaya. But I do see a pattern of us driving away first posters, talking to ourselves and repeating one another ever more vociferously. Maybe we could talk to ourselves on Page Two?

[Captain Goddammit]

Not in this case. I don't get the impression this guy is really into Burning Man anyway, it's just a stop on his road trip. Even if we all swooned over his idiotic rectal violation of a plan, he wouldn't be on here anyway. And like I said, the core problem is these types ENJOY being a pain in the ass to everyone else on the road.

[some seeing eye]

CG, I do not disagree!

Some people are driven by adulation: "hey I'm a rock star/ virle/ sexy/ fu*ckable because I biked to BM!" It doesn't work that way at the event. You have to contribute continuously at the event (except Larry). But we can't know if the individual just did not "get it" or "would not ever get it." Directing them to in-person burners who could give them a vehicle ride in/out and a camp allows sorting it in person.

[Canoe]

I want to edit that to "I'm riding my bike on a two-lane 70mph highway to Burning Man where I will beg for water if I didn't figure out how to provide that for myself."

Ignoring the highway logistics and risks:
we have - a number of times - detailed how someone arriving on sparse transportation (usually a motorcycle) can use the shuttle-buses to Gerlach and return, as a means of obtaining water and other supplies that are beyond what they can transport in upon their arrival.
Those logistics have been well covered. Search (google).

But a bike, with BRC traffic... I don't know if that's just more balls than me, or stupider than me, or both. Similar outcome as combining drink'n and think'n.

And what bike would make it across the traffic-torn bumpy playa road to gate...
... and make sure you're on the upwind side of the lanes.

Assuming you could make it safely to Reno past all of the BRC traffic heading to Reno, I'd be promoting Burner Bus or the more traditional Ride Share.
Search/google.

[ranger magnum]

Gotta agree with CG here. He DOES want to be a pita. Look no further than his idiotic statement about "his right" to a lane.

[ygmir]

OED drags concrete blocks on a rope behind his janky RV, sort of like trolling..............