• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

BikeWalkNC

North Carolina’s advocate for safe cycling and walking

  • Home
  • Summit
  • News + Advocacy
  • Safety + Education
  • About Us
  • Join/Donate
  • search

steven

Feb 05 2016

BikeWalk NC Publishes Group Bicycling Guide

Group Bicycling Best Practices: Skills and Techniques
Group Bicycling Best Practices: Skills and Techniques

BikeWalk NC has released the first part of its education initiative to promote best practices for group bicycling. The first installment, Skills and Techniques, is now available as an online guide. It covers cooperative bicycling, applicable traffic laws, group size and formation tradeoffs, paceline techniques, and safe negotiation of intersections and road hazards. Future releases will include Part II: Organization and Leadership, and additional media formats such as handouts, cards, and videos.

The objective of BikeWalk NC’s group bicycling best practices project is to inform cyclists, police, traffic engineers, transportation planners, motorists and legislators of safe and effective practices for group travel by bicycle. Our intent is to improve the safety and comfort of group rides and to use greater public knowledge to discourage onerous and even dangerous regulatory legislation and enforcement being proposed by those who do not understand group bicycling. This project is a collaborative effort of highly experienced group ride leaders, organizers and participants from across the state. Special thanks go to the Carolina Tarwheels, the North Carolina Bicycle Club, Bike Law North Carolina, WeeklyRides.com and The Peloton Project for their contributions to Part I.

For more education and enforcement resources on bicycling, see our Learn page.

 

 

Written by steven · Categorized: Advocacy, Education · Tagged: bicycle safety, group bicycling, group rides, pacelines, two abreast

Jan 10 2016

Using the Left Half of the Lane

Bicycling in the left half of a travel lane provides substantial safety advantages in common traffic scenarios. Knowledgeable bicyclists who ride between the lane center and left tire track improve their maneuvering space, sight lines, and conspicuity to other drivers. This reduces the risk of typical car-bike crash types such as drive out, left cross, right hook, motorist overtaking and dooring collisions.  North Carolina’s existing vehicle code assigns bicyclists the same full legal right to a marked travel lane as any other driver, allowing bicyclists discretion to choose their position within their lane based on context. (NC does not currently have any bicycle-specific law restricting where in a marked lane bicyclists may operate as an inferior user class; see this history article for details.) Bicyclists in NC may operate at the right side of their lane when they want to encourage passing, and farther left when they wish to increase their visibility and maneuvering space and to deter same-lane passing.

All of the major adult bicycling education programs in the US, Canada, and Britain (e.g. LAB TS101, CyclingSavvy, IPMBA certification, CAN-BIKE, and British Cycling Bikeability) teach these variable lane position techniques. Some bicyclists reserve a leftward lane position for special situations, while others find it to be the preferred default, or primary position, moving right when they feel it is safe to do so (differing preferences likely reflect different local road conditions and experience). The utility of bicyclist lane positioning in the center and left half of a marked travel lane is recognized in mainstream traffic engineering publications such as the 2013 ITE Traffic Control Devices Handbook. It is increasingly common for traffic engineers across the USA to endorse and encourage bicyclist positioning in the center and slightly left of center of marked travel lanes in various situations through the installation of shared lane markings (aka “sharrows”) and Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs. However, the benefits of operating in a leftward lane position are not well understood by the general public. This article presents the basic operational principles responsible for the effectiveness of leftward lane positioning as a collision deterrent, and examines the implications of NCDOT’s proposal to change our state’s traffic laws to explicitly prohibit bicyclists from exercising these defensive driving methods.

Deterrence of Drive-Out and Left-Cross Collisions

The two most common types of car-bike collisions that happen to lawfully operating bicyclists are the drive out and the left cross. These are also common collision types for lawful motorcyclists (who learn similar defensive lane positioning techniques through motorcycle safety programs). In the drive-out crash, a motorist at a side street or driveway fails to yield to the bicyclist on the priority route before pulling into the roadway, as shown in the figure below.

driveout2

Drivers typically scan for approaching traffic by focusing on the center of the approaching lanes, and often fail to notice approaching traffic at the edge of the road. Note that a bicyclist at the right side of the roadway is more likely to be screened by roadside sight line obstructions than is a bicyclist riding closer to the center of the roadway. A bicyclist operating in a leftward position is not only more likely to be noticed, but also has more space and time for emergency maneuvering should the motorist enter the roadway.

In a left cross collision, a left-turning driver fails to yield to an oncoming bicyclist. The driver may fail to see the bicyclist, fail to register the bicyclist as relevant, or misjudge the arrival time of the bicyclist. In some cases, the left-turning driver’s view of the bicyclist is screened by other traffic until moments before the collision, as shown in the figure below.

leftcross

Because the left-turning driver’s best view is at the left portion of the oncoming lane,  a bicyclist who operates farther left in the roadway is more likely to be noticed in time than a bicyclist who rides at the right side. A bicyclist in a leftward position also has more time to observe the left-turning driver and begin braking if necessary. When approaching intersections where other traffic may drive out or turn left, the preferred defensive bicycle driving position is in the left half of the bicyclist’s travel lane.

Deterrence of Right-Hook Collisions

A right hook collision involves a right turning motorist positioned to the left of a bicyclist traveling straight, as shown below.

righthook

In some of these collisions the bicyclist overtakes on the right side of the motorist prior to the motorist’s turn; in others the motorist overtakes the bicyclist just before turning. In both cases, the underlying failure is improper lateral positioning relative to the different destinations. A right turning driver is legally required to approach and execute the right turn from a position as far to the right as practicable, and the bicyclist, like any other driver, is prohibited by state law from passing on the right unless in a separate marked travel lane. An effective way for a bicyclist to proactively deter right-hook collisions is for the bicyclist to merge into the center or left half of the travel lane when approaching a location where right turns are permitted and/or likely. This encourages right-turning drivers to wait behind the bicyclist rather than passing immediately before turning, and integrates the thru bicyclist into the normal traffic queue at an intersection rather than enabling the bicyclist to pass stopped traffic on the right.

Deterrence of Overtaking Collisions

Motorist-overtaking-bicyclist collisions have a variety of causes, including drunk driving, distracted driving, drowsy driving, and bicycling at night without adequate visibility equipment. The most common cause, however, is a motorist attempting to pass within the same too-narrow lane as the bicyclist. Because most travel lanes are between ten and twelve feet wide, most same-lane passes are unsafe passes. The figure below shows that in order to safely pass a bicyclist riding on the right side of a ten foot lane on a typical rural NC road, a Ford F150 driver must drive most of their vehicle into the adjacent lane; a same-lane pass is practically guaranteed to sideswipe the bicyclist.

tenfootlane

In a typical sideswipe scenario, the motor vehicle driver sees the bicyclist ahead, but attempts to pass without planning a safe movement into the adjacent lane. In many cases there is traffic in the next lane, which may require waiting before making a lane change, or there may be a barrier such as a raised center median. The underlying error is a failure to recognize the space required to pass safely until it is too late for the driver to avoid a sideswipe collision, as depicted in the figure below.

savvylanecontrol

Most motorist-overtaking-bicyclist sideswipe collisions in North Carolina occur on state roads posted 40 mph or higher. Most such roads have travel lanes between ten and twelve feet wide.  Motorist-overtaking-bicyclist collisions are very rare on low speed streets regardless of lane width. Higher speed means that a motorist must recognize the inadequacy of the lane width at a longer distance away, and also that collisions are more severe. One way that bicyclists can communicate the inadequacy of their lane width for same-lane passing is by cycling close to the center of the lane. This defensive positioning, called lane control, makes motorists more likely to recognize the unavailability of the bicyclist’s lane for passing at a long distance away, as depicted in the figure above. Lane control results in earlier, safer lane changes and fewer erratic maneuvers and sideswipes. Bicyclists find lane control to be most important for deterring unsafe passing in situations where the lane is narrow and adjacent traffic or barriers may tempt drivers into squeezing by within the bicyclist’s lane.

Exactly where is the ideal lane position for deterring unsafe close passing? Many experienced cyclists claim that a position between the center of the lane and the left tire track provides the best results. In a 2009 study, independent researchers Dan Gutierrez and Brian DeSousa performed instrumented experiments in an effort to quantify the effects of lane position on overtaking distance. Within the limits of their study, the fewest unsafe close passes occurred when the bicyclists were positioned between the center of the lane and the left tire track. The closest passes occurred while riding near the right tire track. A graphic summarizing their results is provided below.

passingplotchart

A leftward position in the lane also makes a cyclist more likely to be seen by an overtaking driver by putting the cyclist where the driver focuses their attention, reducing screening caused a vehicle passing in the same lane, and by improving sight lines at right curves, as shown below.

curvesightlines

Deterrence of Dooring Collisions

Opening car doors are a leading cause of bicyclist injury in urban areas. A bicyclist may be startled by an opening door and swerve left into overtaking traffic, or may strike the opening door with the handlebar, and be thrown violently left into the travel lane, landing on their head or back.  Cycling safety experts instruct cyclists to stay at least five feet from parked cars in order to avoid being struck or startled. A video demonstrating the derivation of this recommended distance can be seen here. This five foot minimum door zone distance puts bicyclists in the left half of the adjacent lane on some streets. On other streets, with wider lanes, the five foot minimum distance puts the bicyclist in a position where they face potential sideswipes from motorists attempting to squeeze by within the remainder of the lane. For this reason, bicycling safety experts recommend cycling in the center of the effective lane width that excludes the door zone if that effective lane width is narrow. This puts the bicyclist left of center of the full lane width on many urban streets.  A discussion of door zones, effective lane width and recommended positioning of shared lane markings is provided in Chapter 14 of the 2013 ITE Traffic Control Devices Handbook. The Handbook’s Table 14-5 (copied below) of recommended positioning of shared lane markings in various lane widths adjacent to on street parking indicates positions that are well left of the center of the travel lane.

table14-5

Avoidance of Surface Hazards

The right side of the road tends to attract debris such as broken glass, broken vehicle parts, sand, and gravel, and suffers the most pavement defects such as patched utility excavations. Drainage grates and vertical ridges along the gutter pan make the right edge especially treacherous. These hazards compel bicyclists to ride farther left in order to avoid falling or swerving. The usable, effective width of a travel lane is often perceived to be much narrower by bicyclists than by other road users.

NCDOT’s Proposed Prohibition on Bicycling in Left Half of a Marked Lane

In its final Report on the H 232 Bicycle Safety Laws Study, the North Carolina Department of Transportation contravened the unanimous vote of its own study committee, and recommended that the state legislature enact a new law that would prohibit bicycling in the left half of a marked travel lane. NCDOT provided no credible rationale or data to support its recommendation, leaving the bicycling community to speculate that perhaps NCDOT wants the left half of the lane left empty in order to support same-lane passing by motorists. BikeWalk NC opposes this proposed law because it would interfere with exercise of the defensive bicycle driving practices described in this article. Police who see bicyclists operating in the center of the lane (with the left half of their body in the left half of the lane) or close to the left tire track will view this positioning as unlawful, resulting in needless harassment and ticketing of the safest bicyclists on the road. Such a law would also have a chilling effect on bicycling safety education by potentially restricting teaching of effective defensive bicycling techniques.

Written by steven · Categorized: Education · Tagged: lane position

Jan 08 2016

NCDOT Releases Final Report on H232 Study to Legislature

NCDOT has released their final report on the H232 Bicycle Safety Law Study. See the documents linked below:

H232 Bill Text

Final H232 Memo and Report

Final Appendices and Comments

The report differs little from the draft report, and still makes recommendations to restrict bicyclists’ use of our roadways (restriction to right half of travel lane, limit to two abreast within a single lane, permits for informal group rides) that are counter to the votes of the study committee. The immediately obvious changes include:

  • Modification of NCDOT’s recommendation that bicyclists be restricted to the right half of their travel lane. NCDOT’s new proposed restriction on bicyclist lane position would apply to any road with a maximum posted speed limit greater than 35 mph.
  • Modification of NCDOT’s recommendation on group ride permit requirements; NCDOT’s new recommendation is that informal groups of more than 30 cyclists riding together comply with the laws and permit requirements that currently apply to bicycle races.
  • Inclusion of over 500 pages of public feedback comments. (Thanks to everyone who wrote to NCDOT.)

BikeWalk NC’s feedback on the original draft can be found here. Obviously we are disappointed that NCDOT’s proposed new bicycling restrictions are still in the report. We will update our comments to reflect the revised report and discuss next steps for the advocacy community in a future post.

 

 

 

Written by steven · Categorized: Advocacy, News

Jan 04 2016

BikeWalk NC Feedback on NCDOT’s H232 Study Report

BikeWalk NC submitted the following feedback to NCDOT on December 29, 2015 in response to NCDOT’s draft report on the H232 study. The feedback document was accompanied by a cover letter that can be read here.

BikeWalk NC Feedback on NCDOT’s H232 Study Report

12/29/2015

Abstract

BikeWalk NC is greatly concerned by multiple NCDOT recommendations in the H 232 Bicycle Safety Laws Study Report that contradict unanimous votes by the Study Committee and will make bicycling in North Carolina more dangerous and more difficult. We oppose NCDOT’s recommendations that

(1) bicyclists be required to operate in the right half of a marked lane, that

(2) municipalities be allowed to require permits for informal bicycling groups passing through their jurisdictions, and that

(3) restrictions be placed on bicyclists riding side-by-side within a single marked travel lane.

We are also concerned that the recommended night cycling requirements are insufficient. BikeWalk NC supports other recommendations in the report, particularly the provision for passing bicyclists in a no-passing zone when conditions make it safe to do so and the requirements for safer passing.

Operating Position in Roadway

BikeWalk NC is gravely concerned by NCDOT’s issue #7 recommendation that a bicyclist operate in the right half of a marked lane, because this conflicts with effective defensive bicycling techniques employed by knowledgeable bicyclists to improve their safety:

Where a cyclist is riding independently or single abreast, the cyclist shall ride in the right half of the right most travel lane with exceptions described in § 20-146 or except when the cyclist is travelling within 15 miles per hour of the posted speed limit.

The H232 Study Committee voted unanimously in recommendation against changing existing state law applicable to bicyclist operating position on the roadway. NCDOT’s recommendation to restrict this positioning to the right half of the lane conflicts with best practices for safe cycling as taught by all of the major adult bicycling education programs throughout North America and Britain, and conflicts with engineering guidance on placement of Shared Lane Markings (aka sharrows) and Bicycles May Use Full Lane markings as discussed in Chapter 14 of the 2013 ITE Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Conditions where a bicyclist’s safety is enhanced by operating in the center or left hand side of a marked travel lane include

  • To deter same-lane passing when the travel lane is too narrow for a bicyclist and a motor vehicle to operate side-by-side safely in the same lane
  • To improve conspicuity, sight lines and maneuvering space when approaching a location where another driver may pull out into the roadway from a side street, driveway or parking space
  • To improve visibility to oncoming drivers preparing to turn left across the path of the bicyclist
  • To stay a safe distance outside of the door zone of on-street parallel parking

NCDOT’s recommended legal restriction on a bicyclist’s ability to choose their preferred operating position within a marked travel lane will discourage safe bicycling practices and promote conflicts between knowledgeable bicyclists and police. Cycling safety experts have strong scientific theories and compelling evidence to support their claim that a centered or leftward lane position can reduce crash rates at intersections and on narrow-laned roads. NCDOT has offered no operational justification or evidence in favor of restricting bicyclists to the right half of a marked lane. BikeWalk NC recommends against changing the existing law and instead encourages NCDOT to promote public education of effective defensive bicycling practices.

Riding Two or More Abreast

BikeWalk NC objects to NCDOT’s issue #2 recommendation that new legal restrictions be placed on how bicyclists may operate side by side within a single marked lane.

NCDOT recommends that the legislature consider adopting language similar to the following: Bicyclists shall not operate more than two abreast in a single marked travel lane on public roadways except when overtaking another bicyclist.

The H232 Study Committee voted unanimously to recommend that no new regulation of riding abreast within a single lane be enacted, and that an educational program be developed and deployed by NCDOT to promote best practices for group cycling. The Committee believed that existing state laws, such as the requirement for any driver to operate within a single marked lane and for slower traffic to operate within the right hand marked lane, are sufficient to regulate group formation.  NCDOT’s recommended law has no operational justification, and will increase friction between police and bicycling groups, who occasionally appear more than two abreast when rotating or when stopping and restarting at intersections.

Informal Group Rides

BikeWalk NC objects to NCDOT’s issue #8 recommendation that municipalities be enabled to require permitting for informal group rides that pass through their jurisdictions:

The General Assembly may consider enabling legislation for local governments to register informal group rides. Any such legislation should apply to groups of more than 30 cyclists riding for recreational purposes, in a continuous formation, and causing significant delay to traffic flow or preventing safe passing. A group ride that routinely creates queues of vehicles waiting to pass on higher speed roadways should adhere to existing bicycle racing laws, acquiring the necessary permits issued by local or state agencies.

No proposal for municipal regulation of group rides was ever presented or discussed at the H232 Study Committee meetings. The committee recommended that NCDOT examine the state level special event permit process to address complaints about excessive road closure times, public communication and other issues that were raised about special events during the Committee meetings. The Committee recommended that educational programs be developed and deployed to address public concerns with informal group rides.

Enabling local regulation of through traffic would pose serious problems for intra-state travel. Travelers would be required to research the local laws of every municipality through which they would travel, instead of relying on the uniformity of state-wide regulations. NCGS § 20-169, Powers of local authorities, places strict limitations on how local authorities may regulate traffic in order to ensure uniformity of statewide traffic laws for normal vehicle operation and to facilitate practical travel through multiple jurisdictions.  Informal group bicycle rides are very popular due to the increased safety, comfort and support they provide to participants. These rides routinely pass through multiple jurisdictions on a single trip. If municipalities were allowed to require local permits for informal bicycling groups, those groups would need to research the ordinances of multiple jurisdictions and obtain multiple permits in order to meet their travel objectives. Such an onerous burden would severely impact and deter bicycling – an effect with conflicts with the state’s adopted Complete Streets Policy.

Before undertaking any drastic change to the road environment or traffic laws, the responsible course of action is to study actual traffic conditions and the potential effects of proposed changes. In its report, NCDOT admits that it has no data to quantify motoring delays related to informal groups and is simply responding to motorist complaints about bicycle traffic:

It is unknown the extent to which group rides without special event permits have prevented safe passing or caused unreasonable traffic delay. […] While the number of crashes and injuries associated with group rides appear to be rare; this issue appears to be the one that creates the most angst among motorists and cyclists. Establishing clearer expectations and informing both motorists and cyclists should help ease the angst.

NCDOT provides no justification for treating congestion delays from high volumes of bicycle traffic differently from that caused by high volumes of motor traffic, and provides no description of how the proposed restrictions on informal group rides would be enforced. What is an unreasonable delay? Would police be required to count bicyclists? If the number exceeds a threshold, who is to blame? Would all of the cyclists in the group be ticketed? The law enforcement officers on the Study Committee testified that group ride size regulations would be difficult and unpopular to enforce.

Participants in informal group rides point out that motorists are usually able to pass them after just a few seconds of waiting for a safe opportunity, and rarely does the delay last more than a minute. BikeWalk NC suggests that the burdensome regulatory approach recommended by NCDOT is highly disproportionate to the minor convenience impacts of group bicycling.

Visibility and Lighting Requirements

BikeWalk NC is concerned that the Study Report recommendations for night visibility do not increase the minimum visibility distance from the rear of the bicycle compared to the existing law. Given the high speed of traffic on many roads that utilitarian bicyclists need to use to reach their destinations, BikeWalk NC recommends that bicyclists operating at night be required to use rear lights visible from 1,000 feet away, equivalent to the standard required of bicyclists in Sweden, and which is easily met by most commercially available bicycle LED tail-lamps.   Using the 200-foot standard in the law is inadequate considering stopping distances and given that most inexpensive ($10 to $20) lights are typically visible for a quarter mile (over 1,000 feet).

Other Provisions

BikeWalk NC supports the other Study Report recommendations, most of which are aligned with the Committee recommendations.

  • How faster-moving vehicles may safely overtake bicycles: The report recommendation to allow drivers to pass bicyclists in no-passing zones when safe, under clearly limited conditions, brings state law into alignment with existing safe passing behavior employed by prudent drivers on narrow rural roads. Most motorists move across a solid centerline to pass bicyclists at safe distance after waiting until sight distances are adequate and no conflicting traffic is present. Motorists recognize that the sight distance required to pass a bicyclist safely is usually far shorter than that required for passing a motor vehicle traveling near the maximum posted speed limit, and that a solid centerline is an unreasonable restriction against passing a bicyclist when it can be done safely.
  • Whether bicyclists should be required to carry a form of identification: BikeWalk NC encourages bicyclists to carry identification as a best practice but strongly supports the report recommendation against requiring ID as this would pose a burden for some cyclists who do not possess official IDs.
  • Options for hand signals for turning: BikeWalk NC supports the recommendation to allow use of the right hand to signal right turns.
  • 2-foot or other passing distance requirements: BikeWalk NC supports the recommendation to increase the minimum distance for passing a bicyclist; the existing two foot distance is inadequate when passing a bicyclist who must maintain balance and is not protected by a safety cage.
  • Use of headphones or texting while cycling: BikeWalk NC agrees with the report recommendation.
  • Aggressive driving, harassment, and distracted driving laws: BikeWalk NC agrees with the report recommendation.
  • Vulnerable road user protection: BikeWalk NC supports the report recommendation to extend the legal protection of motorcyclists to bicyclists.
  • Formal group event permitting and regulations: BikeWalk NC agrees with the report recommendation to study and improve how special event road closures are implemented.

Written by steven · Categorized: Advocacy, News · Tagged: H 232, H232, HB 232, HB232

Dec 22 2015

Alert: NCDOT Releases Draft H232 Report

NCDOT has released a draft report of recommendations for the H232 Bicycle Safety Law Study. The draft report includes recommendations that differ substantially from the recommendations of the H232 committee. For instance, the NCDOT report recommends legislation limiting riding abreast (the committee voted unanimously against such legislation) and recommends legislation requiring bicyclists to ride on the right side of marked travel lane (the committee took no action on this issue; BikeWalk NC had prepared comments on lane positioning but was not given the opportunity to present them).

The Draft report may be read here: http://www.bikewalknc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/H-232-report.pdf

The Draft Appendices to the report may be read here: http://www.bikewalknc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Appendices_sm.pdf

NCDOT’s page that includes committee meeting minutes is here:

BikeWalk NC urges cyclists in NC to review the draft report and send NCDOT comments before December 29. BikeWalk NC recommends that no new legislation be promoted to restrict where a bicyclist may ride within a marked travel lane or riding abreast within a single marked travel lane.

Please email questions and comments to NCDOT (at bwpoole@ncdot.gov) by 5:00 p.m. on December 29, 2015. Include “H232 Comments” in the title. Comments should be addressed to “NCDOT” or to the “Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee.” Email comments will be included as an addendum to the appendix. The final report and appendix will be sent to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee by December 31, 2015.

BikeWalk NC Recommendation:
We recommend that supporters email NCDOT via the feedback address – bwpoole@ncdot.gov – and tell them:

(1) Restricting solo bicyclists to the right half of marked travel lanes interferes with defensive bicycling practices such as lane control, staying safely out of the door zone of parked cars, improving visibility at junctions (to deter left-cross and drive-out collisions), and avoiding right-hook crashes. Taking away half of bicyclists’ existing travel lane rights encourages police and motorist harassment of safe cyclists and invites legal problems for cyclists via the state’s contributory negligence law.

(2) The riding abreast issue should be handled with public education on safe group riding practices as the committee recommended. The committee voted unanimously against recommending new regulation that would limit riding side-by-side within a single lane. The committee felt that existing law is sufficient for cyclists who exercise safe side-by-side cycling and that new regulations on cycling abreast within a single lane would create unnecessary enforcement problems, particularly when groups of cyclists rotate and where they stop at traffic signals.

(3) Allowing or encouraging each municipality to enact and enforce its own local regulations and permitting process for group rides creates a bureaucratic nightmare for ride organizers, whose rides can easily pass through several different municipalities and is insensitive to those who worked diligently to produce a sensible and practical permitting process at the state level.

Note that NCDOT employee Brian Poole (bwpoole@ncdot.gov) is the messenger here and not the author of the things we find objectionable in the report. Please be respectful to Brian and give him substantive feedback that can be forwarded to the report author(s).

Lastly, note that posting comments on our (BikeWalk NC) site below, while appreciated, does not send feedback to NCDOT. Use bwpoole@ncdot.gov or otherwise contact the Bike/Ped division to provide feedback to NCDOT.

Written by steven · Categorized: Advocacy, News

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 14
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

Follow Us

FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram

© 2023 BikeWalkNC · P.O. Box 531, Cary, NC 27512 · (919) 998-6323 · Contact Us