genec

I love this... this is where all those "perfect definitions" of the MUTCD and other jargon fall short, as none of the motorists, the cops and probably not even the judges know this... and few cyclists know this definition of "roadway" and "traveled portion of the road;" they are only going to know where the asphalt ends... period.

genec

Uh, you are new here right?

Let's talk about a few small things... the folks here that are antagonistic about autos have had run-ins with motorists while trying to share the road respectfully with motorists... So while they would love to show common courtesy, they would also love to receive it. It is a two way street out there.

Regarding slowing while driving... yeah I do it... I drive the speed limit or just under it... it is after all, a LIMIT, not the speed average, not the speed you are trying to meet, and not the speed minimum. So driving the speed limit or just under it is both proper and correct. If you were given a gauge on a machine and told never to exceed a set redline, would you work to hold that redline, or would you operate under that redline?

Now go one further... speeds are constantly adjusted on roads based on the 85th percentile of the speeds of the road users... tired of finding all the roads in your area marked at 45 or 50MPH and motorists constantly driving much much faster... well then slow down... don't push the speed limit, drive under it.

Try it. It is legal, it is safe and it sets an example for other motorists to also drive at less then the LIMIT.

As far as the issue with the cop... the cop took law into his own hands... made up his own rules... if the cop felt as strongly about it as the cyclist, he should have issued a ticket; which would have then brought the matter before a judge, for proper interpretation. But no, the cop chose to bully the cyclist (who was in compliance with the law at the time) and then the cop refused to back up his own actions with a written record. Sounds fishy to me.

Yes, a bit of defiance was used, and it is sometimes called for in a free society in order for people to obtain the rights that laws grant them... Look at any other past struggle for rights.

nova

Lol some one who has experiance cycling in ohio i see. Isnt it fun?

Hahaha
Seriously ohio is unpredictable from town to town street to street. There are some streets here where i feel 100% safe doing 16 or 17 in a 45 mph zone to the point of not even worrying about looking over my shoulder ( i still do but its pure habbit).
Then on other streets that should be much safer you ither look over your shoulder or risk getting killed.
Not to mention half the cops in my area have no clue as to laws regarding bikes and road cycling

DCCommuter

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier when I said that this law was written to sound like it means exactly the opposite of what it really says. Instead of saying "roadway" the law could say "travel lane" and have exactly the same meaning, and be much clearer to non-experts.

timmhaan

there was a report on this very subject on PBS a few nights ago. it was about marketing ideas. one guy has built a career around finding key words, packaging them up, and selling them to various interest groups. he was instrumental in getting the "estate tax" revoked by changing the jargon to "death tax". "global warming" to "climate change", etc. changes in wording make people think about the exact same subject differently. no doubt about it.

aadhils

I bet u a dollar that the cop was Dubya Bush in disguise...

scarry

Bravo!!!!Well said. Some people don't understand the words "Maximum Speed". They get confused into thinking that it's the required minimum speed. They say things like "if you can't ride your bike at the 45 mph speed limit, then get off the road" as if use of the road requires maintaining the speed limit.

You can find the same arguments used in freeway driving conditions with the speeders ranting on motorists who drive at the limit (or even well above) in the left lane, thus denying them their "right" to drive as fast as they damn well please.

noisebeam

It is pubicly communicated policy of law enforement in most cities here in phx-metro that a speeding ticket will not result if going 11 or less mph over the limit. Very recently the policy was change in one Phx-metro city (Mesa) that this will be reduce to 5mph when in 35mph school zones.

https://www.azcentral.com/community/t...zone28Z10.html

I also drive the speed limit here and it sure does irriate quite a few other drivers even when I am in the right most lane. Not as much as it irritates drivers when I cycle 15-20mph below the speed limit in narrow outside lanes - Just yesterday riding home I was honked at twice twice and once yelled at to get off the road all within a 2mi stretch. I am now more surprised if I don't get yelled/honked at in this stretch to the point I tell my wife about it when it rarely happens.

Al

genec

That policy makes no sense what so ever... it is almost like saying... "well yes, theft is against the law, but we ARE leaving the door unlocked and the cash drawer open... "

Sigh... Sometimes you have to wonder... I mean really wonder.

noisebeam

It makes even less sense when one considers how the speed limit is set - that is to the 85th percentile speed - then add 11mph to that!

Its seems to me the speed limit should be set to 11mph below the 85 percentile.

Al

LCI_Brian

Doesn't it have something to do with the accuracy range of radar, i.e., would a ticket for less than 11 mph over the speed limit hold up in court?

noisebeam

Maybe in the 70s it did, radar is far too accurate to allow for a 11mph tollerance.

Also note that 15mph school zones have a 0mph tollerance and now 35mph have a 5mph tollerance and the 0mph ones hold in court.

Al

genec

Probably, but the whole policy of the way speed limits are set and poorly enforced simply pushes up the actual speeds on the roads and reduces any margin of safety that a controlled speed might give.

DCCommuter

Funny, I get honked at a lot more when I drive than when I cycle. It just bothers me more when I'm on my bike.

noisebeam

I can't recall the last time I was honked at while I was driving. I would remember - it was many months ago at least.

I'll give you my bike if I'm not honked at this evening while riding home and following all laws.

Al

sbhikes

I've only been honked at while cycling when I was cycling up a narrow hill with no ability for the cars behind me to pass. I keep hearing about a bike lane coming soon, but when, dammit? I need it now! I do not like holding up all that traffic while I'm plodding up the hill at 5mph. I don't care about my rights and albatrosses and whatnot. I just do not enjoy the situation. If a bike lane will help me I'll gladly take it with a heaping helping of gratitude. Then I'll be free to go 3mph if I want, sip coffee and read the paper while I'm plodding my way up.

royalflash

bike lanes aren´t perfect but I might have mentioned before on this forum that they do have the effect of getting more people to cycle- the result is that it becomes more difficult to marginalise cyclists. Cyclists therefore become an accepted mode of transportation instead of being viewed as road going vermin to be crushed under the wheels of the next motorised vehicle that passes if they don´t manage to scurry from beneath its wheels.

The views of this CHP officer are not surprising but merely reflect the views of society as a whole.

If you (Helmet Head) like being some sort of cycling lone ranger fighting societies injustice then go ahead but it won´t do any good.

You have to broaden the appeal of cycling first.

linux_author

- better to get honked at than honked off?

hee hee!

:-)

(used to live in Shirlington off the trail at Walter Reed Dr. S. and Arlington Mill)

LCI_Brian

In this case the CHP didn't order the group to pull over until after they moved into the lane to pass the slower cyclist.

Helmet Head

I don't believe bike lanes broaden the appeal of cycling at all, much less by any significant degree.

More importantly, I believe bike lanes contribute to the glass ceiling effect caused by the widely held notion that cyclists are and should be obligated to stay out of the way of cars. While removing bike lanes alone will not resolve this issue, as long as we have bike lanes, and support for bike lanes, there is no chance that it will be solved.

So broadening the appeal of cycling first sounds good, but I don't know how you do that, but I do know you don't do it by creating more bike lanes, and you might start moving in the right direction by removing bike lanes.

The key to making cycling more appealing, is making cycling in traffic more appealing. And the key to that, is shedding the albatross that makes traffic cycling so unnecessarily challenging and unappealing that most people aren't interested in even learning about trying it, and most cyclists avoid traffic whenever possible, perpetuating their misperception about the difficulties in navigating through it. The albatross I speak, of course, is the belief that cyclists are and should be obligated to stay out of the way of cars. As long as you believe that, cycling among cars is going to be very stressful, so stressful that most people choose to avoid it.

I don't know how you help people shed the belief that cyclists are and should be obligated to stay out the way of cars in a society that has and promotes facilities whose most obvious purpose is to keep cyclists out of the way of cars.

So, first you have to remove bike lanes. Only then will people start asking the right questions -- like "okay then, how am I supposed to get from here to there on a bike?" -- questions that must be asked before they can be answered, and the albatrosses released.

CMcMahon

Should bikes stay out of the way of cars? Yes. Why? Because cars go fast and they weigh a lot.

scarry

You make it sound like the cars are an unstoppable object without any control, like a white-water river or an avalanche or a tsunami. You are leaving out the driver, who is in control of the car, and is tasked with avoiding objects in his path. The law of the road is that faster traffic must yield to slower traffic ahead. Without this rule, there would be nothing but crashes every day.

CMcMahon

Perhaps I should have used the [notserious] tags?

genec

I want to adress this issue of bikes staying out of the way of cars... or as some would prefer: cyclists staying out of the way of motorists.

In all cases, when possible, cyclists do work to stay out of the way of motorists... we look for gaps, we stay on the right side of wide roads, we use bike lanes, and even HH, while he may typically travel in the center of "travel lanes" moves out of the way of motorists as they approach...

This is simply because as cyclists, we are generally the slower traffic on the road.

All slower traffic should stay out of the way of faster traffic, when it is safe to do so.

So the "widely held notion that cyclists are and should be obligated to stay out of the way of cars" is only consistent with traffic rules, and is nothing more then that... anyone that thinks otherwise is either interpreting laws incorrectly (such as the CHP officer mentioned in this forum) or has some other odd notion of where cyclists belong on the road.

royalflash

I disagree with your point of view. In my opinion bikes are fundamentally incompatible with motorised vehicles. The only reason to have cars with bikes is that there is not enough room to separate them. Don´get me wrong if I have to then I will get in with the traffic and cycle assertively and so far have always got where I want to go without serious injury. I will continue to cycle until they kill me. Nevertheless, I have seen cars run in to other cars, motorway crash barriers and buildings. There is no reason to think that simply because I choose to ride according to some cycling theory such as VC that I have some guarantee of safety. If you believe that riding VC means you are safe then you are probably the same type of person who would have believed in witchcraft in the middle ages.

I also drive a car sometimes and am well aware that my driving is not perfect and I could potentially kill a cyclist given the right (wrong circumstances).

You (HH) seem to think that driving is an inherently safe activity if only all parties would follow the rules and watch out and that is where I part company from your philosophy.

VC may make the best of a bad situation at present but there is no way that cyclists should be forced to ride with motorised vehicles. The CHP officer is right in a way. Cyclists do need to keep out of the way of cars. More dedicated cycling paths with as much segregation as possible are needed.