View Poll Results: Would cycling be better off without "Ride to the Right?"
Yes
62
57.41%
No
32
29.63%
Not Sure
14
12.96%
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll
Better off without "Ride to the Right?"
12-12-08, 10:33 AM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I see no problem with the law, as it leaves the decision of "practicability" to the cyclist. All it does is establish a precedent, really-- the proper thing to do, if it's safe, is to move right and allow others to pass. Seems like common courtesy.
The issue here is that so many cyclists are timid, and so many drivers aggressive, that many riders have lost the will to assert their rights when safety should compel them to do so. I don't think changing the law is the answer. It seems like a social shift is necessary.
The issue here is that so many cyclists are timid, and so many drivers aggressive, that many riders have lost the will to assert their rights when safety should compel them to do so. I don't think changing the law is the answer. It seems like a social shift is necessary.
12-12-08, 11:57 AM
#27
feros ferio
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,793
Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1390 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times
in
835 Posts
I see no problem with the law, as it leaves the decision of "practicability" to the cyclist. All it does is establish a precedent, really-- the proper thing to do, if it's safe, is to move right and allow others to pass. Seems like common courtesy.
The issue here is that so many cyclists are timid, and so many drivers aggressive, that many riders have lost the will to assert their rights when safety should compel them to do so. I don't think changing the law is the answer. It seems like a social shift is necessary.
The issue here is that so many cyclists are timid, and so many drivers aggressive, that many riders have lost the will to assert their rights when safety should compel them to do so. I don't think changing the law is the answer. It seems like a social shift is necessary.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
12-12-08, 12:00 PM
#28
feros ferio
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,793
Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1390 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times
in
835 Posts
How 'bout "may take the lane, ...," since some of us doubt the wisdom of taking a 55mph lane when there is a perfectly good shoulder or bike lane available.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
12-12-08, 12:51 PM
#29
Commuter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 2,568
Bikes: 2006 Giant Cypress EX (7-speed internal hub)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This 'back of the bus' stuff is nonsense. Always makes my hair stand up. Displays a fairly frightening ignorance of history or an amazing sense of entitlement or both.
Newsflash folks -- bicyclists enjoy more freedom and 'rights' than any other class of road user. Don't screw it up with your misguided whining.
The ride to the right law, with exceptions written in to favor bicyclists, is really just a codification of common sense and common courtesy, in my opinion. As many here have mentioned, lots of cops and drivers have a very much less favorable view of where cyclists should be allowed to ride than is expressed in this law. It's not the law that's the problem. The law doesn't require anyone to ride in a door zone or through piles of litter or in a right turn lane or over potholes, it expressly says otherwise. It also allows you to ride wherever you want in the lane when there is no faster traffic around, in my interpretation. It does require a little bit of compromise, that's how the world works. It's a shame that we have to codify common courtesy.
Traffic is compromise. You move a little to the right, they move a little to the left and everybody goes on their way. I guess it comes as a shock to some people that they have to compromise with other road users while using the roads. The uncompromising bicyclist who refuses to cooperate with motorists who want to pass is just the same as the guy who pulls up behind them and lays on the horn. It's just two uncompromising road users saying howdy, and bickering like spoiled children.
I would add that it's the uncompromising lane takers, not the scofflaws, who will get us all kicked off the roads.
Newsflash folks -- bicyclists enjoy more freedom and 'rights' than any other class of road user. Don't screw it up with your misguided whining.
The ride to the right law, with exceptions written in to favor bicyclists, is really just a codification of common sense and common courtesy, in my opinion. As many here have mentioned, lots of cops and drivers have a very much less favorable view of where cyclists should be allowed to ride than is expressed in this law. It's not the law that's the problem. The law doesn't require anyone to ride in a door zone or through piles of litter or in a right turn lane or over potholes, it expressly says otherwise. It also allows you to ride wherever you want in the lane when there is no faster traffic around, in my interpretation. It does require a little bit of compromise, that's how the world works. It's a shame that we have to codify common courtesy.
Traffic is compromise. You move a little to the right, they move a little to the left and everybody goes on their way. I guess it comes as a shock to some people that they have to compromise with other road users while using the roads. The uncompromising bicyclist who refuses to cooperate with motorists who want to pass is just the same as the guy who pulls up behind them and lays on the horn. It's just two uncompromising road users saying howdy, and bickering like spoiled children.
I would add that it's the uncompromising lane takers, not the scofflaws, who will get us all kicked off the roads.
My gripe is not at all with the content of the law, but the cultural psychological effect of its existence. It's fine to have a law that says if you are going slower than everyone else, you should allow them to pass you if it is safe to. No problem there. But the general slow-moving vehicle law already says that! So having a bicycle-only version of it is redundant, especially if you believe that all the exceptions are common sense anyway.
So why have a redundant law that applies only to cyclists? You'd think there'd have to be a reason, and I suspect that most people would answer from ignorance that the reason is that bikes are less important road users. I think the existence of the law, not necessarily its content, implies this to many non-cyclists. Why else not make do with the slow-moving vehicle law? Are bikes different from other slow-moving vehicles? Yes, operationally, but should not be in terms of traffic law.
I think one reason that the law implies this to many people is because, as wheel noted, most folks just know that the law exists but know nothing of its content. So it's a natural conclusion to interpret it to mean "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars". Whereas if the Ride to the Right law didn't exist, the slow-moving vehicle law would be the only applicable one, and some alleged "difference" between bikes and cars would not muddy up the issue.
12-12-08, 01:27 PM
#30
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
I think one reason that the law implies this to many people is because, as wheel noted, most folks just know that the law exists but know nothing of its content. So it's a natural conclusion to interpret it to mean "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars". Whereas if the Ride to the Right law didn't exist, the slow-moving vehicle law would be the only applicable one, and some alleged "difference" between bikes and cars would not muddy up the issue.
We cyclists are not equal road users in the minds of most motorists... look at the typical responses seen in newspapers RE collisions between cyclist and motorist... the response is usually along the lines of "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars" and then some.
Sadly the laws of physics also tend to dictate that perhaps we don't want to "get in the way" of cars... in spite of our legal status. Of course that latter statement might be attributed to Forester's "inferiority syndrome." But the reality is that road designs and laws tend to strongly favor the motor vehicle... from such issues as the 85% rule to even Environmental Impact Studies in CA which deny the impact of the auto and have clauses that favor the use of the auto.
This overall is a societal problem stemming from our laziness and addiction to oil and the status of the auto in our culture.
12-12-08, 02:02 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
12 Posts
I'm still not convinced it's nonsense. Granted, the "back of the bus" comparison may be a bit much in terms of relative important of the issue, but I think it's the same concept, even if obviously of much less larger societal relevance.
My gripe is not at all with the content of the law, but the cultural psychological effect of its existence. It's fine to have a law that says if you are going slower than everyone else, you should allow them to pass you if it is safe to. No problem there. But the general slow-moving vehicle law already says that! So having a bicycle-only version of it is redundant, especially if you believe that all the exceptions are common sense anyway.
So why have a redundant law that applies only to cyclists? You'd think there'd have to be a reason, and I suspect that most people would answer from ignorance that the reason is that bikes are less important road users. I think the existence of the law, not necessarily its content, implies this to many non-cyclists. Why else not make do with the slow-moving vehicle law? Are bikes different from other slow-moving vehicles? Yes, operationally, but should not be in terms of traffic law.
I think one reason that the law implies this to many people is because, as wheel noted, most folks just know that the law exists but know nothing of its content. So it's a natural conclusion to interpret it to mean "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars". Whereas if the Ride to the Right law didn't exist, the slow-moving vehicle law would be the only applicable one, and some alleged "difference" between bikes and cars would not muddy up the issue.
My gripe is not at all with the content of the law, but the cultural psychological effect of its existence. It's fine to have a law that says if you are going slower than everyone else, you should allow them to pass you if it is safe to. No problem there. But the general slow-moving vehicle law already says that! So having a bicycle-only version of it is redundant, especially if you believe that all the exceptions are common sense anyway.
So why have a redundant law that applies only to cyclists? You'd think there'd have to be a reason, and I suspect that most people would answer from ignorance that the reason is that bikes are less important road users. I think the existence of the law, not necessarily its content, implies this to many non-cyclists. Why else not make do with the slow-moving vehicle law? Are bikes different from other slow-moving vehicles? Yes, operationally, but should not be in terms of traffic law.
I think one reason that the law implies this to many people is because, as wheel noted, most folks just know that the law exists but know nothing of its content. So it's a natural conclusion to interpret it to mean "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars". Whereas if the Ride to the Right law didn't exist, the slow-moving vehicle law would be the only applicable one, and some alleged "difference" between bikes and cars would not muddy up the issue.
I don't see how eliminating the law would improve the situation for bicycling at all. I can see how it would make it worse.
12-12-08, 02:21 PM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
12 Posts
I don't think most folks even know the law exists... but they do know for some reason that "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars." Fundamentally I think most drivers don't know that we really don't "have to stay out of the way of cars." The thinking is indeed more along the lines of "the back of the bus."
Using the language of the civil rights movement to describe bicycling in America is a sign of great confusion about the nature of bicycling and the history of racism. Clearly we bicyclists are sheltered to a fault if we start thinking along those lines. Riding in the back of the bus was about the least egregious form of racism that blacks suffered in this country. Hearing bicyclists whine using such words is particularly hard to take considering the role that bicyclists themselves played in the country's racist past.
12-12-08, 02:29 PM
#33
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
the purpose of the laws mandating riding as far as practicable to the right (with exceptions) are not to codify road position by bicyclists but to spell out and codify the exceptions to the 'slower stay right' laws common to both bikes and motorists (like avoiding unsafe pavement conditions - not spelled out for motorists but clarified for bicyclists)
Robert - kudos to your explanations. +1
Robert - kudos to your explanations. +1
12-12-08, 02:48 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I think you've got it backwards John. The vast majority of motorists don't know the law exists or have only a very vague notion of it. Widespread knowledge of the law's wording would result in an improvement in the general conception of cyclists' rights held by the non-bicycling world, I believe. "Wow, you mean they don't have to move over if the lane is too narrow to share, if they are going the speed of traffic or if there are potholes or ice or doorzones or a whole mess of other crap that I don't even understand? Wow, I didn't know that..."
12-12-08, 04:22 PM
#35
Cycle Year Round
I am surprised that some here do not see the stay far right law a discriminatory.
Let us take another historic law for comparison. What if we rewrote the old time restroom laws to mimic the stay out of motorist way cycling laws as follows:
Georgia Revised Statutes
RCSM code 192.a
(1) Whites may use any restroom at any time they wish.
(2) Blacks shall only use black signed restrooms unless one of the following exceptions exist:
(a) the line to the black restroom is longer than ten,
(b) all toilets in the black restroom are broken, or
(c) the black restroom is closed for cleaning for longer than 30 minutes.
That law would actually give blacks more rights according to the logic of some here.
Let us take another historic law for comparison. What if we rewrote the old time restroom laws to mimic the stay out of motorist way cycling laws as follows:
Georgia Revised Statutes
RCSM code 192.a
(1) Whites may use any restroom at any time they wish.
(2) Blacks shall only use black signed restrooms unless one of the following exceptions exist:
(a) the line to the black restroom is longer than ten,
(b) all toilets in the black restroom are broken, or
(c) the black restroom is closed for cleaning for longer than 30 minutes.
That law would actually give blacks more rights according to the logic of some here.
Last edited by CB HI; 12-12-08 at 06:28 PM.
12-12-08, 04:49 PM
#36
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
jebezzus.
12-12-08, 04:54 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
12 Posts
As far as I can tell, there is ZERO effort being made to reeducate motorists on these points, not by the Federal Transportation Safety folks, and certainly not by any of the state or local DOTs. All we get are erroneous opinions and clear misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misapplications of the law by the media and law enforcement agencies.
I would guess that only a small percentage of bicyclists, for that matter, know about the exceptions to the ride to the right law, or the other variations on traffic laws that exist in their locales. For years I rode under the assumption that it was legal for bicyclists to ride on the left side of one-way streets in Denver (as far right OR left as practicable), but I was wrong. There is no provision for bicyclists to ride on the left side of one-ways in Denver as there exists in some cities. But I used the left side cooperatively for years and years and nobody ever harassed me and no cop ever said a word.
Problems with the ride-to-the-right law come from extremists on both sides. Uncompromising bicyclists and uncompromising motorists. Everybody else gets along fine without ever thinking or worrying much about this law.
12-12-08, 05:09 PM
#38
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
There is certainly anti-bicycle sentiment out there, some places worse than others. But it ain't the fault of this law. I believe it would be more accurate to blame ignorance of the law as the culprit. The law establishes critical rights for bicyclists. All it asks is that we get out of the way for a faster vehicle if it is safe for us to do so. Not much of a compromise there at all, imo, as I would do that anyway.
Using the language of the civil rights movement to describe bicycling in America is a sign of great confusion about the nature of bicycling and the history of racism. Clearly we bicyclists are sheltered to a fault if we start thinking along those lines. Riding in the back of the bus was about the least egregious form of racism that blacks suffered in this country. Hearing bicyclists whine using such words is particularly hard to take considering the role that bicyclists themselves played in the country's racist past.
Using the language of the civil rights movement to describe bicycling in America is a sign of great confusion about the nature of bicycling and the history of racism. Clearly we bicyclists are sheltered to a fault if we start thinking along those lines. Riding in the back of the bus was about the least egregious form of racism that blacks suffered in this country. Hearing bicyclists whine using such words is particularly hard to take considering the role that bicyclists themselves played in the country's racist past.
The vast majority of motorists don't know the law exists or have only a very vague notion of it. Widespread knowledge of the law's wording would result in an improvement in the general conception of cyclists' rights held by the non-bicycling world, I believe. "Wow, you mean they don't have to move over if the lane is too narrow to share, if they are going the speed of traffic or if there are potholes or ice or doorzones or a whole mess of other crap that I don't even understand? Wow, I didn't know that..."
Educating cyclists is all well and good, but if even the most educated cyclist is up against mostly ignorant motorists that education means very little.
Personally I have always felt that "road use education" should be the 4th R in our public schools... Road use is after all a life long activity... so there should be a smattering of it taught in lower grades, with "road use" ultimately culminating in a drivers license in high school... with at least a full semester of training vice the usual 6 weeks of cram session.
12-12-08, 05:13 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
12 Posts
I am surprised that some here do not see the stay far right law a discriminatory.
Let us take another historic law for comparison. What if we rewrote the old time restroom laws to mimic the stay out of motorist way cycling laws as follows:
Georgia Revised Statutes
RCSM code 192.a
(1) Whites may us any restroom at any time they wish.
(2) Blacks shall only use black signed restrooms unless one of the following exceptions exist:
(a) the line to the black restroom is longer than ten,
(b) all toilets in the black restroom are broken, or
(c) the black restroom is closed for cleaning for longer than 30 minutes.
That law would actually give blacks more rights according to the logic of some here.
Let us take another historic law for comparison. What if we rewrote the old time restroom laws to mimic the stay out of motorist way cycling laws as follows:
Georgia Revised Statutes
RCSM code 192.a
(1) Whites may us any restroom at any time they wish.
(2) Blacks shall only use black signed restrooms unless one of the following exceptions exist:
(a) the line to the black restroom is longer than ten,
(b) all toilets in the black restroom are broken, or
(c) the black restroom is closed for cleaning for longer than 30 minutes.
That law would actually give blacks more rights according to the logic of some here.
I just figured out what VC stands for: Victim Complex.
What is the problem with moving over for a faster vehicle if it is safe to do so?
12-12-08, 05:17 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
12 Posts
Yeah I have to agree with you there... I think that the issues we face are what you stated to John... on that we are in full agreement.
Which is why I find it so darn frustrating that we as a collective group (which in itself is a problem) don't get out there and provide funding for training the general public... PSAs, billboards etc about HOW to share the road. Heck even simple "share the road" signs are often misinterpreted by the public to mean "cyclists move over and share..." vice their true meaning.
Educating cyclists is all well and good, but if even the most educated cyclist is up against mostly ignorant motorists that education means very little.
Personally I have always felt that "road use education" should be the 4th R in our public schools... Road use is after all a life long activity... so there should be a smattering of it taught in lower grades, with "road use" ultimately culminating in a drivers license in high school... with at least a full semester of training vice the usual 6 weeks of cram session.
Which is why I find it so darn frustrating that we as a collective group (which in itself is a problem) don't get out there and provide funding for training the general public... PSAs, billboards etc about HOW to share the road. Heck even simple "share the road" signs are often misinterpreted by the public to mean "cyclists move over and share..." vice their true meaning.
Educating cyclists is all well and good, but if even the most educated cyclist is up against mostly ignorant motorists that education means very little.
Personally I have always felt that "road use education" should be the 4th R in our public schools... Road use is after all a life long activity... so there should be a smattering of it taught in lower grades, with "road use" ultimately culminating in a drivers license in high school... with at least a full semester of training vice the usual 6 weeks of cram session.
12-12-08, 05:30 PM
#41
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Nothing... the problem tends to be NOT moving over when it is not safe to do so and having that decision being accepted by other road users.
12-12-08, 05:42 PM
#42
Βanned.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 620
Bikes: 1976 Dawes Galaxy, 1993 Trek 950 Single Track and Made-to-Measure Reynolds 753 road bike with Campag throughout.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The problem with 'may' take the lane, is that it sounds like we are being given permission. I prefer a statute that is neither giving nor taking. There is a strong argument that if a statute neither gives nor takes, then it is redundant and therefore does not need to exist. This would be true if repealing the ride-to-the-right rule was combined with considerable driver education. That is never going to happen.
The point, that I am failing to emphasize, is that motorists should be more cognizant of the fact that cyclists are providing a courtesy when they move to the right to allow them to pass. We are not getting out of the way!
If the ride-to-the-right rule is with us forever, then it should include a set of exclusions so long as to make it seem absurd i.e. it should list comprehensively all of the things that would give a cyclist legitimate reason to move left, including:
- puddles of water - who knows how deep the hole is that lurks beneath the surface.
- ice
- debris
- glass
- build up of wet leaves to any depth
- large cracks in the pavement
- loose gravel, stones or sand
- pot holes
- steel plates
- to position for a left turn
- to pass pedestrians in the roadway
- to pass stationary or parked vehicles
- to pass slower cyclists
- to pass slower vehicles
- to avoid using right-turn-only lanes
- when traveling at the same speed as other traffic or within 5 mph of the posted speed limit
and most important of all: - to adopt the position deemed safest by the cyclist
- etc.
__________________
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
12-12-08, 06:06 PM
#43
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
the exceptions codified in every state law i've read include 'but not limited to' language when describing those conditions.
The reiteration of bicyclists as slower vehicles to ride as far right as is practicable laws (In WA state it is 'as near to the right edge of the rightmost thru lane as is safe) ARE to clarify, codify and allow cyclists to choose the position deemed safest by the bicyclist.
The reiteration of bicyclists as slower vehicles to ride as far right as is practicable laws (In WA state it is 'as near to the right edge of the rightmost thru lane as is safe) ARE to clarify, codify and allow cyclists to choose the position deemed safest by the bicyclist.
12-12-08, 06:22 PM
#44
Cycle Year Round
The 'ride to the right, with a bunch of exceptions' should be inverted.
As currently perceived by motorists, cyclists are meant to stay 'out of the way' on the right and my dollar says that more than 90% of motorists have zero knowledge of the exceptions. This, as stated eloquently above by RoughStuff is "an albatross hung ONLY around the neck of cyclists".
Inverting the law would bring it home to motorists that cyclists have every right to be on the road, and we are doing them a courtesy by riding to the right:
"Cyclists should take the lane, unless the lane is wide enough to allow all vehicles to pass with at least 3 feet of clearance".
No mention of position within a lane. No list of exceptions. That is how it should be.
Until the law is written this way, law enforcement will not only likely side with the motorists egregious perception, but is also likely to join those making unsafe passes.
As currently perceived by motorists, cyclists are meant to stay 'out of the way' on the right and my dollar says that more than 90% of motorists have zero knowledge of the exceptions. This, as stated eloquently above by RoughStuff is "an albatross hung ONLY around the neck of cyclists".
Inverting the law would bring it home to motorists that cyclists have every right to be on the road, and we are doing them a courtesy by riding to the right:
"Cyclists should take the lane, unless the lane is wide enough to allow all vehicles to pass with at least 3 feet of clearance".
No mention of position within a lane. No list of exceptions. That is how it should be.
Until the law is written this way, law enforcement will not only likely side with the motorists egregious perception, but is also likely to join those making unsafe passes.
RobertHurst "I just figured out what VC stands for: Victim Complex." Play the fool if you like.
12-12-08, 06:23 PM
#45
Βanned.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 620
Bikes: 1976 Dawes Galaxy, 1993 Trek 950 Single Track and Made-to-Measure Reynolds 753 road bike with Campag throughout.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
the exceptions codified in every state law i've read include 'but not limited to' language when describing those conditions.
The reiteration of bicyclists as slower vehicles to ride as far right as is practicable laws (In WA state it is 'as near to the right edge of the rightmost thru lane as is safe) ARE to clarify, codify and allow cyclists to choose the position deemed safest by the bicyclist.
The reiteration of bicyclists as slower vehicles to ride as far right as is practicable laws (In WA state it is 'as near to the right edge of the rightmost thru lane as is safe) ARE to clarify, codify and allow cyclists to choose the position deemed safest by the bicyclist.
I see the ride-to-the-right rule as a codified courtesy. I will accept it when Please and Thank you are also codified.
__________________
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
12-12-08, 07:29 PM
#46
Bicycle Repair Man !!!
It doesn't.
I would not put myself in the lane when the traffic is moving at 25-35 mph faster than me.
Fortunately... most of our arterials / freeways and highways have really wide shoulders that will allow a cyclist plenty of room on what is generally a smoother road surface as it is not normally subjected to vehicular traffic.
I thin a lot of this stems from a need to allow rural vehicles to travel our roads without interfering with regular traffic and even though I don't think the planners were thinking of cyclists, it serves our needs quite well.
We still have our fair share of narrow country roads with nominal shoulders and one just has to be really vigilant then you ride them... for the most part I have found that drivers in the country will give you lots of room when they pass.
I would not put myself in the lane when the traffic is moving at 25-35 mph faster than me.
Fortunately... most of our arterials / freeways and highways have really wide shoulders that will allow a cyclist plenty of room on what is generally a smoother road surface as it is not normally subjected to vehicular traffic.
I thin a lot of this stems from a need to allow rural vehicles to travel our roads without interfering with regular traffic and even though I don't think the planners were thinking of cyclists, it serves our needs quite well.
We still have our fair share of narrow country roads with nominal shoulders and one just has to be really vigilant then you ride them... for the most part I have found that drivers in the country will give you lots of room when they pass.
12-12-08, 08:53 PM
#47
Senior Member
12-12-08, 10:19 PM
#48
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
It doesn't.
I would not put myself in the lane when the traffic is moving at 25-35 mph faster than me.
Fortunately... most of our arterials / freeways and highways have really wide shoulders that will allow a cyclist plenty of room on what is generally a smoother road surface as it is not normally subjected to vehicular traffic.
I thin a lot of this stems from a need to allow rural vehicles to travel our roads without interfering with regular traffic and even though I don't think the planners were thinking of cyclists, it serves our needs quite well.
We still have our fair share of narrow country roads with nominal shoulders and one just has to be really vigilant then you ride them... for the most part I have found that drivers in the country will give you lots of room when they pass.
I would not put myself in the lane when the traffic is moving at 25-35 mph faster than me.
Fortunately... most of our arterials / freeways and highways have really wide shoulders that will allow a cyclist plenty of room on what is generally a smoother road surface as it is not normally subjected to vehicular traffic.
I thin a lot of this stems from a need to allow rural vehicles to travel our roads without interfering with regular traffic and even though I don't think the planners were thinking of cyclists, it serves our needs quite well.
We still have our fair share of narrow country roads with nominal shoulders and one just has to be really vigilant then you ride them... for the most part I have found that drivers in the country will give you lots of room when they pass.
12-12-08, 10:55 PM
#49
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 7,398
Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '70 Schwinn Lemonator and More!!
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked 941 Times
in
504 Posts
Even if the "ride to the right" rules were dropped, would that alone change where any particular cyclist rides, or how he/she is perceived or treated by motorists or law enforcement? Without additional education (which would probably help just as much with the laws kept as is) I think not.
12-13-08, 10:57 AM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Gorham ME
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Some form of _slow_moving_vehicle_ law is fine.
(Though probably most existing versions could use gussying-up, to note the _convenience_ rather than safety justification for this code... also noting _only_ as far right as a reasonable concern for _convenience_ calls for, eliminating the silly and bad 'practicable' versus 'possible' terminology/confusion debate [then education - not code - should hammer the _safety_ reasons for making this the _minimum_ amount right reasonable concern for convenience calls for.])
Since general slow moving vehicle code already covers bicyclists at the times and places bicyclist might be a slow moving vehicle driver - "slow moving" defined _relative_ to existing conditions and existing flows - there are good reasons not to duplicate this in a bicyclist-specific section.
Couple more points
1) the lane 'taker' terminology is often used by people who see bicyclist lateral placement as either/or - and not as it is really, which is a continuum.
2) Uncompromising lane 'takers' are likely a population of zero. Unfortunately the population of people who see many examples of good safe bicyclist lane placement as a lack of respect for 'common sense' and 'common courtesy' is larger than zero.
(Though probably most existing versions could use gussying-up, to note the _convenience_ rather than safety justification for this code... also noting _only_ as far right as a reasonable concern for _convenience_ calls for, eliminating the silly and bad 'practicable' versus 'possible' terminology/confusion debate [then education - not code - should hammer the _safety_ reasons for making this the _minimum_ amount right reasonable concern for convenience calls for.])
Since general slow moving vehicle code already covers bicyclists at the times and places bicyclist might be a slow moving vehicle driver - "slow moving" defined _relative_ to existing conditions and existing flows - there are good reasons not to duplicate this in a bicyclist-specific section.
Couple more points
1) the lane 'taker' terminology is often used by people who see bicyclist lateral placement as either/or - and not as it is really, which is a continuum.
2) Uncompromising lane 'takers' are likely a population of zero. Unfortunately the population of people who see many examples of good safe bicyclist lane placement as a lack of respect for 'common sense' and 'common courtesy' is larger than zero.