crhilton

If it's not safe it can't be considered practicable. I fail to see where you disagree with the law.

Square & Compas

It is hoped that this will change in Iowa. It has passed in the Senate, but right now the so called Bicycle Bill of Rights, which includes a 5' passing law is stalled in the House. Once it passes, if it passes in this session, the as far to the right as practicable will no longer apply. Problem is I can no longer nor will I wait that long.

Square & Compas

Let me clear something up. Sorry I didn't mention this before. When ever I approach an intersection that is controlled by stop signs or lights I always take the lane, in fact I put myself in the center of the lane to prevent any other traffic from coming up beside me. I even take the lane if the light is green until I get across, then I move back to the right. There are some roadways where I have to take the lane to safely ride on it, these are narrow residential roadways. There is no other choice but to take the lane to stay out of the door zone and prevent drivers from doing other stupid things like right hooking, etc. and to force them to either wait or safely pass.

Hamilton Blvd, one of the roadways mentioned in the blog, is on of Sioux City's major arterials. At the intersection of 36th and Hamilton is where it tapers down to 2 lanes and is in a residential area, but the speed is still 30 to 35 mph. I think this is because the road is wide enough and there is no on street parking allowed. From Stone Park Blvd north Hamilton is not too bad to ride on. I will not ride on it south of Stone Park though. Much more busy going south toward the interstate, this area is 99% commercial.

Cunningham Dr. is not an arterial, but still a very busy roadway. A lot of traffic use it when there is a train blocking access to Lewis Blvd, etc. Cunningham is 30 to 35 mph and is in an area that is 100% industrial/commercial.

njkayaker

It's not that complicated. Most drivers see cyclists as erratic and unpredictable. Cyclists are also in a place that is less visible to the driver. Reducing the time spent in the vicinity of the bicyclist decreases the (apparent) risk (to the driver). (Note too that the driver is seeking to reduce the need for the buffer on the left side.)

One is supposed to take into account road condition/safety issues when deciding what is "practicable" in a given situation. "Courtesy" never, never overrides safety on the road and everywhere else.

Chris516

I started 'taking the lane' in May'08, after a car ran me off the road!!!! Then, When the police from two jurisdictions(county n' city) showed up, she told the officers, she never saw me, when I was in front of her, only moments before!!!!!!

I-Like-To-Bike

Trolling . What a laff and even more a bogus attempt to deter any straying from the reservation.
Since you apparantly have all the answers and don't want him to answer for his own statements - Is dogbreathpnw's specific "teachings" found in the LAB sanctioned materials? Does the LAB approve of teaching minors in class about traffic laws just being advisory to be overruled by the impromptu advice provided by its instructors?

Do all LCI's and the LAB, or just you, consider it trolling to suggest that LAB and any off the reservation instructors may be looking for legal problems if LAB approved paid instructors' are known for teaching not in the lesson plan "advice", contrary to the traffic law, to students, especially minors, and any students get involved in a bike accident that somehow can be associated with that improvised "advice".

oldster

Interesting and timely topic for me...Sat. I was riding on a not busy, local street with a bike lane, that folks park in, in places. it is a very wide, 2 lane street.(not sure but atleast 50' wide) When I am in that situation, and pass the parked car I take the right wheel path of the lane when I go around the parked cars.(clear them by at least 2 or 3 feet) There were no other cars for blocks coming from the other direction. Some CS'er in a 4w/d Jeep came within a foot and a half of me when he passed. I got really angry, and caught him at the stop light about a block further up the street.I stopped behind him and called the State Patrol number to report Dangerous drivers,on my cell, then moved up to wait for the light to change. he started to jaw at me and I lost it ,and screamed various epithats (sp.) at him ..Still feel bad about it. did I err to yell at him, and make a scene????

buzzman

Why is this troll bait? I don't understand your warning. dogbreath, like several others who posted in this thread, seems to not understand the meaning of the word "practicable". If this misunderstanding of the law is being taught in schools or courses it's certainly worthy of discussion.

One of the basic understandings of road use by all vehicles is that the slower vehicle stay to the right, which allows faster vehicles to pass on the left. Even on a freeway in my car I follow this maxim and don't like cars passing on my right. Staying as far to the right as practicable, as I said in a previous post, can mean basically anywhere on the road way provided you can reasonably justify your presence in that position.

This is what gives some of the "take the lane" advocates a kind of "drunk the kool-aid" reputation because it seems to override common sense. Yeah, take the lane when it's appropriate but know that it's not always going to be appropriate.

To me "riding as far to the right as practicable" makes perfect sense. If some of you interpret that as "ride in the gutter" that's your problem but it sure ain't mine.

aidy

I get passed on the right sometimes, it's about the most dangerous thing that can happen and freaks me out every time. It's extremely illegal and the police here are generally hard on people making such maneuvers.

buzzman

I was recently passed on the right as I took the right lane on my bicycle by a car too impatient to wait for the cars in the left lane to make their way past me.

sometimes you just can't win.

Jeprox

"Taking the lane" is legal in California under the provisions indicated in the California Vehicle Code. It is unfortunate that a lot of Ca. LEOs are not even aware of the CVC regarding bicycles and bicyclists. A friend/cyclist of mine carries a print-out of CVC 21200 & co. It came in handy one day when he was stopped by a cop for taking the lane (in the city of Alameda). The cop was nice enough to admit he was not aware of the vehicle code, and eventually released my friend.

https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=21200-21212

smittie61984

Cops can't be aware of every law. They'd have to spend years and years in law school to do that, and at that point the last thing I'd do is take a $28k a year job to be shot at by some 16 year old who doesn't want to be caught with a joint.

It's cool he let him go but I'd have to atleast give him one good tasing for proving me wrong.

I-Like-To-Bike

Presumably because John Brooking like some other Guardians of VC™ has no rational or logical response so instead resorts to the tried and true method of ad hominem argument (or cry of "personal insult" or some other lame/bogus label) to deflect any questioning or doubt of the wisdom of the mantras and Great Truths about VC™ that get posted on BF.

Roughstuff

I notice that many states---including Massachusetts---now have laws that require motorists to slow down and, if safely possible, to move left into the other lane when passing police or emergency vehicles stopped at the side of the road. Perhaps this will make the coppers more sympathetic to the argument that bikes need similar passing laws, as well?

roughstuff

Roughstuff

I think these questions of interpretation are why courtesy is a more powerful weapon on the roadways than 'laws' are. I have always viewed the shoulder (if there is one) as THE bike lane, and enter the main lane of traffic only when absolutely necessary. This is of course, perfectly consistent with your viewpoint about 'riding as far to the right as practicable.

roughstuff

atbman

[QUOTE]You are not "truly guests, etc." You are on public roadways by right, and that right is superior to that of the driver, for the following reasons:

Is there any law which requires all road users to maintain the posted speed limit? If not, then I have read on this forum that the only condition which might apply is that pertaining to "slow moving vehicles". In such cases, common sense applies: in the UK, you are required not to hold up a line of vehicles unless it is unavoidable. Ordinary road users' courtesy should be applied.

Crossing a double yellow is the freely decided action of the driver and not forced on him/her by your speed/position. How can you be blamed?

Does the law forbid this? And does it affect any drivers you overtake in doing so? Are they held up by your action?

See my opening argument.

smittie61984

[QUOTE=atbman;8547342]Okay, the use of "Rights" has gone too far. Everyone has a "Right" to whatever it is they want. F you cars, I have a "Right" to this road or "F U McDonalds it's my right to get Sweat Tea". And if we are going to scream "Rights" let's make it something worthwhile. "I have a right to cheap Asian prostitutes to be paid for by others". Sounds good to me.

And where is this "right" to have a bicycle on a government roadway? I'm checking my Bill of Rights. Let's see something about arms, yapping, soldiers, speedy gonzalez, etc. Oh well I'm sure your "right to bicycle" is in there somewhere. I'll get to it tommorow.

When you have little blue-haired grandmas in Buicks honking at you to get out of the way. You are obstructing traffic and just being a jackass. Get to the right and let her by.

uke

Yup. I used to take the lane much more than I do now. Now I just ride in the right half of the lane instead of in the center. Cars have more room to pass, yet still have to move without just driving straight past me as if I weren't on the road. It's a good mix for me. There are still some areas where I take the whole lane, but as soon as practical (i.e., once there are no longer cars parked on the side of the road, or once the road is uphill), I move to the right half or third of the lane. I'm less in the way of cars, while not significantly compromising my safety (and potentially increasing it, due to the reduction of road rage). So yeah. I ride as far to the right as practicable. It's not such a big deal.

buzzman

[QUOTE=smittie61984;8548341]Our roads and highways are "public rights of way". Most of the roads I travel on daily, the street I live on, for example, was a road long before cars existed, even before bikes existed. And more than likely these rights of way will exist long after automobiles are the primary means by which we travel. So your point about "where is this "right" to have a bicycle on a government roadway" could just as much apply to automobiles and trucks as it does to bikes. Our right has to do with unimpeded access. Freedom to travel. And our freedom to travel under our own power precedes motorized transport by several centuries. In Western Europe the oldest roads are pre-Saxon, pre-Roman, pre-Celtic.

So when you say that "the use of Rights has gone too far" you're talking about a pretty old right here. If it "went too far" it went too far a long, long, long, long time ago.

The old lady in the Buick may have the same right to the public way as a cyclist and yes, a cyclist, should no more impede her right of way as she should the cyclist but it's a shared space and common sense and reason should prevail over the dominance of one means of transport over another.

bkrownd

To feed the hungry bears

genec

Fully agreed!

The issues come when folks believe that speed = rights. Or that they have the "right" to drive at the speed they want. That is the real crux of the problem. Far far too many motorists misunderstand what speed LIMIT means... somehow it has become the norm to drive as close to the LIMIT as possible.

buzzman

In my experience it has become the norm to drive as much over the speed limit as local law enforcement allows. Usually between 5 and 15 mph above the speed limit depending on circumstances.

On a recent road ride I was going between 22 and 27 mph on a country lane with a 25 mph speed limit and on that particular road riding as far right as practicable, which, at those speeds and with frost heaves and potholes, was pretty much dead center of the lane. Cars would race right up behind me and pull around gunning it to at least 40 to go around me.

I'm not even saying this by way of "complaint" it's just the reality of riding on the roads.

uke

Yup. I'll freely admit I do this when driving as well; the only time I or most cars I see observe the limit is when traffic, police, or inclement weather intercede. I almost always cruise at 5 mph over the limit when in town. Speed limits are read as "at least" markers by most drivers; you should be going "at least" the speed on the sign, and higher if possible.

genec

Agreed... you are right that is generally the case... which means LIMIT means nothing to these folks.

I also see far too much close following... the 2 second rule apparently no longer exists. I often see these "trains" of cars with not much more than one car distance between them. Which means for us cyclists, that when the fast leading vehicle suddenly pulls over, the one behind may not have time to react to the cyclist in the road.

All things considered, if speed limits and safe driving practices were readily followed, "sharing the road" wouldn't be such a big deal....

But bad habits along with cell phones and other distractions... just take the fun out of it.

BTW as a driver, we can set examples... I drive at or below the speed limit, always. You can too.

atbman

[QUOTE=smittie61984;8548341]If you have a little blue-haired grandma in a Buick honking at you to get out of the way, you may or may not be obstructing her, bearing in mind that most states, AFAIK, give cyclists the right to take the lane in certain, legally defined circumstances, so whether or not you are obstructing her will depend on those circumstances. For example, if you are in a narrow lane, 2 lane highway, with central lane markings forbidding her to overtake, then you are not obstructing her, not being a jackass, but doing what is prudent and legally allowed for your own safety.

If you are holding her up for no good, legally justified, reasons, then you are being a jackass and should move over. Nothing in my argument said otherwise.