John Forester

Ah, yes! Big proclamation from Bek, the great defender of motorists' almighty right to make straddle overtaking movements.

Bekologist

I'm no defender of motorists. I'm simply discussing mature, considerate group riding skills and the nuances of state and provincial law as it applies to riding two abreast.

group riding technique demands a lot more nuance than simplistic proclamations that the motorists ' might as well' change lanes to pass.

John Forester

Bek claims that he is no defender of motorists. Yet he argues that "mature, considerate" cyclists bow down before the motorist's almight right to make straddle overtaking movements.

Bekologist

bow down... almighty right....

quite the misrepresentation, and thoroughly irascible.

john apparently has no interest in discussing the nuances of group riding and the variety in state regulations about riding two abreast.

i wonder if john watched the video of the california pro riders operating doubled up mostly on the shoulder on the PCH, not following glib riding advice that since the lane was narrow, they might as well have been riding so far over to cause the motorists to fully change lanes to pass.

unbelievable john has such an axe to grind the discussion about considerate group riding technique takes second stage to personal slams.

Commodus

Lol! I think you should go back and read my original post. You know, the one you've been disagreeing with this whole time? Either you didn't understand it, or you've been secretly in agreement the whole time and have only continued this hilarious exchange in order to increase your post count.

John Forester

I reviewed the video. Three motorists overtook the cycling group. The first was in a two-lane section, and he was so far across the double line that it practically was a full-lane overtake; the number two and three overtaking motorists were in a multi-lane section and fully used the adjacent lane. At no time was any overtaking motorist in the situation of being delayed by opposite-direction traffic. I fail to see the relevance of this video the the overtaking discussion.

Bekologist

....shouldn't the riders have been riding to prevent motorists from sharing the narrow lane?

John Forester

As I noted in my review of the video, that is what the cyclists were doing; none of the overtaking was in the lane-sharing manner.

Bekologist

the cyclists in the video were preventing same lane sharing?

I wonder if john could summarize his group riding advice for the forum, taking into consideration the differing aspects of traffic law in the different states.

John Forester

So far as I have been concerned, my discussion has been of the traffic-engineering aspects of motorist overtaking, not of the peculiarities of specific state laws, most of which, on this subject, are based on superstition rather than engineering.

Doane

Oh Boy, this should be interesting, now we are going to have a dissertation about law based on superstition and law based on engineering.

Sangesf

I look at it this way....

Double riding like those guys did works well... Especially since there was a shoulder or bike lane or whatever..

If there's no shoulder area like that, double up, but if there's lots of cars behind you, single up and allow them to pass easier...

What I'm not really for is what the commute Orlando guys are all about...
Their "stand" is no matter what, a bicyclist should take up the entire lane, at ANY time, no matter if there's 1 car or 50 cars... They don't want cars to even partial lane change at all...

I tried to explain to them, that's not sharing the road... That's trying to take control of the entire road (.really lane)...I tried to explain, what if I came up on my bicycle and wanted to pass? They then said, "Just yell out -'coming up' or 'on your left' and I'm sure the cyclist will move over for you"....

WHAT?!?!? LOL.

So if a car comes up behind, he HAS to do a FULL lane change, but a cyclist comes up and you'll move over? LOL....

Talk about craziness....

They REFUSED to listen to me and even deleted the post l made just like this one AND locked the thread! LOL

So according to them, even a SINGLE rider should ALWAYS take up the ENTIRE lane... How is that fair to motorists and cyclemotorists?

Total fanatics they are!!!

Digital_Cowboy

Bek,

You're reading what you want to read. Except for the odd skaters who were skating side-by-side we were for the most part single file. Maybe as I think I've already said "staggered" single file is the better way to describe it.

Not that I have actually measured it, but I would estimate that the entire road is no more than 20' wide edge-to-edge. Making the lanes for each direction of travel about 10'. So please where on a lane that is 10' wide do you suggest cyclists ride?

Digital_Cowboy

No, you're the one who is funny, if you think that the posted speed limit is an "engraved in stone" must travel, at all times. When in fact it is the fastest that one may travel under IDEAL situations.

And if you take the time to read F.S. 316.2065, you'd see that it doesn't meant anything about the posted speed limit. Just the speed of traffic present for the given conditions.


No mention there at all about the posted speed limit, and as I said I have consulted with several lawyers who specialize in traffic law and they agree with my interpretation, as do a number of bicycle advocates.

Digital_Cowboy

Did you not read where I said that whereas we start out as a "large" group that we have several spots that we stop to rest/regroup as we breakup into smaller groups to socialize.

As realistically is how it should be. But sadly not everyone sees it that way. As evident by the LEO I encountered the other year who got on his PA system and ordered me to either ride closer to the curb presumably "hugging" it or to get on the sidewalk. Clearly he didn't know the law that he was suppose to be enforcing.

Uh, isn't that more or less what motorists engage in by thinking either because they're in a car or are going faster that they have more of a "right" to be on the road than do cyclists or pedestrians?

And how many times have motorists gotten locked in a "parking lot" situation where they weren't moving but cyclists because of their "unique" nature would be able to safely proceed and when they do receive either verbal or physical abuse from motorists because they can do something that the motorists can't?

Amongst those that I've talked with of late it has been accepted.

It does need to explicitly list every action to a degree, but it also needs to be flexible enough to accommodate situations that the drafters of the bill/law couldn't foresee. Such as subsection 5 of F.S. 316.2065. It lists several exceptions to the "ride as far right to the curb/right hand side of the road or in the bike lane if provided" language. Those who wrote it were smart enough to list for want of a better description the most obvious dangers that could exist that would make it unsafe for a cyclist to ride on the far right side of the road or in the bike lane. As well as the fact that they were smart enough realize that there could come a time when there would exist conditions that they might not be aware of.

So they were smart enough to make it clear that the list was NOT an all inclusive list

Stealthammer

So where in my posting did I say anything about "the posted speed limit (being) "engraved in stone" must travel, at all times"? The "Basic Speed Law" is always in effect in most states regardless of the posted speed limit, wherein the maximum allowable speed is based on posted speed limits, and weather and road conditions.


Also, please cite any legal source that states anything close to your assetion "that if the cyclist(s) are the only traffic on a given road that they're the one(s) setting the speed of the traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing. And it is pretty much accepted that if there are more bicycles than cars present that again they're the one's who are setting the speed of the traffic present, etc." Or "Just as when there are more cars present than bicycles that they're the one's who are setting the speed of traffic present, etc."


Your disingenuous misinterpretation of the law is once again staggering, and as usual you choose to ignore the actual facts, as well as to freely misquote or refabricate the actual statements of others to support your nonsensical positions. Instead you use BS terms such as "it is pretty much accepted" and statements such as "Just as when there are more cars present than bicycles that they're the one's who are setting the speed of traffic present, etc" which have no basis in law or logic. The concept that the allowable speed for any road under any condition is in any way based on which type of vehicles are in the majority is truely laughable.


Also, I say BS to your statement "....I have consulted with several lawyers who specialize in traffic law and they agree with my interpretation, as do a number of bicycle advocates." because I don't believe you could find a single lawyer or bicycle advocate who is as ignorant of the law as you seem to be anywhere in the country.

Fabricate on dude.....

Bekologist

.. i think one of the lawyers was being honest and advised digital cowboy to use bikelanes when available and cars approadh from behind, pursuant to florida state law.



....the law blitzed thru the legislature and passed as a result of obstreperous club riders not sharing the road in florida...


Different states regulate riding two abreast differently; learn the law in your state (or province!) if you go for rides with friends or in a group, and consider riding single file safely when traffic wants to pass and riding two abreast may impede passing.

Moving to single file when riding doubled up impedes passing is the predominate regulation on bike traffic operating double file in the US.

you may decide riding three feet from the lane edge single file can facilitate passing, not endanger your group, and allow passing wheras riding two abreast may get the horns a blaring and garner, unfortunately, the motorists close passing and the buzzing behaviors despite the moronists not supposed to do dat.

Safe single file riding is neither onerous nor inferiority laden - it is mature, courteous behavior by groups of cyclists that may very well garner us MORE respect on the road than flipping motorists the virtual bird while hogging the lane and preventing passing.

SortaGrey

"Safe single file riding is neither onerous nor inferiority laden - it is mature, courteous behavior by groups of cyclists that may very well garner us MORE respect on the road than flipping motorists the virtual bird while hogging the lane and preventing passing."

EXACTLY...........

I confess to giving the wave the other aft.. old fart coming down the road 35-38 mph.. 25 zone. Didn't come within 100' of me as I turned across the street... and horn.. horn.. horn... and more horn. In retrospect my wave was just reflex after the 4th blast.. but the poor old moron likely has had his fill of BIKIE's.

Same day.. almost got nailed by a BIKIE... who can't read the sign that sez STOP. Without my careful attention.. I'd have gotten a broadside at good speed. Said BIKIE was polite as I asked if IT could spell STOP... What does STOP mean I asked... this posted on a riding trail intersecting with a street.

STOP does mean STOP........... which begs the Q: does said BIKIE carry liability insurance via the homeowners policy?? Or.. how would one recover medical expenses from said head down riding moron.. short of lawyering up??

IMO it's a given the BIKIE is a subspecies of the subspecies chimp like-human cross we mostly see today. Mostly these types are not trainable.. or reasonable to any degree.. once some 'right' is assumed.. practiced.. or taken for granted.. like hogging the road.

njkayaker

Since I haven't seen your group/groups riding, I have no idea how your groups ride.

All that I am saying is that "we are riding in a group" isn't a legal justification for anything (unless you are in a funeral procession). If you realize that, that's fine. But many riders thing that because riding in groups is tolerated (usually), there is some sort of right to ride in a group (there isn't except for funeral processions).

Uh, no. And, if you think it's OK for bicyclists to do it, you can't complain about motorists doing it! And any claim of "rights" is not legal.

??? You have a weird approach to legal arguments (about what the law says). At best, "verbal or physical abuse" is irrelevant to the "what is legal" argument; at worst, it's illegal.

Your biased non-random interviews are not exactly compelling.


Your "arguments" are all over the place.

Bekologist

bicycle rights? bicycle rights?

I think this is an appropriate place in the thread for another video on 'bicycle rights'






"Oregon ten foot rules, dontchyaknow? ......Cars, man, WHY?"

Doane

HaHa... the bike lawyer suit rider and the ear trap at the end!

Can just imagine a group of these guys doubled file, all with whistles!

Digital_Cowboy

Sorry to rain on your parade "dude" but I have in fact talked to a number of lawyers who specialize in traffic law and they have agreed that if I am the only traffic on the road that I am in fact setting the speed of traffic under the conditions, etc. As well as having talked with a few bicycle advocates who also agree with my interpretation. Truth is as the old saying goes, stranger than fiction.

Digital_Cowboy

Uh, actually Bek, if you read what I wrote you'd see (given that you quoted it) that I said that the lawyer recommended that I ride close to the white line when I'm out riding, not actually IN the bike lane.

I'll give you that, it was "blitzed" thru, so fast as a matter of fact that the FBA didn't have time to respond to it before it was signed into law.

On, that I can agree with you.

You keep making the claim that riding two abreast somehow "impedes" passing, but you have as yet to do anything to prove it. Even after other members have posted why and how it doesn't.

As other's have asked you, if the lane in question is too narrow for a car and A bicycle traveling in the same direction to safely pass each other then please explain how riding two abreast is going to "impede" traffic in any way.

And Bek, as not only myself, but others here have said. When I am out riding MY safety comes first and motorist convenience comes in down the list.

That being said, when I am out riding, if I have two or three or more cars behind me and I can safely pull over and allow them to pass I'll do so. I will also do my best to plan my routes so that I ride on roads that do not see that much traffic. One of the roads that I ride on, on a fairly regular basis has an access road that parallels it for several blocks. When I am riding on that road I ride the access road rather than ride on the main road itself.

The bottom line is Bek that if I can do so without endangering my safety I do EVERYTHING that I can to be considerate of other road users. Sadly, though NOT everyone does that. And sadly, not all of them are in cars.

Bekologist

I wouldn't expect anything less from you, digital cowboy.

njkayaker

This is often true (it's true in California), it might even be generally true, but it might not be strictly true in all states.