royalflash

Allister is right- I have seen a couple of cyclists here nearly get hit (within an inch or so) because they weave in and out of parked cars. You cant even 100% percent blame the car drivers because cyclists should check backwards before they move out and I know as a driver that it is very tempting to overtake cyclists in such circumstances.

Of course you should let faster vehicles pass when you can (I even sometimes stop and let them past) but my safety is much more important to me than someone elses desire to get to the next set of lights half a second faster and I believe it should also be more important to law enforcement representatives if they are worth anything.

Roughstuff

Indeed. Whether I am a motorist or a cyclist, riding along a line of parked cars drives me BATTY. I always worry about kids popping out between them. I almost always edge further over to the left when going by a line of cars. When I am on my bike I edge out into the main lane and stay there until I am past the line of cars; I can't see any other safe way to do it.

roughstuff

KrisPistofferson

I always ride on the sidewalk to avoid such troubles...

jazzy_cyclist

Agreed. The cops I know are just fellow citizens as far as I am concerned (I live in a small town).

powers2b

Carry a copy of your local vehicle code with you on your ride.
Then you can say "good morning officer, thank you for your concern regarding my safety. I have a copy of the code right here and I am sure I am riding within the law. Now if you'll excuse me I don't want to be late for my next law school class."

Enjoy

genec

Is that really what it comes down to? Do cyclists have to be "cycle lawyers" just to get their rights?

And shouldn't the cop have a copy of the CVC with him? Now since he did not issue a ticket, it seems that indeed the cop knew he was in the wrong and tried intimidation to try to sway the cyclist.

Of course there is probabaly a law that says that you have to obey a cop in areas of public safety... much as there is a rule in baseball that for any issues not covered by the rule book, the ump has the right to make judgements.

powers2b

I was riding through a parking lot to Tower City (the downtown shopping mall of "Christmas Story" fame). I was stopped by the police and told I was not allowed to ride thriough the parking lot. He then proceeded to inform me that I should have heeded the "no pedestrian" sign. Apparently you are banned from access unless you are in a car. (and they wonder why they loose anchor stores)
So, yes, we must fight ignorance and bias with education and fact.

Enjoy

Treespeed

The far right lane was filled with parked cars. The next open spot was the middle lane.

patc

I'll take the ticket. I would rather prevent the cop from bothering someone else due to lack of education, not to mention doing so in a potentially dangerous way. (Of course, I know a complaint would be listened to here.)

IRatherBuyACar

GLOBAL INTERNET GOVERNMENT BY CHARLES WEBSTER BAER OF DOWNTOWN , PORTLAND , OREGON , USA , EARTH , IS ,



https://giglive.myblogsite.com

patc

I gave a cop **** last night for being parked in the bike lane (and half-way into the lane next to it). I was good natured about it, and he sort of stammered, "Uh... sorry sir. I didn't expect anyone to be cycling tonight." Gee, it was a few degrees above freezing with no windchill, why wouldn't I be on a bike? We exchanged pleasantries and I went on my way.

Feldman

Does the LAPD have any bike officers?

Helmet-Head

Yes, but a cyclist (whether bi or motor) really should have about 3 feet of safety-margin space on both sides, in case he needs to suddenly swerve around a balance-throwing obstacle, like a pothole, which makes him effectively 8-9 feet wide.

Treespeed

I haven't seen any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

They do have a wicked helicopter that circled over our neighborhood for almost an hour Friday night. Made it feel just like the WTO riots in Seattle all over again.

supcom

Fair enough.

supcom

Nonesense. Two cyclists may, and do share the three foot buffer between themselves.

Consider that your hero advocates only three feet between car and cyclist (Effective Cycling 6th Edition, Chapter 29, page 294, "...cyclists lane-width rule:..."). Do not cars need to swerve to avoid obstacles like potholes, children, and vehicular cyclists?

Although I can find no reference to spacing between bicycles in Effective Cycling (curious that Forester does not address this common situation) there is an illustration in chapter 31, page 310 (figure 31.1) showing a car and two cyclists overtaking each other. The illustration shows the car on the left, a cyclist about 3 feet to the right of the car, and another cyclist about 3 feet to the right of the first cyclist. Although there is no scale to the figure, there is obviously not six feet between the two cyclists. It's obvious that there is the same distance between cyclist and car as there is between the two cyclists.

Forester also states that riding two abreast for the sake of campany is acceptable when conditions allow this to be done safely. In my opinion, being 8-9 feet apart would not constitute keeping company. In my experience on many bicycle rides, nobody rides 8-9 feet apart when they ride together, let alone when passing another cyclist.

Helmet-Head

You're right. Thanks.

But still, then two cyclists need 3 (left buffer)+2 (cyclist)+3 (buffer)+2 (cyclist)+3 (right buffer)=13 feet.

Of course, the risk in reducing the buffer between two cyclists is considerably less than reducing the buffer between cyclist and motor vehicle - hence the danger of bike lanes that encourage motorists to pass cyclists in adjacent bike lanes without slowing down, and separated by little more than the width of the BL stripe...

JohnBrooking

Your police friend must have mentioned you to his friend the nice police helicopter pilot!

LanceB

Lets remember a COP's job is to enforce the law, not to make it up. No officer has the right just to harrass you because he does not like what you are doing, particularly when you have the law on your side. Take no crap from the police unless you are in the wrong, they have no legal power to harrass you when you are not breaking the law.

Artmo 

Other examples here where police favor motorists, especially the one in the article where the experienced cyclist's pedal "clipped the truck," not the "truck was passing so close that it clipped the cyclist's pedal."

https://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pb...503130832/1060

Yes, there are many, many idiot cyclists out there and they give us all a bad name.

Helmet-Head

Thankfully, the USA is not run by MLB and we have a Constitution, including the 9th Amendment:

fallstorm

We have a right to have our grievances heard in court in front of a judge, correct?

If ticketed, I'd call the police officer to court on it, bringing along a copy of the state law as it pertained to the situation. I'd probably be tempted to call the newspaper as well, as I'm sure they'd love to hear all about it... or at least I would write a letter.

lamajo25

He met the Arizona Statutes. He had a rear reflector, Arizona doesn't require a rear flashing light. The problem was that the snow was falling so heavily it was difficult to see him even once you got up on him. The plows here have the extra heavy lighting and would have been able to see him but the pushing the snow to the right as they normally do was my biggest concern. We had received those 8 inches within 2 hours and was still coming down.

I do have to comment on this opinion. It would be a 'Public Safety' mentality. In any respect I don't believe that there are many officers that believe it is motor vehicle first. I sort of get the gist from most members here that they are first. It is a shared aspect. On another note it appears that some people don't seem to understand 'car vs. cyclist'. It is somewhat inevitable that the 150lb. person will lose to the 2000lb. plus vehicle. Public Safety First.

Allister, you have this thing about you. Again I'm not sure, and reiterate, about some people's abilities to ride safely. Yes I understand the right to the lane. Yes I do understand the safety issues of obstacles on the right hand side of the road. There are very few areas in my town where the right hand side of the road is completly safe and has a bike lane. What I don't understand is if you know of the area problems, and if you can see an obstacle in advance, are you riding abilities that poor that you have "Weave" in and out of traffic again reminding you that as a cyclist you are the slower of the vehicles and are supposed to stay as close to the right as practicable. And don't start in with the "I pass vehicles when there is stand still rush hour traffic all the time because they aren't moving." I understand the aspect of rush hour. I lived in the Phoenix Metro area for 20 years. Anyway, you need to understand that last tid bit of information. Yes you have the right to utilize the lane if need be but you must do it safely. And again I still don't understand the whole I have to take the lane beause there is a small obstacle ahead i.e. a storm drain with horizontal grate or a small rock or stick in the way. Don't dig in with the whole car in the bike lane or on the right, that I do understand.

galen_52657

I stand by my original statement. If the cyclist was law-abiding as you state above he was, than you should have left him alone. Snow happens and it is up to those operating vehicles to respond accordingly. Snow plows can slow down, stop, lilft the plow, toot the horn, or take any number of precautions so that they don't plow snow on a cyclist or anybody else. If there is a little old lady trying to cross the street would they plow her in?

It just takes A TINY AMOUNT OF COMMON SENSE to handle these situations.

If you are concerned about the safety, than I suggest checking out those who pose the threat to other, not those who are threatened by others.

nick burns

Don't kid yourself. MLB runs everything.

I hear they even have satellites that keep track of everything we do.