Google sponsored links
I had several thousand posts on the backpacker website and participated for many years. It's posts like the cyclists are no better than dogs and the general nature of the "Trailhead Register" that caused me to leave. TR is full of individuals R and L espousing hate, anger and intollerance. The arguments there rarely contain logic.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Murder requires intent.
It's highly unlikely that the driver intended to kill the cyclist.
We should be proud of the dead cyclist. He stood up for our rights to ride on the roads. He could have easily wimped out and taken the sidewalk but that would have been giving in to the drivers. If we all could find dangerous roads to ride on and a lot of us would get killed it will help bring attention to cyclists rights to the road. We need to take the lane and make a statement.
...My gut feeling is that the cyclist riding over that bridge was probably riding too far to the right and letting motorists squeeze by on his left. He may have swerved a bit to the left at the wrong time while this guy was passing and got hit. By riding so far right, motorists coming from behind were not likely to notice him as he wasn't causing traffic to change lanes...
I was thinking the same thing. If that was the case, I recall an incident a day before RAGBRAI 2000 or 2001 when a rider got too far right. He caught a pedal on the curb which threw him instantly into the path of the vehicles he was making room for. Unfortunately for him and the cager the vehicle was a semi. Except giving a whole lane width clearance before passing there wasn't much the cager could do. Of course in this case hindsight is 20/20 in the cager's case, but in his mind "the rider DID show intentions that he was making room and must have been okay with an attempted pass".
Good reason to take the lane or get up on the sidewalk. Decisions, decisions...
Taking the lane in this specific example would likely rile quite a few motorists and invite additional problems. For those saying the delay amounts to only five minutes following the cyclist....that is only if a SINGLE cyclist is present. What happens if there are ten cyclists and they're separated by a quarter-mile between them? Based on the number of people who must use roadways around our nation, vehicles traveling 15 m.p.h. can't dictate policy all the time. That is the same reason we don't have horsedrawn carts on many roadways.
The wise decision in this situation would have been to *break the law* and ride on the sidewalk. No police officers would even blink an eye. The investigation into the cause/fault of the accident must continue until a resolution is reached.
I was going to reply, but then I saw it's already 5 pages long.
jomalley, go ahead, it will still be five pages long with your next reply.
We should be proud of the dead cyclist. He stood up for our rights to ride on the roads. He could have easily wimped out and taken the sidewalk but that would have been giving in to the drivers. If we all could find dangerous roads to ride on and a lot of us would get killed it will help bring attention to cyclists rights to the road. We need to take the lane and make a statement.
:rolleyes: after you.
I'm thinking about dying a week from next Tuesday in support of cyclists' rights by riding on a 65 m.p.h. highway near my home and taking the lane. It's the least I can do.
I'd like to die for cyclist's rights but I want to make sure I die instantly and don't linger. maybe if I take the lane right in front of a speeding Semi.
Taking the lane in this specific example would likely rile quite a few motorists and invite additional problems. For those saying the delay amounts to only five minutes following the cyclist....that is only if a SINGLE cyclist is present. What happens if there are ten cyclists and they're separated by a quarter-mile between them? Based on the number of people who must use roadways around our nation, vehicles traveling 15 m.p.h. can't dictate policy all the time. That is the same reason we don't have horsedrawn carts on many roadways.
The wise decision in this situation would have been to *break the law* and ride on the sidewalk. No police officers would even blink an eye. The investigation into the cause/fault of the accident must continue until a resolution is reached.
How often do you ride multilaned roads with a narrow outside lane? If you rode them with any frequency, you'd realize that the delays caused by a slow moving vehicle (a cyclist in this case) are so minimal as to not even be worth mentioning. Any slight delays that are caused are usually the fault of motorists who are more concerned with getting a chance to honk at a cyclist than just changing lanes and passing them (kinda makes it tough for someone to argue that they are in a hurry when they waste 30 seconds honking and yelling instead of just moving over). With more cyclists, that just means that every vehicle that passed on the left needs to stay there a little longer. Remember, we're only talking a mile long stretch of roadway here. Since when is someone's commute to work an emergency anyway?
I have to laugh at your horsedrawn cart comment. Do you really think that faster traffic flow is the reason people don't get around by horse and cart any more? I hope not.
If a cyclist was not comfortable taking a lane on the bridge, riding the sidewalk would be preferable to trying to ride the right edge of the traffic lane. With few pedestrians and zero intersections, the risks are low (although certainly not zero). Using the full lane while on a bicycle to cross that bridge is no less dangerous than doing the same thing on a normal road and anyone who has experience cycling on such roads knows that they can be quite pleasant and safe to ride on (arguably more so than narrow, winding single lane country roads that all the roadies love).
Also, for a cyclist towing a trailer making their vehicle too wide to use the sidewalk, what would you suggest they do?
joejack951, a cyclist who couldn't navigate that very wide sidewalk even while pulling a trailer would be incompetent. I'm not telling you where to ride, go wherever you please. Make certain your insurance is updated, too.
joejack951, a cyclist who couldn't navigate that very wide sidewalk even while pulling a trailer would be incompetent.
Do you know what the entire sidewalk looks like?
Any more comments about my post aside from your trite insurance remark?
One should not haul bicycle trailers if not confident about the terrain they will encounter. Challenging areas may require dismounting. The sidewalk on that particular bridge can accomodate riders and gear.
One should not haul bicycle trailers if not confident about the terrain they will encounter. Challenging areas may require dismounting. The sidewalk on that particular bridge can accomodate riders and gear.
I'm 100% confident that I could haul my trailer over the "terrain" in the traffic lane over that bridge without ever laying eyes on it. Not so with the sidewalk. What was your point?
The point is that a cyclist must choose the safest method by which to travel from Point A to Point B and arrive in one piece. Those decisions often need to be made instantly. This bridge is over a mile in length, with narrow lanes, fast traffic, joined to a wide and inviting sidewalk separated by a curb. Conventional wisdom indicates that the sidewalk would likely be the safest choice for cyclists concerned with their health and welfare.
I'm 100% confident that I could haul my trailer over the "terrain" in the traffic lane over that bridge without ever laying eyes on it. Not so with the sidewalk.
Perhaps like the unfortunately misplaced 100% confidence of the bicyclist victim we read about in the OP.
Having read the news article, it says the rider hit a steel support girder, but she doesn't say if he was on the road or the sidewalk. Since her number is posted in the article, did anyone call her to get further details? I could understand the drivers side, if for instance, the rider was on the sidewalk, hit the girder and was thrown into traffic. He would have had no time to react if the poor guy came flying out from between girgers right in front of him.
Having read the news article, it says the rider hit a steel support girder, but she doesn't say if he was on the road or the sidewalk. Since her number is posted in the article, did anyone call her to get further details? I could understand the drivers side, if for instance, the rider was on the sidewalk, hit the girder and was thrown into traffic. He would have had no time to react if the poor guy came flying out from between girgers right in front of him.
The article isn't clear as to whether the cyclist hit the girder first then was hit or if he hit the girder as a result of being thrown from his bike. If he hit the girder first, they sure all look to me to be on the sidewalk and not in the right lane. I agree with your last statement.
The point is that a cyclist must choose the safest method by which to travel from Point A to Point B and arrive in one piece. Those decisions often need to be made instantly. This bridge is over a mile in length, with narrow lanes, fast traffic, joined to a wide and inviting sidewalk separated by a curb. Conventional wisdom indicates that the sidewalk would likely be the safest choice for cyclists concerned with their health and welfare.
Right, like the same conventional wisdom that says helmets will protect you in an accident with an automobile (this guy did have a helmet on as the article states) or that riding against traffic so that you can see what's happening is the best way. That sidewalk looks wide enough for a single cyclist to use at maybe jogging speed. My health and welfare would be doing just fine in the right hand lane moving at a pace that won't make me question why I even have a bike with me instead of dodging steel girders on the sidewalk.
Right, like the same conventional wisdom that says helmets will protect you in an accident with an automobile (this guy did have a helmet on as the article states) or that riding against traffic so that you can see what's happening is the best way. That sidewalk looks wide enough for a single cyclist to use at maybe jogging speed. My health and welfare would be doing just fine in the right hand lane moving at a pace that won't make me question why I even have a bike with me instead of dodging steel girders on the sidewalk.You say that as if the cyclist who was killed wasn't following that same line of thinking.
I dunno, maybe you're invincible, and he wasn't. Maybe that's the difference.
You say that as if the cyclist who was killed wasn't following that same line of thinking.
I dunno, maybe you're invincible, and he wasn't. Maybe that's the difference.
After reading the article, it sure sounds like he was on the sidewalk and fell into the right hand lane. In all my time spent cycling in narrow traffic lanes, I've never managed to pull off the trick of suddenly appearing in front of someone. Unless this guy was hugging the curb and suddenly swerved left, as I was speculating earlier, there's no way he just appeared in the right hand lane either unless he came off the sidewalk.
What is the speed limit on the bridge? That is the all-important question.
It makes the difference whether "I didn't see him in time" is a legitimate excuse or not. If the speed limit is 30, then the driver was either speeding or not paying attention. And I would have no problem taking the lane on a bridge where the speed limit was low and it had two lanes in each direction.
I agree, MrCjolsen. Traffic speed does make a difference relative to safety. I ride on 55 mph roads sometimes when touring, but I am going maybe 23 mph at best. Unexpectedly, traffic can become intense. I see and feel the cars behind me swerve to avoid me. Each car gets closer and closer as the car in front of them swerves to reveal me, the bicyclist directly in front of them at a relative stand-still. I think that it is only a short matter of time before a sleepy or distracted driver does not see me in time to react and I get rear-ended.
I hate that feeling and always get off to the shoulder or find some way to keep from being part of a tragic article in a newspaper about a cyclist who got hit by a car.
After reading the article, it sure sounds like he was on the sidewalk and fell into the right hand lane. In all my time spent cycling in narrow traffic lanes, I've never managed to pull off the trick of suddenly appearing in front of someone. Unless this guy was hugging the curb and suddenly swerved left, as I was speculating earlier, there's no way he just appeared in the right hand lane either unless he came off the sidewalk.I just re-read the article. Here's what we know:
1) He was riding in the southbound right hand lane.
2) The driver didn't see him until it was too late.
3) He was "too close" to avoid.
4) He was thrown from his bike and hit a steel girder.
From that description, it sounds like he was either hugging the right curb in a lane that is too narrow to safely share, or he was taking the lane. From the article, it sounds more like he was taking the lane, as you advocate for this bridge.
Now I know you subscribe to VC, so I imagine you would just take the lane, consistent with VC practice. Most cyclists wouldn't. That bridge is over one mile long, with two narrow lanes in each direction, and posted speed limits of 35 MPH, and actual speed limits of 65 MPH. Taking the lane on this bridge means that you would have to be confident that you would be seen by a motorist traveling at those speeds, regardless of whatever else the motorist might happen to be doing at that moment, and it means that you would be comfortable with being harassed the entire length of your bridge ride.
And in fact, it appears that this cyclist did take the lane, and in fact wasn't seen until it was "too late."
I suspect that most cyclists aren't confident that they will be seen, and most cyclists aren't comfortable placing themselves in situations where they know they'll be harassed, especially when there's a safe and harassment free option a few feet to the right.
Blue Order, excellent encapsulation and voice of reason. Thank you.
I definitely would have rode the sidewalk across that bridge, as others have said. It sounds like a terrible accident, but to call it murder? Did the man who was driving not show any remorse or something?
In all my time spent cycling in narrow traffic lanes, I've never managed to pull off the trick of suddenly appearing in front of someone.
Based on the squealing of tires behind me, I apparently have done this *trick*.
The key to the *trick* is that the audience, in this case the driver approaching from behind, isn't watching the road, is going too fast for conditions, or both.
But it seems that to admit that cyclists get hit from behind while occupying a traffic lane violates a VC code of conduct or something.
I'm thinking about traveling from Massachusetts to Florida on I-95 and taking the lane the whole way. Watch for me during the 11:00 o'clock news when they report on VC roadway fatalities. I'm a vehicle, darn it!
...In all my time spent cycling in narrow traffic lanes, I've never managed to pull off the trick of suddenly appearing in front of someone...
See post #123 for an excellent work-up to suddenly appearing in front of someone. Thanks Mike, we all experience the same phenomenon that you so aptly describe.
Based on the squealing of tires behind me, I apparently have done this *trick*.
The key to the *trick* is that the audience, in this case the driver approaching from behind, isn't watching the road, is going too fast for conditions, or both.
But it seems that to admit that cyclists get hit from behind while occupying a traffic lane violates a VC code of conduct or something.GC, we seem to be entering a new era of common agreement!
GC, we seem to be entering a new era of common agreement!
(slightly) stranger things have happened.
From that description, it sounds like he was either hugging the right curb in a lane that is too narrow to safely share, or he was taking the lane. From the article, it sounds more like he was taking the lane, as you advocate for this bridge.
That's interesting, to me it sounded more like he was juggling kittens and chainsaws while riding one handed dressed in a ninja black suit while the auto driver was driving at a snails pace due to the freak sandstorm.
We're all sitting here typing our suppositions and assigning blames based on a few scant lines of newsprint.
looking at the pics of the bridge roadway, i'd say the cyclist should have taken the sidewalk.
i'm curious what laws (KY or IN, or elsewhere) have to say about using bridge sidewalks, or sidewalks in other spots where the road is too narrow (or whatever) to ride safely.
here's a bit from the Rides section of my LBS website, from a route for a ride that crosses a river on a bridge: "Note: We ride the sidewalk on the bridge it is the only safe way over but be aware of glass"
i'd say, laws and glass be damned, i'm riding on the sidewalk if the alternative is to ride in a street that you cannot bail out from (due to really high curbs, narrow lanes), and that has high-speed traffic (how fast do you think they go on this bridge?)
what a tragic loss of life! i'm really sad to hear of this.
Sorry, but get real. Accidents by definition are unforeseen and unpredictable. This situation is preventable at so many levels--- but most significantly, the driver was obviously not focusing on where he was driving. If you do not focus on where you are driving, an accident suddenly becomes a foreseeable consequence.
It pretty much IS legalized manslaughter to run down a cyclist and claim you didn't see him or her. The US is very reluctant to criminalize vehicular infractions... as also evidenced by the many multiple DUI offenders (that are still on the road).
Sounds like an old fashioned accident to me. I love when things get blown out of proportion to make 'cagers' look like enemies in some made up war.
Sorry, but get real. Accidents by definition are unforeseen and unpredictable. This situation is preventable at so many levels--- but most significantly, the driver was obviously not focusing on where he was driving. If you do not focus on where you are driving, an accident suddenly becomes a foreseeable consequence.
It pretty much IS legalized manslaughter to run down a cyclist and claim you didn't see him or her. The US is very reluctant to criminalize vehicular infractions... as also evidenced by the many multiple DUI offenders (that are still on the road).
DUI's not being given the death penalty aside unless someone has a link to a video of how exactly the accident happens we don't know for sure the vehicle driver wasn't paying attention. Yes if everyone, EVERYONE, was following textbook rules from drivers ed while paying full attention and obeying absolutely every traffic law there way and had no difficulties or problems with there vehicles or the environment around them then you could call it legalized manslaughter.
When your taking the lane and see a vehicle coming up beside you in your rear view mirror, I mean you do have one of those don't you?, do you hold the lane in the face of a vehicle that may not see you or may not care to see you or do you get out of the way? On this road there is zero exit strategy which if I ever encountered a road from now on with any sort of traffic i'd probably take that sidewalk without hesitation even if it meant I walked it.
That's interesting, to me it sounded more like he was juggling kittens and chainsaws while riding one handed dressed in a ninja black suit while the auto driver was driving at a snails pace due to the freak sandstorm.
We're all sitting here typing our suppositions and assigning blames based on a few scant lines of newsprint.Normally, I'd agree with you, because I take issue with the kind of BFer who inserts his own set of facts into a factless scenario to support his pre-determined conclusion. But in this case, I really don't think it's hard to figure out-- the cyclist was either hugging the curb, or he was taking the lane. We know this much from the news account. So which was it-- was he hugging the curb? Or taking the lane? Because the driver said he didn't see him until it was too late, and he was "too close" to stop, it seems pretty clear that the cyclist was taking the lane. Could he have been hugging the curb? Yes, but the admittedly limited information we have from the driver provides more support for a reading that the cyclist was taking the lane than for a reading that the cyclist was hugging the curb.
On the other hand, does the admittedly limited information support a reading that the cyclist was on the sidewalk when he was hit? Absolutely not.
DUI's not being given the death penalty aside unless someone has a link to a video of how exactly the accident happens we don't know for sure the vehicle driver wasn't paying attention.*If* the cyclist was taking the lane-- and I believe the evidence indicates he was taking the lane-- then there are only two possible explanations for this incident: The driver was not paying attention, or the driver intended to hit him. I would suggest it was the former.
I just re-read the article. Here's what we know:
1) He was riding in the southbound right hand lane.
2) The driver didn't see him until it was too late.
3) He was "too close" to avoid.
4) He was thrown from his bike and hit a steel girder.
I didn't realize that there were two articles. The one I read was very vague about the details of the accident. The other was much clearer and describes exactly what you have described. Thanks for pointing that out.
From that description, it sounds like he was either hugging the right curb in a lane that is too narrow to safely share, or he was taking the lane. From the article, it sounds more like he was taking the lane, as you advocate for this bridge.
I'm not sure how you explain him hitting the steel girder which is on the sidewalk by a good foot if he was directly in front of the motorist. Where did the momentum in that direction come from? It would seem to me that the cyclist was hit with a glancing blow by the van and thrown to the side. In order for that to happen 1. the cyclist had to be hugging the curb, 2. the van driver had to swerve into the opposite lane trying to avoid the cyclist, or 3. the cyclist had to swerve right in the instant before the impact. Neither 2 or 3 was mentioned in the article.
Now I know you subscribe to VC, so I imagine you would just take the lane, consistent with VC practice. Most cyclists wouldn't. That bridge is over one mile long, with two narrow lanes in each direction, and posted speed limits of 35 MPH, and actual speed limits of 65 MPH. Taking the lane on this bridge means that you would have to be confident that you would be seen by a motorist traveling at those speeds, regardless of whatever else the motorist might happen to be doing at that moment, and it means that you would be comfortable with being harassed the entire length of your bridge ride.
Where did you come up with that 65mph number? I didn't see any reference to this driver's speed. 35mph is quite a low speed limit especially on a multilane roadway with perfect sightlines such as those on a bridge. Taking the lane on this bridge would mean that I would need to be confident that faster traffic would see me in time to react to my presence just like a cyclist needs to do any time the outside lane is not wide enough to share. I don't see why this situation being a bridge with more than one lane makes any difference. Why would I be harassed for the entire length of the bridge when there is a passing lane? Do you ever ride any multilane roads? It takes an incredible amount of traffic for a cyclist to cause any significant delay to motorists (and yes, I've cycled in that amount of traffic).
And in fact, it appears that this cyclist did take the lane, and in fact wasn't seen until it was "too late."
I suspect that most cyclists aren't confident that they will be seen, and most cyclists aren't comfortable placing themselves in situations where they know they'll be harassed, especially when there's a safe and harassment free option a few feet to the right.
The narrow pathway on the side of that bridge due to the girders coupled with the very good chance that it would be filled with debris would be plenty reason for me to ride in the traffic lane. This cyclist made a mistake by hugging the curb and not being seen in time or swerving left and being hit or he did indeed fall victim to the very unlikely chance that someone would completely miss a full size person in the middle of their lane travelling in the same direction as them. If the last part is true, I'll take note of it but it will hardly affect how I ride. I ride enough roads where there is no other option but to use the right hand lane for traffic and given the very unlikely chance of something happening to me, I'm not about to stop riding them. Perpetuating the myth that riding in the same lane as traffic is a death wish and should always be avoided when at all possible is quite counterproductive to cyclist advocacy.
Based on the squealing of tires behind me, I apparently have done this *trick*.
The key to the *trick* is that the audience, in this case the driver approaching from behind, isn't watching the road, is going too fast for conditions, or both.
But it seems that to admit that cyclists get hit from behind while occupying a traffic lane violates a VC code of conduct or something.
Care to give any more details about your incidents? Your lane position, approximate driver's speed, lighting conditions, etc.?
I have no issue with admitting that a cyclist could get hit while occupying a traffic lane. It happens quite often but given how most cyclists ride, it's not that surprising. Allowing motorists to squeeze by in a lane too narrow to share by riding near the edge is an accident waiting to happen.
If the driver is this story truly was not paying attention to the road right in front of her, how did she even manage to stay going straight enough to get over that bridge? That lane width does not allow for much drifting off center before you hit the curb of someone next to you.
I'm not sure how you explain him hitting the steel girder which is on the sidewalk by a good foot if he was directly in front of the motorist. Where did the momentum in that direction come from? It would seem to me that the cyclist was hit with a glancing blow by the van and thrown to the side. In order for that to happen 1. the cyclist had to be hugging the curb, 2. the van driver had to swerve into the opposite lane trying to avoid the cyclist, or 3. the cyclist had to swerve right in the instant before the impact. Neither 2 or 3 was mentioned in the article.I really don't know, except that he wasn't seen until it was too late, and he was thrown into the girder.
Where did you come up with that 65mph number? I didn't see any reference to this driver's speed. 35mph is quite a low speed limit especially on a multilane roadway with perfect sightlines such as those on a bridge.The OP mentioned it in one of his posts. Yes, 35 is a slow speed, and apparently it's ignored by drivers.
Taking the lane on this bridge would mean that I would need to be confident that faster traffic would see me in time to react to my presence just like a cyclist needs to do any time the outside lane is not wide enough to share. I don't see why this situation being a bridge with more than one lane makes any difference. Why would I be harassed for the entire length of the bridge when there is a passing lane? Do you ever ride any multilane roads? It takes an incredible amount of traffic for a cyclist to cause any significant delay to motorists (and yes, I've cycled in that amount of traffic).But we all know that when drivers see us in the lane, they react with harassment when they could easily pass us. Put cars in both lanes, and the lanes become even more hazardous for cyclists.
The narrow pathway on the side of that bridge due to the girders coupled with the very good chance that it would be filled with debris would be plenty reason for me to ride in the traffic lane. This cyclist made a mistake by hugging the curb and not being seen in time or swerving left and being hit or he did indeed fall victim to the very unlikely chance that someone would completely miss a full size person in the middle of their lane travelling in the same direction as them. If the last part is true, I'll take note of it but it will hardly affect how I ride. I ride enough roads where there is no other option but to use the right hand lane for traffic and given the very unlikely chance of something happening to me, I'm not about to stop riding them. Perpetuating the myth that riding in the same lane as traffic is a death wish and should always be avoided when at all possible is quite counterproductive to cyclist advocacy.We'll have to disagree on that one. In fact, I would argue that needlessly taking the lane *when it impedes faster-moving vehicles* is quite counterproductive to cycling advocacy.
I really don't know, except that he wasn't seen until it was too late, and he was thrown into the girder.
Ok, but earlier you were converging on the idea that he must have been centered in the lane:
and I believe the evidence indicates he was taking the lane
The OP mentioned it in one of his posts. Yes, 35 is a slow speed, and apparently it's ignored by drivers.
I had remembered "55" being the number. I just checked and he said 55-60. We were both a bit off. Either way, that's not an excessive speed given the sightlines.
But we all know that when drivers see us in the lane, they react with harassment when they could easily pass us. Put cars in both lanes, and the lanes become even more hazardous for cyclists.
Actually, in my experience, the majority of drivers, even when they can't change lanes immediately, don't seem to care that I'm in the lane. If there's an open lane to their left, most change into it well before they get anywhere near me (keep in mind, I'm in the middle of the lane). Worst case, a driver in the right lane slows to my speed for a little while until traffic clears in the left lane, he honks a few times, then passes on my left, maybe dragging his right tires a foot into my lane. This is my daily commute.
We'll have to disagree on that one. In fact, I would argue that needlessly taking the lane *when it impedes faster-moving vehicles* is quite counterproductive to cycling advocacy.
Your definition of impeding is quite different than mine and that of the law's. You cannot be ticketted for impeding traffic when using the right hand lane of a multilane roadway assuming there is no minimum posted speed limit (and there isn't one ever on any surface street including that bridge). By your definition of impeding traffic, a cyclist should never trip a traffic light to cross a major road otherwise he'll be causing traffic to needlessly slow for his lowly self.
Ok, but earlier you were converging on the idea that he must have been centered in the lane:No, I still believe that he was taking the lane, rather than hugging the curb. It's just that when we start hypothesizing more about exactly where he was positioned and all of that that I have to back off, because I don't have enough data.
Actually, in my experience, the majority of drivers, even when they can't change lanes immediately, don't seem to care that I'm in the lane. If there's an open lane to their left, most change into it well before they get anywhere near me (keep in mind, I'm in the middle of the lane). Worst case, a driver in the right lane slows to my speed for a little while until traffic clears in the left lane, he honks a few times, then passes on my left, maybe dragging his right tires a foot into my lane. This is my daily commute.Right, the majority of drivers adjust. A dangerous minority of drivers decide to enforce whatever they think the law is. I've had worse than dragging a tire into the lane-- one driver passed between lanes; I was in the right lane, a car was in the center lane, and the driver who passed me passed between me and the car to my left, between lanes. And for no other reason than to express her anger that I was in the lane-- she could have just passed in the center lane, but didn't.
Your definition of impeding is quite different than mine and that of the law's.I am more aware of the law's definition than you realize. I wasn't speaking in the Trotwood v. Selz sense of "impeding." I was speaking in the sense of a slower vehicle preventing a faster vehicle from proceeding. There's nothing illegal about that if the slower vehicle is moving as fast as it can, but if the slower vehicle has other options, but chooses not to exercise them, that is rude. And according to the Trotwood court, Selz would have been convicted if he had been charged with not riding as far to the right as practicable. In this case, practicable means center of the lane, as far as I'm concerned. But polite means the sidewalk.
That looks like a very long bridge to cross, with lanes too narrow to safely share. The traffic planning for the bridge bridge clearly didn't take cyclists into account, much less accommodate them. No cyclist is going to be able to cross that bridge without holding up much faster traffic, and I think we all know what happens when we do that. The traffic design of that bridge is just not conducive to cycles coexisting safely and harmoniously with other bridge traffic. The obvious practical solution is to mark out bike lanes on the sidewalk.
Agreed.
The ped/bike path (sidewalk) was wide enough to cycle on easily. I'm faily certain it is assumed those not using motor transport will use the path because the actual road looks restricted and dangerous. Most bridges are empty of walkers so if you want, there shouldn't be any reason why you could not do 18 mph or more on that path.
Why the man who was killed wanted a bike sign to ride with the high speed traffic when you have that large ped/bike path is beyond me. I hope the city officials put restricted signs forcing the cyclists to use the ped/bike path saving the lives of future cyclists.
No, I still believe that he was taking the lane, rather than hugging the curb. It's just that when we start hypothesizing more about exactly where he was positioned and all of that that I have to back off, because I don't have enough data.
Got it.
Right, the majority of drivers adjust. A dangerous minority of drivers decide to enforce whatever they think the law is. I've had worse than dragging a tire into the lane-- one driver passed between lanes; I was in the right lane, a car was in the center lane, and the driver who passed me passed between me and the car to my left, between lanes. And for no other reason than to express her anger that I was in the lane-- she could have just passed in the center lane, but didn't.
I've had that happen once by being too far right in the lane. It's incredible what a foot to the left can do.
I am more aware of the law's definition than you realize. I wasn't speaking in the Trotwood v. Selz sense of "impeding." I was speaking in the sense of a slower vehicle preventing a faster vehicle from proceeding. There's nothing illegal about that if the slower vehicle is moving as fast as it can, but if the slower vehicle has other options, but chooses not to exercise them, that is rude. And according to the Trotwood court, Selz would have been convicted if he had been charged with not riding as far to the right as practicable. In this case, practicable means center of the lane, as far as I'm concerned. But polite means the sidewalk.
I'm not speaking in the Trotwood v. Selz sense either. Actually, I completely disagree with the argument used in that case. I also disagree with the lawyer's comment that the cyclist could have been charged with not riding as far right as practible if he had been ticketted for that instead of impeding traffic. The cyclist was in a narrow lane that could not be shared with a motor vehicle so the far right rule is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not the cyclist was impeding traffic. Delaware's (and many other states) have a law that reads like this:
§ 4125. Turning off roadway by slow-moving vehicle.
On a 2-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, behind which 5 or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section, a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place. (60 Del. Laws, c. 701, § 24.)
Note that impeding traffic can only occur on a 2 lane highway. And it applies to ALL vehicle types. I would expect to get a ticket if I uselessly impeded traffic on a 2 lane highway by not turning off onto a useable shoulder no matter what vehicle I was using. A piece of farm machinery is a motor vehicle which cannot go the speed of traffic on most roads so laws such as this one do not apply: "No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law." But that piece of farm machinery can certainly impede the flow of traffic per the previously quoted law. It does not matter that the piece of farm machinery is going as fast as it can.
On roads with a passing lane, there is nothing but other same direction traffic keeping someone from getting around a slow moving vehicle. All they need to do is change lanes and they can pass. That is different than having to find a gap in oncoming traffic plus a safe sightline in order to pass.
If you've noticed prior to this thread, I couldn't care less about being "polite" (as defined by someone else) if it means reducing my own safety. I'll use a shoulder to let faster traffic pass well before 5 vehicles back up behind me assuming that shoulder is wide enough and free of debris. I will not use a narrow sidewalk with a short handrail on one side and steel girders on the other to avoid slowing someone down for a few seconds.
Agreed.
The ped/bike path (sidewalk) was wide enough to cycle on easily. I'm faily certain it is assumed those not using motor transport will use the path because the actual road looks restricted and dangerous. Most bridges are empty of walkers so if you want, there shouldn't be any reason why you could not do 18 mph or more on that path.
Why the man who was killed wanted a bike sign to ride with the high speed traffic when you have that large ped/bike path is beyond me. I hope the city officials put restricted signs forcing the cyclists to use the ped/bike path saving the lives of future cyclists.
You think it's safe to ride at normal cycling speed (or on a bike at any speed) on this sidewalk?
http://cmsimg.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B2&Date=20070704&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=707041217&Ref=AR&Profile=1008&MaxW=500&title=1
I've had that happen once by being too far right in the lane. It's incredible what a foot to the left can do.Believe me, I had already moved to left of center in order to prevent any attempts to share my lane, because one driver had already "shared my lane". The driver who passed me decided to teach me a lesson. The lesson apparently was that I've got to work on my sprints if I hope to catch them at the next light. ;)
I'm not speaking in the Trotwood v. Selz sense either. Actually, I completely disagree with the argument used in that case. I also disagree with the lawyer's comment(It was actually the court that said that)
that the cyclist could have been charged with not riding as far right as practible if he had been ticketted for that instead of impeding traffic. The cyclist was in a narrow lane that could not be shared with a motor vehicle so the far right rule is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not the cyclist was impeding traffic. Delaware's (and many other states) have a law that reads like this:
Note that impeding traffic can only occur on a 2 lane highway. And it applies to ALL vehicle types. I would expect to get a ticket if I uselessly impeded traffic on a 2 lane highway by not turning off onto a useable shoulder no matter what vehicle I was using.And that's all I'm saying we should do as a matter of courtesy. In your case, it's also a matter of law.
If you've noticed prior to this thread, I couldn't care less about being "polite" (as defined by someone else) if it means reducing my own safety. I'll use a shoulder to let faster traffic pass well before 5 vehicles back up behind me assuming that shoulder is wide enough and free of debris. I will not use a narrow sidewalk with a short handrail on one side and steel girders on the other to avoid slowing someone down for a few seconds.I won't compromise my safety either, but I don't think it's always a zero-sum game. When it's not a zero sum game, courtesy should also apply. And in the case of this bridge, not only is it not a zero sum game, it's (I think) demonstrably safer to ride on the sidewalk, and not in the traffic lanes.
You think it's safe to ride at normal cycling speed (or on a bike at any speed) on this sidewalk?
http://cmsimg.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B2&Date=20070704&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=707041217&Ref=AR&Profile=1008&MaxW=500&title=1
At my speed...yes. There is plenty of room by the looks of it. We don't drift that far off line even on the triplet.
Believe me, I had already moved to left of center in order to prevent any attempts to share my lane, because one driver had already "shared my lane". The driver who passed me decided to teach me a lesson. The lesson apparently was that I've got to work on my sprints if I hope to catch them at the next light. ;)
Sounds like a real JAM.
(It was actually the court that said that)
Really? It's pretty standard wording for "far right" laws to make a written exemption for when the lane isn't wide enough to share. I would hope the courts would be well aware of that.
And that's all I'm saying we should do as a matter of courtesy. In your case, it's also a matter of law.
I won't compromise my safety either, but I don't think it's always a zero-sum game. When it's not a zero sum game, courtesy should also apply. And in the case of this bridge, not only is it not a zero sum game, it's (I think) demonstrably safer to ride on the sidewalk, and not in the traffic lanes.
So really, the only difference in our attitudes is what constitutes a zero-sum in terms of safety on roadways. I don't use shoulders when I don't have to but when I can reasonably determine that my safety won't be affected by riding for a brief period in them, I have no problems using the shoulder. I wouldn't consider a narrow bridge sidewalk a safer option than a wide (for a single bicycle to travel in) traffic lane. But, if I had to choose between curb hugging and the sidewalk (hypothetical gun to my head), I'd walk on the sidewalk.
At my speed...yes. There is plenty of room by the looks of it. We don't drift that far off line even on the triplet.
I don't intend to drift that far either but the bridge is a mile long and the choices for falling if something goes wrong are into a traffic lane unexpectedly or possible off the side of the bridge. Call me a wuss :)
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.