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.Well, it was just an aside by the court, and I suppose if the cyclist had been cited for that, the argument would have been over whether it was practicable. Obviously, I would argue that it's not practicable to share a narrow lane.
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.I wouldn't ride a narrow walk-- too narrow to safely share-- either. From the photos in this thread, that looks like a wide walk to me.
No, that's the first time. I ride bridge sidewalks that narrow here in Portland, and it's a long way down to the river. I'd ride that, but at a moderate-to-slow pace.
hollow
08-07-07, 08:44 PM
My favorite line from one of the articles was:
"The driver, whose name was not released by police, told investigators that the cyclist was too close to avoid."
Yeah, that's what happens when you run over someone, dumba**, they're too close to avoid. Sheesh. Fortunately, most of the inattentive idiots who have hit me (4) have done so when I was in my car (3).
JeffS
08-08-07, 01:51 PM
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.
Motorists are going to be pissed at cyclists no matter what we do. Altering your behavior in an attempt to pacify them is futile and stupid.
I fail to see how the number of cyclists legally riding on a road changes anything.
Clearly, you share the common belief that cyclists don't belong on the road.
filtersweep
08-08-07, 02:30 PM
If he was not paying attention, then there is a reason for his lack of attention. It is then NOT an accident. Doesn't mean that it was purposeful. He could have avoided the "accident" by looking where he should have.
*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.