If I don't feel comfortable/safe passing them using the same lane, why should I let them pass me in the same lane.


Depends. IMO, if the "average, reasonable" cyclist is uncomfortable in that situation, then you at least have a leg to stand on. But if you are uncomfortable being passed in any lane less than 15 feet wide, you are in a distinct minority and should not use your abnormality as an excuse to inconvenience other road users.

SJ, please look at the two clips in this video:


My standard policy is to refuse to participate in the "scenarios" game, as it never, ever ends.

I stand by my argument that 15 feet -- let alone 17.5 -- is far more than is necessary for safe riding in the eyes of the "average" cyclist, in my experience. I also stand by my opinion that a cloistered group of "VCers" here at BF have talked one another into believing that it's unsafe and irrational to behave like nearly every other cyclist in the country.

And, of course, I stand by my belief that trying to talk a judge into believing that blocking traffic on any lane under 17.5 feet is safe, necessary, and legal will result in laughter.

I think a reasonable minimum width is:

1'+9'+3'+2'+1' = 15'

Note this assumes a 9' wide motor vehicles. There are wider vehicles I encouter regularly on the road.

Al
Check your math. That's 16' (I know, you did that just to see if anyone is paying attention... do I win?)

Plus, riding 1' from the curb, or especially 1' from another (right only) lane, seems tight.

Most cars are closer to 6'. Thus:

1'+6'+3'+2'+2' = 14'

A mirror is helpful because it tells you when to adjust between sharing and controlling positions, based on the width of the vehicles approaching from behind. I frequently notice a big truck coming and adjust left to make him know... no sharing for you!

My standard policy is to refuse to participate in the "scenarios" game, as it never, ever ends.

I stand by my argument that 15 feet -- let alone 17.5 -- is far more than is necessary for safe riding in the eyes of the "average" cyclist, in my experience. I also stand by my opinion that a cloistered group of "VCers" here at BF have talked one another into believing that it's unsafe and irrational to behave like nearly every other cyclist in the country.

And, of course, I stand by my belief that trying to talk a judge into believing that blocking traffic on any lane under 17.5 feet is safe, necessary, and legal will result in laughter.
Did you look at the clips?

Check your math. That's 16' (I know, you did that just to see if anyone is paying attention... do I win?)

Plus, riding 1' from the curb, or especially 1' from another (right only) lane, seems tight.

Most cars are closer to 6'. Thus:

1'+6'+3'+2'+2' = 14'

A mirror is helpful because it tells you when to adjust between sharing and controlling positions, based on the width of the vehicles approaching from behind. I frequently notice a big truck coming and adjust left to make him know... no sharing for you!

Yes, you do pay attention! But no prizes today.

Larger SUV are closer to 8' including mirrors. I share the road with many larger trucks every day (mostly in AM.) I get passed by at least half a dozen landscaping trailers too. I can't count on 6' wide vehicles. For examples see attachment.

Sure if there is a single smaller vehicle behind me I can share much easier. I do see them with mirror and respond.

Did you look at the clips?

My standard policy is to refuse to participate in the "scenarios" game, as it never, ever ends.

I stand by my argument that 15 feet -- let alone 16 or 17.5 -- is far more than is necessary for safe riding in the eyes of the "average" cyclist.

I stand by my argument that 15 feet -- let alone 16 or 17.5 -- is far more than is necessary for safe riding in the eyes of the "average" cyclist.
I have to agree with SJ on this one. The judge isn't going to go for a mathematical argument where you take all of the maximum widths and then say the lane is narrower than "X", therefore the cyclist doesn't have to share the lane. This trial will be about a particular road, at a particular time of day and traffic conditions. And unless you can make an argument that the predominant traffic is full of oversized flatbeds pulling manufactured homes, a 15 foot lane is going to be deemed plenty wide enough to safely share under most circumstances.

Of course 15' is most often fine to share. But JJ's case is about an 11' lane.
Al

Of course 15' is most often fine to share. But JJ's case is about an 11' lane.
Yeah, I knew it was narrower than 15', but didn't know how narrow. My main point is that I don't think the mathematical game will work with the judge. Better to have pictures (or video) of the road in question in order to make the case that a cyclist could not possibly safely share the lane.

However, it could be pointed out that one state (Texas) has a law that only requires cyclists to share lanes 14' or wider, and that various guidelines such as AASHTO consider shareable lanes to be 14' or wider.

Of course 15' is most often fine to share. But JJ's case is about an 11' lane.


Yes, but that's not including the shoulder/right turn lane, which is "regularly used" by other cyclists.

That, to me, is the critical point here, and really, of most of VC. I still don't understand why a handful of fellows need to do things in a way that radically departs from the norm and attracts all sorts of negative attention. Were I the judge I would very much want to know why JJ needs to impede traffic on that road and no other cyclist does.

My standard policy is to refuse to participate in the "scenarios" game, as it never, ever ends.



What you take as "scenarios" may simply be what others, not in your area, may be experiencing in real life.

The city I live in publishes this "Rules of the Road" guide:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/Bike/pdfs/RulesoftheRoad.pdf
Which states on p.3 "Follow Lane Markings. Go where the lane goes. Do not turn left from the right lane. Do not go straight in a lane marked right-turn-only." But yes, this is where I live, not JJ.

Al

What you take as "scenarios" may simply be what others, not in your area, may be experiencing in real life.

Okay. The point is that everytime I get sucked into the "Well what would you do in this situation?!?" it just goes on and on and on. But if you simply have to have an answer about "What I'd do", then just assume that I'd do what the majority of experienced cyclists would.

In JJ's scenario, that probably means I'd be on the right shoulder/turn lane.

The city I live in publishes this "Rules of the Road" guide:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/Bike/pdfs/RulesoftheRoad.pdf
Which states on p.3 "Follow Lane Markings. Go where the lane goes. Do not turn left from the right lane. Do not go straight in a lane marked right-turn-only." But yes, this is where I live, not JJ.



And to continue that thought, where I live the law says that there is no requirement to keep to the right in a "substandard" width lane, and:

Any lane that is eleven 11 feet wide or less shall be presumed be a substandard width lane for purposes of this subsection;


But again, that's where I live and not JJ.

My standard policy is to refuse to participate in the "scenarios" game, as it never, ever ends.

I stand by my argument that 15 feet -- let alone 16 or 17.5 -- is far more than is necessary for safe riding in the eyes of the "average" cyclist.
No one is arguing that 15 feet -- let alone 16 or 17.5 -- is insufficient width for safe riding. Why do you keep harping on this irrelevant straw man point?

And I'm not asking you to participate in any "scenarios" game.

For the third time, did you look at the clips?

Wow. I think my head just exploded.

Dodge. Evade. Dodge. I guess you're demonstrating your traffic riding style. :rolleyes:

It's neither dodging nor evasion. I just don't seem to have a big enough hammer to get through to you!

I'll try to make it simple for you. Fourth time: did you look at these clips (http://cyclistview.com/inclusivepdintro/slide22.htm) yet?
Yes
NoHow big a hammer do you need to pick a or b?

Just so you know, mate, I put you back on the "ignore" list. You're welcome to continue posting to me, but you probably shouldn't expect any answers.

I just watched them and I think that they are a very good example of selected editing.

Frankly, I don't see anything scary or dangerous or unsafe in either clip. What's the problem with the way that the car passed the rider in the first clip?

Now for the selective editing part:

Of course the overtaking car in the first clip didn't move laterally, as the cars did in the second clip. There was a tractor trailer in the other lane and there was plenty of room to safely pass the cyclist!
These clips are not intended to prove anything. They are intended to illustrate.

When LCI_Brian (the guy in the clip) claims that these clips are a fair representations of what happens when he rides in either of those positions, it's up to you to decide whether to believe him or not. I do, because this claim is consistent with my experience.

As to scary or dangerous or unsafe about the passes? Nothing. The point is that if they're going to pass you and they need to partially encroach into the adjacent lane to pass, you can determine with they close-pass or change lanes to pass based on where you are positioned.

In many case being as clear as possible that lane-sharing is not an option seems to reduce driver frustration and aggravation.

Just so you know, mate, I put you back on the "ignore" list. You're welcome to continue posting to me, but you probably shouldn't expect any answers.
I have no idea what you're so peeved about. Whatever. :rolleyes:

How could he have been smashed when the car couldn't pull out (unless it wanted to drive through the back of the silver pickup)?

What I saw was a rider filtering forward through stopped traffic and paying attention (as opposed to the claim by the hazard nanny in the vid) to threats ahead of him. Traffic starts to move, car that is going to merge into traffic can't move due to another vehicle, there's room for him, and he proceeds. All the while the hazard nannies are slow in getting off the line, are holding up the traffic behind them and assume that the rider wasn't paying attention to what the hazard nannies were doing.
Since HH dragged me into this - take a closer look at the video. The view is somewhat obstructed by the inset in the upper left, but at 0:07 (right when the cyclist is in front of the car pulling out), the silver pickup has already passed. Since the silver pickup started moving at about 0:04, and the car pulling out from the driveway started moving at 0:05, it's reasonable to assume that the car pulling out of the driveway was planning to roll out slowly and drop in behind the pickup.

BTW, on the first video with the close pass, based on measurements from the photo and knowing the width of the bike, etc., my best guess of the passing distance was about 2.5 feet from the edge of the pickup to the outside of the handlebars. I'll go back into lurk mode and leave it as an exercise for the A&S regulars to discuss.

If you don't think that it's scary or dangerous to ride in a position like the first segment, then why bother riding out in the lane in front of traffic, as in the second segment?
It's smoother. The traffic flow is smoother. Drivers are alerted to the fact that they can't share the lane sooner, and so prepare sooner. That makes the flow smoother.

This link is to a very similar case, Maryland vs. McCutcheon: http://www.crankmail.com/Fred/Rt2Road.html#McCutcheon

Unfortunately the link to the brief is dead, because it basically lays out what your legal strategy should be.

Joe,

I just sent you an e-mail with the person who runs that website. I asked whether there are other sources of the documents. I copied his reply to you with his contact information.

-G

I don't want to bother reading this whole thread, I just skipped from page 1 to the end, but I'm curious what is the latest from the OP in his court case? (Sorry if I just missed that by not reading everything.)

Drivers can share the lane, as demonstrated in clip #1 so how does forcing cars to adjust position make traffic flow smoother? Smoother traffic flow would be simply maintaining their course ala clip #1 without having to check the left lane for clearance and merging left.

After all that pass is not scary or dangerous or unsafe, right?
Clip #1 demonstrates that that position invites drivers of automobiles to squeeze-share the lane such that even vehicles as narrow as a mini pickup clear the cyclist by a passing distance (2 - 2.5') that it is illegal in states and countries that specify a minimum passing distance (usually 3' or 1 meter), and is arguably illegal in states like CA that provide more subjective criteria for minimum passing distances.

We should not be riding in a manner that encourages drivers to pass us like this. The whole concept of car/bike lane sharing should be reserved for exceptional conditions and not considered the norm.

On the subject of smoother traffic, while this particular mini pickup driver managed to squeeze in, the next driver may decide he can't, perhaps because his car is wider, or because he has more sense. The point is that the clip #1 position invites lane sharing close passes, while the clip #2 position make it clear in no uncertain terms, to drivers still a fairly long ways back, that lane sharing is not an option, and drivers can plan accordingly sooner. That's what makes it smoother.

...it is illegal in states and countries that specify a minimum passing distance (usually 3' or 1 meter), and is arguably illegal in states like CA that provide more subjective criteria for minimum passing distances.

.

What subjective criteria does CA provide other than "don't hit the cyclist?"

boy, none of those clips have any relevancy to riding in a full width, continuous, shoulder/right hand turn lane on busy, 50 MPH arterials.

I see some VC jackstrap waving a car into the travel lane, without checking behind him to see if its' appropriate to do so as a bicyclist uses a safe and legal lane position to advance on a stopped lane of traffic. Dang VC messing with that other riders' safety!!

Yes, continuous right turn lanes (as well as wide shoulders) can very well be prudent and safe places to pilot ones' bike along high speed roads, except when they aren't. John Froester even begrudgingly admits vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularly on wide shoulders.


When a right of traffic position on accomdating roads isn't deemed safe or prudent, then the rider moves into the travel lane. Forcing ones' vehicularity on faster traffic, when there's a safe road/lane position to the right, is rude and just might get you pulled over and ticketed! ;)

I love the dramatic "squeeze share" nonsense and the "mini pickup" qualifier. The way that you try to twist a simple, common and safe pass as something that should be controlled and discouraged is very funny. I can't believe that you guys are so afraid of being passed by cars like that. Really, it speaks volumes about the load of fear that you carry with you when you ride on the streets.

If there is truly nothing "scary or dangerous or unsafe about the passes" then why are you now characterizing them "squeeze share" passes and as something that should be discouraged?



It was a simple pass. It was smooth traffic. The cyclists were passed safely and the traffic flow was not interrupted, nor was the traffic flow disturbed by the driver having to adjust laterally simply because some fearful cyclist is afraid of cars passing them with 2.5+ feet of clearance.



I am continually amazed at how fearful you are of riding in traffic. There was nothing exceptional about the situation in clip #1. It was not dangerous nor unsafe.

If what you are preaching accurately reflects 'VC" then it sure reeks of wacky cultism based upon irrational fears.

It's not "VC". Many vehicular cycling advocates are fine with close passes like that, not the least of which is John Forester. His own Effective Cycling video from the early 90s demonstrates close passes like that. He even shares narrow lanes in the middle of the road during merge passes (he does a 2-step lane change: left edge to right edge, right edge to left edge). Other vehicular cyclists, like those depicted in the video tend to be more assertive about lane control.

Most of us are old enough to remember when hardly anyone even noticed much less complained about cigarette smoke. There was no such thing as a no smoking section in restaurants when I was a kid, much less no smoking at all in restaurants (not to mention bars, and now even beaches, at least in San Diego). Yet we ate at restaurants. Everyone did. It wasn't an issue in the 60s and 70s.

But as awareness about the ultimate harm of inhaling secondary cigarette smoke grew, so did the noticing of it. Pretty soon those of us who weren't bothered by cigarette smoke at all for years, now couldn't stand it. Our tolerance changed dramatically.

I liken close passes to cigarette smoke: one's tolerance of it is almost totally a function of how "inappropriate" one believes the related behavior is.

Taking in a few breaths of cigarette smoke isn't going to hurt anyone. Yet most of us are not tolerant of it, because we have come to believe that breathing it in repeatedly is ultimately damaging. Thus our tolerance for breathing practically any of it is very low.

Similarly, one particular close pass probably isn't going to hurt anyone. But for most of us who are, shall we say, less tolerant of it, the intolerance stems from a belief that the common practice of close passes of bicyclists by motor vehicle drivers is ultimately damaging. Thus our tolerance for just about any close passing is very low.

Now, given that you want to reduce the incidence of close passing, using a more assertive lane position is probably the most effective means to achieve it. That's the main thing the video clips demonstrate. If you don't understand the point of inhibiting close passes, then it's not going to make much sense.

Let's take this to the "Taking the Lane when narrow" thread.

I cannot imagine living with such irrational fears.

The irrational fears do explain your odd behavior when riding, and when discussing riding in this forum though.
Again, I'm answering in the "Taking the lane" thread.

From the other thread:

Sorry Serge, I'm not interested in playing along with your control games. My replies are where they belong, right in there with the relevant context.
If you don't want to consolidate two parallel discussions, that's fine. I just thought we were highjacking JJ's thread, and our discussion is more approriate in the taking the lane thread. But if you prefer I post in both threads, I will.

Anyway:

I cannot imagine living with such irrational fears.

The irrational fears do explain your odd behavior when riding, and when discussing riding in this forum though.
You can call them irrational if you like, I really don't care.

I just recognize that repeated exposure to low risk events with potentially high severity consequences that are easy to mitigate are best to minimize, when reasonably possible to do so.

Examples of relatively low risk events with potentially high severity consequences and fairly straightforward mitigation include:
running with scissors
playing with matches
inhaling secondary cig smoke
pointing a gun at someone without intending to pull the trigger, even if you think the gun is not loaded
driving in a car without a seat belt
riding a bike without a helmet
rock climbing higher than 5' or so without protection
Multi-day backpacks without appropriate first aid equipment
Drinking and driving (the vast, vast majority of drivers who drink get to their destination without incident)
etc.
and, yes, riding a bicycle in a manner that that does not discourage passing by motorists with clearance of 3' or less.

The laundry list is a list of examples of behavior, not a list of reasons my concerns are not irrational.

lots of drivel here

Once again, the Ignore List is the winner :)

Joe ...

Here are links to the relevant Maryland documents ...

http://bikelaws.org/citation.pdf
http://bikelaws.org/court_ca.pdf

Thanks goes to Fred Oswald for his website and work.

-G

They illustrate the bias quite nicely.

As does this one:

http://cyclistview.com/inclusivepdintro/slide26.htm

"Look at this guy, almost got himself smashed"

How could he have been smashed when the car couldn't pull out (unless it wanted to drive through the back of the silver pickup)?

What I saw was a rider filtering forward through stopped traffic and paying attention (as opposed to the claim by the hazard nanny in the vid) to threats ahead of him. Traffic starts to move, car that is going to merge into traffic can't move due to another vehicle, there's room for him, and he proceeds. All the while the hazard nannies are slow in getting off the line, are holding up the traffic behind them and assume that the rider wasn't paying attention to what the hazard nannies were doing.

I think that clip is quite an insight into how out of touch some "VCers" are.



If you don't think that it's scary or dangerous to ride in a position like the first segment, then why bother riding out in the lane in front of traffic, as in the second segment?

If the guy on the bike (taping and commenting) hadn't 'given' away his right of way, there would have been no way for the other cyclist to 'almost get smashed'. The cyclist taping, by failing to be aware of what was going on around him, almost got another cyclist hurt. That's as bad as a car stopping in the center lane and trying to wave me across when there's traffic driving by in the lane on the other side...

Sad part is... the driver was more aware than the 'expert' cyclist. I'd have to say props go out to that driver for paying attention, and not going on the word of the cyclist in front of them.

Since HH dragged me into this - take a closer look at the video. The view is somewhat obstructed by the inset in the upper left, but at 0:07 (right when the cyclist is in front of the car pulling out), the silver pickup has already passed. Since the silver pickup started moving at about 0:04, and the car pulling out from the driveway started moving at 0:05, it's reasonable to assume that the car pulling out of the driveway was planning to roll out slowly and drop in behind the pickup

Reasonable to assume? The cyclist waved the car out in front of him when the way wasn't clear to do so. The cyclist filming would have been the cause of the accident, the cyclist filtering would have been the one injured, and the driver would have paid with a ticket and insurance hike, plus damages and medical.

And the jackass on the bike would have said 'See? I TOLD you it was dangerous'

No way I'd put a video like that on the internet to show what an ******* I was.

I would suggest that you look at the video again. The front wheel of the vehicle that is attempting to turn into the lane is in the same position at second 5, 6 7, 8. It would have been there going forward if the riders had been riding with traffic rather than preening themselves. To me that indicates that the driver was aware of the guy that cruised on past the VC types.

If my post is too confusing I can post screenshots.



Defining that as a "close pass" is ludicrous.

He started rolling when the lead cyclist filming waved him on, then immediately stopped again when he saw the approaching cyclist.

If the guy on the bike (taping and commenting) hadn't 'given' away his right of way, there would have been no way for the other cyclist to 'almost get smashed'. The cyclist taping, by failing to be aware of what was going on around him, almost got another cyclist hurt. That's as bad as a car stopping in the center lane and trying to wave me across when there's traffic driving by in the lane on the other side...

Sad part is... the driver was more aware than the 'expert' cyclist. I'd have to say props go out to that driver for paying attention, and not going on the word of the cyclist in front of them.
Are you seriously suggesting that a driver stopped in the position that the cyclist was in should have looked behind on his right to make sure no knucklehead curb-hugging cyclist wasn't approaching from behind, passing on the right, before he indicated to the small SUV driver entering the roadway that he was yielding to him? What if this was a motorcyclist? Would you be as critical? What if the guy passing on the right had been a motorcyclist? Would you have been as "understanding" of him?

He started rolling when the lead cyclist filming waved him on, then immediately stopped again when he saw the approaching cyclist.
Yes, he started rolling as soon as he recognized that the bicycle driver was yielding to him, then immediately stopped again when he noticed the curb-hugging knucklehead passing stopped/slow traffic on the right without regard for what was going on here.

Are you seriously suggesting that a driver stopped in the position that the cyclist was in should have looked behind on his right to make sure no knucklehead curb-hugging cyclist wasn't approaching from behind, passing on the right, before he indicated to the small SUV driver entering the roadway that he was yielding to him? What if this was a motorcyclist? Would you be as critical? What if the guy passing on the right had been a motorcyclist? Would you have been as "understanding" of him?

If this was a car in the lane instead of a cyclist, they would have driven and not waved the car into the space in front of them. They certainly wouldn't taped it

I'm more commenting on the fact that the jackass on the bike in the lane doesn't even realized that by him not acting in a predictable and legal matter (ie: going when it was his turn) he nearly caused an accident. And he blames the other cyclist, who is riding legally and predictably. Very typical of what I've seen of the hard-core VC crowd. Taking the lane when there's very much plenty of room to share, almost causes an accident, then blames it on the 'curb hugging' cyclist.

This attitude is why 90% of people on the forums think VC'ers are a sad joke, and why motorists hate you as well.

edit: As far as not looking to see what's approaching from behind... how is that different from this thread: Drivers that are "Too Courteous" (http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=347627)?

"knucklehead curb-hugging cyclist" - good one. When I saw the video, it was my immediate thought as well, that the cyclist making the vid almost caused the accident with the other cyclist by gesturing to the pickup truck driver. One should never give up the right of way by gesturing to the driver of another vehicle. Even if it is with good intentions, it might have consequences that are unforseen, such as in this case. Our road system is set up to be very mechanistic. Improvisation is generally frowned upon.

Right of way rules exist for a reason. If you do give up your right of way by gesturing, then yes, it is your responsiblity to make sure that no other person is going to be negatively affected by your expression of goodwill.

If this was a car in the lane instead of a cyclist, they would have driven and not waved the car into the space in front of them.
Huh? I let people in in situations like that all the time, and they let me in too. Why would you think that only a bicyclist would yield to someone trying to enter the roadway into stopped traffic from a midblock bank exit or whatever it was?


I'm more commenting on the fact that the jackass on the bike in the lane doesn't even realized that by him not acting in a predictable and legal matter (ie: going when it was his turn) he nearly caused an accident.
Are you serious? Yielding right of way to others out of courtesy is neither unpredictable nor illegal. It's quite normal in every state and country in which I've ever driven.

And he blames the other cyclist, who is riding legally and predictably.
Passing slow/stopped traffic on the right like that is maybe legal, but it's certainly not predictable. It's a common cause of bike/car collisions.


Very typical of what I've seen of the hard-core VC crowd. Taking the lane when there's very much plenty of room to share, almost causes an accident, then blames it on the 'curb hugging' cyclist.

This attitude is why 90% of people on the forums think VC'ers are a sad joke, and why motorists hate you as well.
Your defense of a curb-hugging cyclist blindly passing slow/stopped on the right oblivious to what is going on is bizarre.

The fact that there was space on the right is irrelevant. The cyclist was not slower than other traffic (which was stopped for a light!), and he was approaching an intersection where he was going straight. Are you really saying he should have been in the "right hook zone" like the knucklehead curb hugger (who lucked out... this time)? Give that you don't seem to understand the most fundamental causes of car/bike crashes, it's no wonder you think "VC'ers are a sad joke" and that you hate us.

I note that you ignored my questions about what your opinion would have been had a motorcyclist done the exact same thing.

I note that you ignored my questions about what your opinion would have been had a motorcyclist done the exact same thing.

My opinion is that a motorcyclist would not have the room to maneuver safely to the right of traffic and that in most areas it would be illegal as well.

The cyclist has several feet to ride in safely, and probably SAW the car start to move and stop again and kept going. I've seen it plenty of times where I didn't 'almost get smashed'. Seen it plenty of times when I had to react to keep from getting hit. And being in the lane does NOT make you immune from that. Personally, I'm more than happy to take the lane when necessary to ensure my safety. I'm also more than satisfied to stay to the right when there's plenty of room.

At an intersection like that, I'd have no problem staying to the right... closer to the intersection match speeds and I'd make sure I was spaced so that I could make sure that the car ahead of me can't right hook me, and that the car to my left/behind me could see that I was there and not going to give up my right of way.

I think the guy videotaping is a jack***, plain and simple.... more for his comments than anything else.

edit: One thing that really pisses me off is when people get pissed about a cyclist passing to the right... how is it safe for them to pass just to the left, but seconds later it's unsafe for the cyclist to share with them??? Give me a break.

In the end, nobody did anything illegal in that video. The driver of the SUV especially went above and beyond what I expect of drivers... he did what he was supposed to do. Even when the other cyclist waved him on, he took that extra fraction of a second to make sure that the way was indeed clear, and thereby prevented an accident.

I only say 'beyond what I expect' because (for my safety) I always assume that they won't, and I'm prepared to evade. (remember Defensive Driving?)

I swear to god, though... if that had been me, and that car had pulled out in front of me and that cyclist had the audacity to say one word..... Yeah. I'd probably be bailing myself out of jail for beating the **** out of the smug son of a *****.

edit: One thing that really pisses me off is when people get pissed about a cyclist passing to the right... how is it safe for them to pass just to the left, but seconds later it's unsafe for the cyclist to share with them??? Give me a break.
I can't believe you're serious. I hope you're just trolling. Of course, there is a huge difference. In simplest terms, faster traffic passing on the left is normal and expected. Faster traffic passing on the right, especially unexpected to anyone already in the rightmost lane, is neither normal nor expected. That's why the former is safe, and the latter is often unsafe. Duh.

I can't believe you're serious. I hope you're just trolling. Of course, there is a huge difference. In simplest terms, faster traffic passing on the left is normal and expected. Faster traffic passing on the right, especially unexpected to anyone already in the rightmost lane, is neither normal nor expected. That's why the former is safe, and the latter is often unsafe. Duh.

I've yet to be right hooked by stopped traffic. Amazing as it seems, but when there's no where to go, it's hard to get right hooked.

Unless a motorist suddenly decides to turn out of the traffic and drive on the sidewalk, then every situation where I choose to filter is safe. Slow down, and stop just behind the front car.... nobody else can move.

In a situation where there's a driveway very near, it can be an extra danger, but slowing down to ascertain that the nearest driver isn't going to suddenly pull into said driveway, and make sure that nobody is going to suddenly force themselves out into my space isn't that difficult to do and takes no time at all.

Biggest danger I see is someone suddenly deciding to jump out of the passenger side door... Yeah, it's amazing what people will decide to do suddenly.

I've yet to be right hooked by stopped traffic. Amazing as it seems, but when there's no where to go, it's hard to get right hooked.

Unless a motorist suddenly decides to turn out of the traffic and drive on the sidewalk, then every situation where I choose to filter is safe. Slow down, and stop just behind the front car.... nobody else can move.

In a situation where there's a driveway very near, it can be an extra danger, but slowing down to ascertain that the nearest driver isn't going to suddenly pull into said driveway, and make sure that nobody is going to suddenly force themselves out into my space isn't that difficult to do and takes no time at all.

Biggest danger I see is someone suddenly deciding to jump out of the passenger side door... Yeah, it's amazing what people will decide to do suddenly.
Stopped traffic doesn't right hook. But drivers do suddenly decide to pull out of stopped traffic into a gas station, bank, parking lot, into a parking spot, pull over to the curb to deal with a call or look at a map, or whatever, and very few think to check for traffic to their right before doing so, considering they're already in the rightmost lane. That's why cyclists passing on the right in a sharing position is less safe than motorists passing cyclists on the left where it is not unexpected.

Filtering on the right can be safe in certain situations when done with due care. But in this clip this curb hugger was passing on the right while approaching a midblock intersection (where the SUV is pulling out) as well as the main intersection coming up, where, by the way, the traffic light had obviously turned green and so all this "stopped" traffic was now starting to move.

Not to mention that the cyclist in the lane moving with traffic passed the curb-hugger before the intersection was even crossed, so what the heck is the curb-hugger gaining by riding in all that right hook zone?

Not to mention that the cyclist in the lane moving with traffic passed the curb-hugger before the intersection was even crossed, so what the heck is the curb-hugger gaining by riding in all that right hook zone?

Ummm... avoiding the aggravation of dealing with the 1% of motorists who think that bikes never have a right to the road and that they're going to 'teach them a lesson'?

I'd like to see that company's footage of aggressive drivers... the ones doing the illegal and stupid stuff.

Don't tell me it doesn't happen, we ALL know better than that.

I can't really tell, but it LOOKS like the cyclist is looking at the the car pulling out... I know if it was me I'd be watching the traffic on the left AND the motorist to see if he starts moving. You probably wouldn't be able to tell whether or not I was aware... At least not from the angle of the cyclists filming. Though that motorist WOULD have gotten a smile and a wave from me.

Overall, I don't see anything dangerous about the situation... just something to be VERY aware of as I'm approaching.

And it still doesn't change the fact that IF the driver would have pulled out, he'd have been at fault legally.

In this case, everybody did the correct things, and nothing bad happened. Then the VCdiot filming made himself look like a jackass AND posted it on the internet to boot.