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.
The irony is that while, yes, it happens, it happens much less often when we ride in an manner that is assertive about our rights, so these guys might have to run footage for months before capturing anything like that. Curb-hugging in the right hook zones is the exact opposite of what you should do if your goal is to avoid "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'". Riding like that is arguably asking for it because it is broadcasting tacit agreement with the sentiment that cyclists don't have the same right to the road.


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.
I'm astonished that you continue to defend the behavior of the curb-hugging knucklehead riding straight in the turn zone of the roadway. Yes, you can get away with that without incident for years and thousands of miles. Riding in door zones too. Doesn't make it safe. It's only a matter of time before a cyclist who rides like that will probably get whacked.

The irony is that while, yes, it happens, it happens much less often when we ride in an manner that is assertive about our rights

I have found the exact opposite to be true.

Once again, the Ignore List is the winner :)
+1
55837

Yes, you can get away with that without incident for years and thousands of miles..... It's only a matter of time before a cyclist who rides like that will probably get whacked.

Uh, that same logic can be applied to "taking lanes" or riding leftish in a lane.

In fact that same approach to "safety" can be applied to almost anything that some may consider dangerous... from running with scissors to riding bikes in traffic, to playing with firecrackers to even perhaps drinking and driving.

We get away with so much for so long on the premise of "just enough" to get by, that perhaps all this safety stuff is just a bunch of hogwash.

(although obviously you don't put your hand directly into the meat grinder... ) :rolleyes:

Yes, you can get away with that without incident for years and thousands of miles..... It's only a matter of time before a cyclist who rides like that will probably get whacked.

Uh, that same logic can be applied to "taking lanes" or riding leftish in a lane.

In fact that same approach to "safety" can be applied to almost anything that some may consider dangerous... from running with scissors to riding bikes in traffic, to playing with firecrackers to even perhaps drinking and driving.

We get away with so much for so long on the premise of "just enough" to get by, that perhaps all this safety stuff is just a bunch of hogwash.

(although obviously you don't put your hand directly into the meat grinder... ) :rolleyes:
Gene,

Do you believe it is true that if you ride according to the vehicular rules of the road that it is only a matter of time before will probably get whacked? If so, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I'm not saying it definitely won't happen, I just think it's unlikely, and much less likely than for a curb-hugging knucklehead who regularly uses right hook zones to go straight.

Gene,

Do you believe it is true that if you ride according to the vehicular rules of the road that it is only a matter of time before will probably get whacked? If so, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I'm not saying it definitely won't happen, I just think it's unlikely, and much less likely than for a curb-hugging knucklehead who regularly uses right hook zones to go straight.

Unfortunately I do. Except it is not "probably" but more like "may" get "whacked" anyway.

I have already been "whacked" while following vehicular rules of the road, by others that didn't follow those same rules. No matter how vehicular you are, if everyone is not following the rules in similar manner, your "rule following" can be pretty useless.

Now, I never have been hit by an overtaking vehicle... which is perhaps the only thing that could occur due to riding leftish or taking a lane. However, your statement was so broad, that really it meant nothing. And according to the statistics, rear end collisions by motor vehicles are the leading kind... which means that someone out there is "not following rules" at least some of the time.

Very often we "get away with that without incident for years and thousands of miles..... yet it's only a matter of time before someone who does that will probably get whacked." That statement probably applies to most of the stuff we do anytime.

Look, the easiest example is this. You ride cautiously, you trust but verify, you are riding down the road and just past a stoplight, you feel you have the attention of the motorist you are passing right in front of... and for some reason, just as you are right in front of their bumper, they push the gas pedal. They violated the vehicular rules of the road. You did not. They hit you in spite of all your checks. (sure, this is not likely to happen... but it can) What then was your "defense?" You did everything right... yet...

The problem is your "trust and verify" can only go so far... (which you have yet failed to really acknowledge). You look for signs, for nods, for visual clues that you appear to be recognized... yet any of those "signs" can be given mechanically by someone deep in distracting thought... and you have no way of telling the difference.

So to answer your slightly modified question... do I feel that it is true that if you ride according to the vehicular rules of the road that it is only a matter of time before you may get whacked?

Yes.

You can only reduce the probabilities so much by your complete attention. There are still variables you cannot control. (and I am not talking meteors out of the sky either). Stuff happens. Hey, the flip side is, it probably won't. I'll give you a "probably" there. Keep it positive.

I'm astonished that you continue to defend the behavior of the curb-hugging knucklehead riding straight in the turn zone of the roadway. Yes, you can get away with that without incident for years and thousands of miles. Riding in door zones too. Doesn't make it safe. It's only a matter of time before a cyclist who rides like that will probably get whacked.

The cyclist didn't do anything inherently dangerous. AND he was riding at a speed that he COULD have stopped if the car hadn't. AND there was more than enough space between the cars and the curb.

The ONLY part of the video that I might have a problem with is the curb on the other side of the intersection. It looks like the lane is much narrower at that one point than anywhere else. If that's the case, I'd probably take the lane.... then again, I ride at a much faster speed than the cyclist that was to the right in the video as well.

But calling someone a 'curb-hugging knucklehead' because they don't ride like you is just exactly the type of idiocy I've come to expect from the hardcore VCdiots out there.

You can get away with riding in the lanes for years and thousands of miles without incident, but that doesn't mean you won't eventually get killed. Would you like me to dig up a copy of the vehicular accident statistics to prove it????

I'd be willing to bet that in more than 75% of all multi-vehicle accidents, at least one of the vehicles involved was following all the rules and laws.

As far as it being 'months' before those cyclists ever ran into an agressive driver, I call bull****.

I've been screamed at, honked at, and had cars try to push me out of their way while sitting in a lane AT A STOPLIGHT. Nobody can go anywhere. Nobody is slowing anybody down. STILL some asshat in a car feels the need to let me know what they think of me being 'in their way'.

Unfortunately I do. Except it is not "probably" but more like "may" get "whacked" anyway.

I have already been "whacked" while following vehicular rules of the road, by others that didn't follow those same rules. No matter how vehicular you are, if everyone is not following the rules in similar manner, your "rule following" can be pretty useless.

Now, I never have been hit by an overtaking vehicle... which is perhaps the only thing that could occur due to riding leftish or taking a lane. However, your statement was so broad, that really it meant nothing. And according to the statistics, rear end collisions by motor vehicles are the leading kind... which means that someone out there is "not following rules" at least some of the time.

Very often we "get away with that without incident for years and thousands of miles..... yet it's only a matter of time before someone who does that will probably get whacked." That statement probably applies to most of the stuff we do anytime.

Look, the easiest example is this. You ride cautiously, you trust but verify, you are riding down the road and just past a stoplight, you feel you have the attention of the motorist you are passing right in front of... and for some reason, just as you are right in front of their bumper, they push the gas pedal. They violated the vehicular rules of the road. You did not. They hit you in spite of all your checks. (sure, this is not likely to happen... but it can) What then was your "defense?" You did everything right... yet...

The problem is your "trust and verify" can only go so far... (which you have yet failed to really acknowledge). You look for signs, for nods, for visual clues that you appear to be recognized... yet any of those "signs" can be given mechanically by someone deep in distracting thought... and you have no way of telling the difference.

So to answer your slightly modified question... do I feel that it is true that if you ride according to the vehicular rules of the road that it is only a matter of time before you may get whacked?

Yes.

You can only reduce the probabilities so much by your complete attention. There are still variables you cannot control. (and I am not talking meteors out of the sky either). Stuff happens. Hey, the flip side is, it probably won't. I'll give you a "probably" there. Keep it positive.
So we agree?

The alert cyclist who obeys the rules of the road may still get whacked, but he probably won't.
The curb-hugging knucklehead who goes straight from right hook zones is probably going to get whacked.

The cyclist didn't do anything inherently dangerous. AND he was riding at a speed that he COULD have stopped if the car hadn't. AND there was more than enough space between the cars and the curb.

The ONLY part of the video that I might have a problem with is the curb on the other side of the intersection. It looks like the lane is much narrower at that one point than anywhere else. If that's the case, I'd probably take the lane.... then again, I ride at a much faster speed than the cyclist that was to the right in the video as well.

But calling someone a 'curb-hugging knucklehead' because they don't ride like you is just exactly the type of idiocy I've come to expect from the hardcore VCdiots out there.

You can get away with riding in the lanes for years and thousands of miles without incident, but that doesn't mean you won't eventually get killed. Would you like me to dig up a copy of the vehicular accident statistics to prove it????

I'd be willing to bet that in more than 75% of all multi-vehicle accidents, at least one of the vehicles involved was following all the rules and laws.

As far as it being 'months' before those cyclists ever ran into an agressive driver, I call bull****.

I've been screamed at, honked at, and had cars try to push me out of their way while sitting in a lane AT A STOPLIGHT. Nobody can go anywhere. Nobody is slowing anybody down. STILL some asshat in a car feels the need to let me know what they think of me being 'in their way'.
Call bull**** all you want, but I, for one, go for months without encountering aggressive drivers. I suspect Dan and Brian do as well.

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

Thank you for contacting the owner of the site and getting those documents reposted for me.

For those looking for an update, you'll have one on Wednesday.

Call bull**** all you want, but I, for one, go for months without encountering aggressive drivers.

As do I.

Then I get several in one day.

Or in the case of last Monday, two in four minutes (both white contracting vans, again)

Call bull**** all you want, but I, for one, go for months without encountering aggressive drivers. I suspect Dan and Brian do as well.

Funny... now that you mention it, I *HAVE* gone months without running into an aggressive driver. Surprisingly, it coincides with my bike mileage going from 1000+ miles a month to about 200.

So we agree?

The alert cyclist who obeys the rules of the road may still get whacked, but he probably won't.
The curb-hugging knucklehead who goes straight from right hook zones is probably going to get whacked.

No, the curb hugger gets nearly the same probability and may also "get away with that without incident for years and thousands of miles... For that cyclist too it may only a matter of time before a cyclist who rides like that will get whacked..." Which is why most cyclists feel comfortable riding at the curb, or riding on sidewalks; they have been "getting away with it" for a long time. Now granted, they may not be zooming down the road at 20MPH either, but they are getting from one point to another successfully enough to continue doing what they are doing.

The problem with your probability curve is that when the cyclist moves away from the curb (or off the sidewalk) to increase their speed, they then fall into other areas of potential crashes. Now approaching intersections becomes a bit more stressful... you have to evaluate (trust and verify) in seconds, whereas before you were nothing more than a rolling ped and had time to use a walk signal. But now you have motor traffic behind you, and beside you as well as in front of you at intersections. You also are mixing it up directly with motor traffic, so you are subject to motorists wanting to use some of your space... and they may not see you. You are also more subject to door zone issues... unless you move even more left, in which case you may be subject to typical auto accident issues.

Certainly speed and moving left bring their own risks, different from the typical curb biased risks, but still none the less, there are risks. You move for instance out of the region of right hooks and into the region of rear end collisions. Your often quoted stats don't show this as few cyclists ride this way (as you yourself often point out).

The evaluation of said risks is part of the skill of handling a bike at speed. Perhaps the real question is: at what speed should one be where on the road.

The reason you can categorize "bike lane deaths" is because that is where the majority of cyclists that ride in the street ride... to the far right side, whether there is a BL there or not. And that is just based on where those cyclists ride; many tend to ride sidewalks or parks.

There are many different forms of cycling and as yet, no study has really compared the "where" with the potential for "what."

I will agree that an alert cyclist has the lowest probability for collision.

For those looking for an update, you'll have one on Wednesday.
Good Luck!:)

It sounds to me from reading, or skimming, the later pages of this topic, that the center-laners simply need a course on how to properly use bike lanes. If they knew how to use them properly, they'd enjoy the same amount of safe and successful cycling that the rest of us enjoy, without the additional aggravation to angry and clueless motorists, and without getting tickets.

Thank you for contacting the owner of the site and getting those documents reposted for me.

For those looking for an update, you'll have one on Wednesday.

Excellent. Good luck Joe.

-G

No, the curb hugger gets nearly the same probability and may also "get away with that without incident for years and thousands of miles... For that cyclist too it may only a matter of time before a cyclist who rides like that will get whacked..." Which is why most cyclists feel comfortable riding at the curb, or riding on sidewalks; they have been "getting away with it" for a long time. Now granted, they may not be zooming down the road at 20MPH either, but they are getting from one point to another successfully enough to continue doing what they are doing.

The problem with your probability curve is that when the cyclist moves away from the curb (or off the sidewalk) to increase their speed, they then fall into other areas of potential crashes. Now approaching intersections becomes a bit more stressful... you have to evaluate (trust and verify) in seconds, whereas before you were nothing more than a rolling ped and had time to use a walk signal. But now you have motor traffic behind you, and beside you as well as in front of you at intersections. You also are mixing it up directly with motor traffic, so you are subject to motorists wanting to use some of your space... and they may not see you. You are also more subject to door zone issues... unless you move even more left, in which case you may be subject to typical auto accident issues.

Certainly speed and moving left bring their own risks, different from the typical curb biased risks, but still none the less, there are risks. You move for instance out of the region of right hooks and into the region of rear end collisions. Your often quoted stats don't show this as few cyclists ride this way (as you yourself often point out).

The evaluation of said risks is part of the skill of handling a bike at speed. Perhaps the real question is: at what speed should one be where on the road.

The reason you can categorize "bike lane deaths" is because that is where the majority of cyclists that ride in the street ride... to the far right side, whether there is a BL there or not. And that is just based on where those cyclists ride; many tend to ride sidewalks or parks.

There are many different forms of cycling and as yet, no study has really compared the "where" with the potential for "what."

I will agree that an alert cyclist has the lowest probability for collision.

You make a lot of odd assumptions here, many of which I cannot accept.

"when the cyclist moves away from the curb (or off the sidewalk) to increase their speed, they then fall into other areas of potential crashes." - Your guess about the tradeoff for potential crashes seems to be that it's about even. My guess is that the cyclist integrated with traffic trades for a fraction of the potential - the difference probably being at least an order of magnitude. This is supported (not proven) by facts like half of all cyclist deaths involve children, despite children accounting for only a tiny fraction of all bicycling miles, and the child being the quintessential sidewalk and curb hugging type.

"Now approaching intersections becomes a bit more stressful... you have to evaluate (trust and verify) in seconds, whereas before you were nothing more than a rolling ped and had time to use a walk signal." - Speak for yourself. I note no difference in stress when approaching an intersection as a driver vs. as a ped. If anything, the concentration energy required is higher as a ped (such as those nerve-wrecking crosswalk crossings along the 56 path).

"But now you have motor traffic behind you, and beside you as well as in front of you at intersections. " - all of which are more likely to be aware of you and working with you, the most critical of which is trivial to verify. You act like this is a big deal. It's not.

"You also are mixing it up directly with motor traffic, so you are subject to motorists wanting to use some of your space... and they may not see you. " - again, you're making this sound like a big deal. It's not.

"You are also more subject to door zone issues... unless you move even more left, in which case you may be subject to typical auto accident issues. " Only curb/door huggers have to worry about door zones, by definition. Again, you seem to assume that moving left is an even tradeoff in probability of crash when it's probably at least an order of magnitude in difference.

"You move for instance out of the region of right hooks and into the region of rear end collisions. Your often quoted stats don't show this as few cyclists ride this way (as you yourself often point out)." Almost all rear-enders occur in stop-n-go traffic, and at traffic lights. The alert cyclist can eliminate his exposure to such crashes almost entirely. Besides, if you have any experience taking the lane in slow/stopped traffic, you know how much more attention and space you are generally given than are cars - thus making you that much more unlikely to be rear-ended than is a car.

It sounds to me from reading, or skimming, the later pages of this topic, that the center-laners simply need a course on how to properly use bike lanes. If they knew how to use them properly, they'd enjoy the same amount of safe and successful cycling that the rest of us enjoy, without the additional aggravation to angry and clueless motorists, and without getting tickets.

Sounds like to me your reading comprehension and understanding of the situation goes down when you just skim and skip posts. Thats true for me too.

If you hadn't skimmed and instead read the original post you would know that there is no bike lane where JJ got the ticket and the thru lane he was riding centerish in was 11' wide, an unsharable lane width.

Al

You make a lot of odd assumptions here, many of which I cannot accept.

Of course you can't accept my opinion... it differs from yours. ;)



"when the cyclist moves away from the curb (or off the sidewalk) to increase their speed, they then fall into other areas of potential crashes." - Your guess about the tradeoff for potential crashes seems to be that it's about even. My guess is that the cyclist integrated with traffic trades for a fraction of the potential - the difference probably being at least an order of magnitude. This is supported (not proven) by facts like half of all cyclist deaths involve children, despite children accounting for only a tiny fraction of all bicycling miles, and the child being the quintessential sidewalk and curb hugging type.

See to begin with, you're comparing the judgment of children to that of adults to make your point.



"Now approaching intersections becomes a bit more stressful... you have to evaluate (trust and verify) in seconds, whereas before you were nothing more than a rolling ped and had time to use a walk signal." - Speak for yourself. I note no difference in stress when approaching an intersection as a driver vs. as a ped. If anything, the concentration energy required is higher as a ped (such as those nerve-wrecking crosswalk crossings along the 56 path).

The concentration required is no higher as a ped, but you have loads of time to make the decisions... that is what you are discounting. And here you are using lousy intersections as your bad example... again misleading.


"But now you have motor traffic behind you, and beside you as well as in front of you at intersections. " - all of which are more likely to be aware of you and working with you, the most critical of which is trivial to verify. You act like this is a big deal. It's not.

To you and I perhaps it is "not a big deal," but the concept of keeping your head on a swivel is not for everyone... your dentist for instance thought you were crazy.



"You also are mixing it up directly with motor traffic, so you are subject to motorists wanting to use some of your space... and they may not see you. " - again, you're making this sound like a big deal. It's not.

"You are also more subject to door zone issues... unless you move even more left, in which case you may be subject to typical auto accident issues. " Only curb/door huggers have to worry about door zones, by definition. Again, you seem to assume that moving left is an even tradeoff in probability of crash when it's probably at least an order of magnitude in difference.

"You move for instance out of the region of right hooks and into the region of rear end collisions. Your often quoted stats don't show this as few cyclists ride this way (as you yourself often point out)." Almost all rear-enders occur in stop-n-go traffic, and at traffic lights. The alert cyclist can eliminate his exposure to such crashes almost entirely. Besides, if you have any experience taking the lane in slow/stopped traffic, you know how much more attention and space you are generally given than are cars - thus making you that much more unlikely to be rear-ended than is a car.

Really... I notice in my commutes that I get tailgated on occasion, by impatient motorists... they are not granting me any more space. As far as stop and go traffic... pretty much defines rush hour commutes... my saving grace in those situations are Bike Lanes, which in fact keep me out of the stop and go traffic.

No false assumptions... just reporting what I see. I fully agree that when I am moving at 20MPH, I should be well away from the curb, but not every one has a need to move that fast (or be that left) to be just as successful in their cycling.

Speed has nothing to do with it, Gene. I use the same techniques when hauling my daughter on the trailercycle when going fast is not an option except on downhills.

Speed has nothing to do with it, Gene. I use the same techniques when hauling my daughter on the trailercycle when going fast is not an option except on downhills.

Speed has everything to do with it... otherwise all streets would have speed limits of 25MPH or less.

Speed dictates whether it is safe to ride on a sidewalk or on an MUP. Speed dictates whether you have time to make judgments about other traffic. At 2MPH I can walk past each parked car and tell if there is someone inside, there is no way to do that at 20MPH. Being hit at 2MPH is a lot different from being hit at 10MPH

Speed matters... which is why Forester uses it to defend the vehicular method: "Under most circumstances, the ability to travel as fast as one desires is a large element in the enjoyment. Being forced to ride slowly, or with many delays, destroys the enjoyment." -- from http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

Speed doesn't matter (supposedly) regarding your right to use the road, but that is only where it doesn't matter.

Speed matters.

the end of three gives you a case, but it will come down to the judge. 11 feet sounds like it's not quite substandard, but i still think you don't deserve a ticket.

This is the nub of it.

Largest SUVs average only 78 inches wide -- that's 6.5 feet. You will need to confirm that the lane is only 11 feet wide, and then be very explicit on why 4.5 feet is not enough for you.


I, of course, agree with you that 4.5 feet is not enough given that the vehicle will most likely have 1 -2 feet between itself and the center lane, and 2.5 feet is not enough space for a bike.

Largest SUVs average only 78 inches wide -- that's 6.5 feet.

Does this include mirrors?

Al

Does this include mirrors?

Al
No.

The Ford Expedition is 92 inches wide, including mirrors. That's 7.7'.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/expedition/features/specs/

The Ford Superduty truck is 100 inches wide, including standard mirrors (presumably wider with trailer mirrors). That's 8' 4".

http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/superduty/features/specs/

This is the nub of it.

Largest SUVs average only 78 inches wide -- that's 6.5 feet. You will need to confirm that the lane is only 11 feet wide, and then be very explicit on why 4.5 feet is not enough for you.


I, of course, agree with you that 4.5 feet is not enough given that the vehicle will most likely have 1 -2 feet between itself and the center lane, and 2.5 feet is not enough space for a bike.i would also include the legal maximum width which is 102". (link (http://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga142/chp133.shtml))...and that exludes mirrors (12 additional inches or 6" on each side).

Good Luck.

Speed has everything to do with it... otherwise all streets would have speed limits of 25MPH or less.

Speed dictates whether it is safe to ride on a sidewalk or on an MUP. Speed dictates whether you have time to make judgments about other traffic. At 2MPH I can walk past each parked car and tell if there is someone inside, there is no way to do that at 20MPH. Being hit at 2MPH is a lot different from being hit at 10MPH

Speed matters... which is why Forester uses it to defend the vehicular method: "Under most circumstances, the ability to travel as fast as one desires is a large element in the enjoyment. Being forced to ride slowly, or with many delays, destroys the enjoyment." -- from http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

Speed doesn't matter (supposedly) regarding your right to use the road, but that is only where it doesn't matter.

Speed matters.

I didn't say that speed doesn't matter. I said speed doesn't matter with respect to whether the VC techniques are safe and effective.

JoeJack, we want to see you win. Can you let us know what backup material you're bringing? Printouts of the Ford website specs on Expedition and Super Duty widths might be helpful, eh?

I didn't say that speed doesn't matter. I said speed doesn't matter with respect to whether the VC techniques are safe and effective.

"Speed doesn't matter" with regard to the VC techniques, simply because no one has proven that the VC techniques matter.

For those looking for an update, you'll have one on Wednesday.
It's Thursday. Where's the update?

"Speed doesn't matter" with regard to the VC techniques, simply because no one has proven that the VC techniques matter.
Well, if someone still needs to prove to you, of all people, that "cyclists fare best when the act and are treated as drivers of vehicles", you'll never get it.

It's Thursday. Where's the update?

Well, I wish I had more of an update but all that happened yesterday was that I got to plead "not guilty" (again) and then have my "real" court date assigned. Basically, we all get to wait another month :mad:

The funny thing that did happen yesterday (aside from the super-jerk I encountered riding down Naaman's Road on the way to the courthouse) was that when I sat in front of the judge to tell him how I wanted to plead there was another woman in the room who was with her husband also pleading not guilty for a ticket. I was sitting next to them before we got called in and we sat down next to each other again when we got out while waiting to hear when our new court dates would be. The woman asked me (while laughing) what exactly I got pulled over for. When I told her, her husband immediately piped in and said "That's not illegal. A bike's a vehicle." Turns out he was a former California police officer. His opinion of Delaware police was just ratcheted one more step down (his wife was ticketed for something ridiculous as well).

Tell us about the super-jerk!

Well, I wish I had more of an update but all that happened yesterday was that I got to plead "not guilty" (again) and then have my "real" court date assigned. Basically, we all get to wait another month :mad:

Surely in your legal preparations, you learned, before you showed up, that this was standard traffic court procedure?

Surely in your legal preparations, you learned, before you showed up, that this was standard traffic court procedure?

Heh, I learned that watchin' TV. I also learned you may be better off if you screw the judge and/or prosecutor as well.

Al

Heh, I learned that watchin' TV. I also learned you may be better off if you screw the judge and/or prosecutor as well.


Preferably, literally in the vulgar sense, and figuratively.:)

Surely in your legal preparations, you learned, before you showed up, that this was standard traffic court procedure?

Having been to traffic court before and not having had to go through this procedure, I ASSumed it would be the same. Then again, that was PA and this was DE. Now I know :o (and so does the couple from CA who had no idea that there would be no trial that day)

Tell us about the super-jerk!

Let's just say he was in a big hurry until he saw a cyclist on the road. Then he had all sorts of time, so much time that he actually stopped in the right lane and blocked traffic for about a minute. FWIW, this all occurred during the half mile or so stretch of Naamans where there is no shoulder. This was the first time I had ever considered calling the cops on someone. For the sake of not being late to court and possibly having yet another bad encounter, I just waited until he stopped whining then rode on.

Surely in your legal preparations, you learned, before you showed up, that this was standard traffic court procedure?
There you go being a jerk again. There are several courts that do not use arraignment proceedings for minor traffic tickets.

The one ticket I got did not have an arraignment, just the trial. My ticket was dismissed (riding a motorcycle in the car pool lane was not illegal - you would think a motorcycle cop would know that).

There you go being a jerk again. There are several courts that do not use arraignment proceedings for minor traffic tickets.
The same to you my Donkey pal. Someone who wants to just fight a traffic ticket might just go to court and find out what happens as it happens. Someone who wants to make like Clarence Darrow/Perry Mason and/or strike a blow for "legal precedence" would make the sensible inquiries as to the actual "standard" procedures followed in the applicable court.

The same to you my Donkey pal. Someone who wants to just fight a traffic ticket might just go to court and find out what happens as it happens. Someone who wants to make like Clarence Darrow/Perry Mason and/or strike a blow for "legal precedence" would make the sensible inquiries as to the actual "standard" procedures followed in the applicable court.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll be perfect one of these days :)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll be perfect one of these days :)

First step in your future preparation is to ignore the advice of BF Brand self proclaimed legal experts/firebrands spouting off irrelevant legal jargon and paragraphs of non-applicable references and third hand experiences from other states.

First step in your future preparation is to ignore the advice of BF Brand self proclaimed legal experts/firebrands spouting off irrelevant legal jargon and paragraphs of non-applicable references and third hand experiences from other states.

Honestly, I was not nearly as prepared as I would have liked to have been for Wednesday so I guess it's a good thing the trial didn't actually happen. I was only home for 3 days prior to my court date after having been on a business trip for 3 weeks. I didn't even get out to measure the actual lane width until that morning. Of course, my new date is 4 days before my wedding :rolleyes:

Honestly, I was not nearly as prepared as I would have liked to have been for Wednesday so I guess it's a good thing the trial didn't actually happen. I was only home for 3 days prior to my court date after having been on a business trip for 3 weeks. I didn't even get out to measure the actual lane width until that morning. Of course, my new date is 4 days before my wedding :rolleyes:

Congratulations, in advance. Whatever you do settle this ticket, one way or the other before the big date. You will have more important business afterwards to occupy your time.

Well, sorry to keep you all hanging for so long but I finally have an update and it's not the one I had hoped to give. The judges's conclusion after the trial was that [paraphrasing] it is an "utter folly" to believe that a law that states that cyclists should ride as far right as practicable allows me to ride in the center of the travel lane. If my interpretation were correct, we'd have cyclists all over the place taking up a full lane on the roadway because 99.9% of lanes in Delaware are not wide enough to share. I am not only hazardous to myself and others, I am "suicidal" and riding in the center of the lane is a "recipe for disaster".[end paraphrasing]

My one regret during the trial was that I did not attack the officer's opinion (and it is an opinion as nothing actually happened) that I was a "legitimate hazard" on the roadway. I solely spoke about the lane width being too narrow to share which is of course what I was actually cited for. Apparently, emotional response trumps logic at least in the lower Delaware courts. I will be appealing. Oh, and my fine was raised (by $80 and now totals $183 with court costs). Is that even allowed?

he judges's conclusion after the trial was that [paraphrasing] it is an "utter folly" to believe that a law that states that cyclists should ride as far right as practicable allows me to ride in the center of the travel lane.

It's utter folly that the Judge can't read/acknowledge beyond the first 41 words of so of a several hundred word law.

§ 4196. Position on roadway.

(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway except under any of the following circumstances:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge of roadway. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.


Al

Im sorry you lost and applaud your efforts JoeJack, but you cant say you werent warned.

I accept the apologies of those who in this forum and thru PM's
told me how much I didnt know and asked if I would stop posting to this forum in the manner
I had been on this subject.

Your biggest mistake was to trust an inherently corrupt legal system and
then let yourself be urged on by entities who have absolutely not one shred of
knowledge of NEPA/ DE District Justice antics.

Im sorry you lost and applaud your efforts JoeJack, but you cant say you werent warned.

I accept the apologies of those who in this forum and thru PM's
told me how much I didnt know and asked if I would stop posting to this forum in the manner
I had been on this subject.

Your biggest mistake was to trust an inherently corrupt legal system and
then let yourself be urged on by entities who have absolutely not one shred of
knowledge of NEPA/ DE District Justice antics.

My decision to fight the ticket was made long before I posted about it on Bikeforums. I made the decision immediately after receiving the ticket. I hope no one feels they are to blame for me losing this case (aside from myself of course).

The biggest thing that I have learned is that emotion (at least in regards to cyclists on the roadway) plays more of a role in a trial than I assumed it would. I will be sure to address this during the appeal.

The judge's conclusion after the trial was that [paraphrasing] it is an "utter folly" to believe that a law that states that cyclists should ride as far right as practicable allows me to ride in the center of the travel lane. If my interpretation were correct, we'd have cyclists all over the place taking up a full lane on the roadway because 99.9% of lanes in Delaware are not wide enough to share.

Not surprised by the outcome, but I am kind of surprised by the judge's take on things. Firstly, I seriously doubt that the percentage of roads in Delaware that are unshareable is that high. Secondly, if a lane is too narrow to share, it's too narrow to share whatever position the cyclist takes, and riding at or near the centre prevents most close passes. What alternative did he propose?

But that's kind of moot anyway. I thought the issue was not where to ride in a narrow lane, but whether or not the road was wide enough to ride in a sharing position in the first place.

The biggest thing that I have learned is that emotion (at least in regards to cyclists on the roadway) plays more of a role in a trial than I assumed it would. I will be sure to address this during the appeal.

If you choose to persist with this, I strongly suggest you take on a lawyer, at the very least to get advice on how best to handle the appeal if not to actually represent you in court.

Personally, I'd like to see you beat this one, if only to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, even if I don't necessarily think taking the lane was absolutely necessary in that instance. Whether it was necessary or not is kind of irrelevant, there was nothing actually illegal about what you were doing.

Not surprised by the outcome, but I am kind of surprised by the judge's take on things. Firstly, I seriously doubt that the percentage of roads in Delaware that are unshareable is that high. Secondly, if a lane is too narrow to share, it's too narrow to share whatever position the cyclist takes, and riding at or near the centre prevents most close passes. What alternative did he propose?

But that's kind of moot anyway. I thought the issue was not where to ride in a narrow lane, but whether or not the road was wide enough to ride in a sharing position in the first place.

The only attempt the judge made at addressing my comments about the lane being too narrow to share were that if I was getting passed too closely I should ride further right.