Advocacy & Safety - Bicycle Police are useless!

Short Version:
So this morning on my commute I was nearly side swiped by a car, which there were a lot of witnesses including a bicycle police. I obviously sped up to catch this fellow because it seriously freaked me out and gave her a few choice words of my opinion, bicycle police catches up but just brushes it off like nothing. Says "use the bicycle lane", WTF! I'm apparently only allowed to use the bicycle lane, no matter what obstacle I encounter in it.

Long Version:
This place has bicycle lanes on both sides of the road. I was overtaking a few other cyclists who were using that lane. I was pretty much dead center in the right lane because I didn't want to freak out other cyclists as I was passing. At this point I was already ahead of the biker police. Now all of a sudden this car comes within inches of hitting me on her overtake.

Now before getting up to this point, let me illustrate how useless this so called 'police' is. He's stopped at a red, about 8 other folks on bikes run the red, what does he do? nothing, not even a "Stop! don't run that red."

I sprint up to catch her, she's stuck at the red. It's easy to catch people on this road with a bike because it's not well designed for traffic flow. I stop in front of her and start yelling at her that she nearly killed me. I tell her she came within inches (hand gesture for inches) of hitting me. Now I'm not any specialist in traffic laws, but aren't we supposed to pass within a safe margin, like 3 feet or 1 meter? She says "Get in the bicycle lane". This comment infuriated me so much that I kicked her bumper. (Don't really regret doing it either, no dent or even a scratch) If she was paying attention, she would have noticed that I was overtaking a few other people and that there was no room in the bicycle lane.
I'm basically stalling for time to have the bike cop catch up so he can deal with her.
So he notices the commotion, and catches up, pulls up along her driver side. I tell him she nearly killed me and asked if he witnessed it. He says "yeah, I saw it, you should have been in the bicycle lane". Now this comment REALLY irked me. I told him that as a cyclist I am allowed to use the vehicle lane if there are obstacles in my path that would make it unsafe to be in the bicycle lane, and that she's not supposed to pass that close. His retort? "Move along". Jaw dropping unbelievable. I've never been so appalled at the police. Police never even gave her a word of warning.
The part that really annoyed me was that Law enforcement, who is supposed to uphold the law, and you know, generally caution people about reckless behavior, did jack squat. A few buzzings I can deal with, Police not doing their job, what the heck am I paying taxes for?

Now obviously me yelling through out this whole ordeal didn't help the situation, but I was pretty annoyed for the entire week about people buzzing me and tail gating me that I exploded.
Ok, that's the end of my rant.
The only thing I regret not doing? Making a huge scene out of this. Getting the driver's license plate and officer's badge number. It was morning, I'm not a very morning person.

* I retract my statement that police in TO are any good, they suck, useless, utterly useless.
** I now understand the whole idea of "out with bicycle dedicated lanes".


Here is where it happend. These are not from today, I took these a while ago.

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa131/AEObikes/commuting/morning040.jpg
Driver overtakes me here...

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa131/AEObikes/commuting/morning044.jpg
And I catch up to her here.

Seriously man eff the lanes!!!

In any encounter such as this, you should politely ask for the officer's name and badge number. Armed with these, you can then report their butt to their superiors. Depending on the department, they'll either blow you off, or the officer will have their attitude adjusted.

This comment infuriated me so much that I kicked her bumper. [snip]
The part that really annoyed me was that Law enforcement, who is supposed to uphold the law, and you know, generally caution people about reckless behavior, did jack squat.

So are you saying he should have issued you a ticket?


A few buzzings I can deal with

If you're going to ride, expect that.


In any encounter such as this, you should politely ask for the officer's name and badge number. Armed with these, you can then report their butt to their superiors. Depending on the department, they'll either blow you off, or the officer will have their attitude adjusted.

You've never actually done that, have you? In my own personal experience, the cop will write you a ticket for the previously unacknowledged infraction. Miss Motorist may or may not have copped a ticket for her actions, but it's highly likely that Mr. Hothead would have as well.

Expect motorists to disrespect your rights, out of ignorance. It's not going to change any time soon. If I kicked every car that cut me off on my motorcycle, I'd need a new pair of boots every month.

^ & there it is, the vox of reason.

You've never actually done that, have you?.
Yes, I have. However, I don't go around kicking other people's bumpers when they were wrong.

Well no matter what you do, you're not likely to get anywhere or get much sympathy from any police if you take off like a madman in road rage to catch up with the driver who made the mistake.

So are you saying he should have issued you a ticket?

Expect motorists to disrespect your rights, out of ignorance. It's not going to change any time soon. If I kicked every car that cut me off on my motorcycle, I'd need a new pair of boots every month.


Well, ticket or not, I honestly wouldn't have minded her and I getting a ticket, as long as it shows that you can't drive like an ass and expect to get away with it all the time. Filing a complaint with police doesn't seem to work here, you have to get media involved, shame really.
Thanks for you input, I feel a lot better now. It's really the first time I've ever confronted a motorist with some violence, usually I just yell at them for being a ******. But this one I was expecting the police to do something about it, because he clearly saw it happen. Obviously I was wrong to think that.
Well, there's always next time. I'll be sure to pocket my notepad and pen. Usually I do, but I forgot it today.

I'm not saying that you're not right to be angry. But that cop probably pulls at least a 4 hour shift on his bike, and has seen it enough (probably experienced it as well) that he can't even be bothered.

I hate to say it, but if you're in and out of the bike lane, you may be making a hazard of yourself. Having the right of way means very little when you get hit. Exercise your right to the road, but temper it with caution.

One question - did you check behind that no cars were approaching before you swung out of the bike lane? Clearly the driver didn't follow the 'no overtaking unless it's safe to do so' rule, but did you?

You made a pass outside of a bike lane and were nearly hit by a car. If you had known how far the car was behind, that pass would not have been made. However, you did not know how far the car was behind and made the pass even though it was risky.

Here's what to do next time.

Buy a Take A Look mirror and attach it to your glasses. Lean to use it and whenever you intend to make a pass on the outside of a bike lane, (placing you in the traffic lane) look in the mirror and see if there is traffic close behind. Don't make the assumption they will give you an inch so slow down, hold your position behind the slower cyclist. Once the traffic clears (determined by using the mirror) pass the cyclist by riding in the traffic lane.

All of this could have been avoided if you used a Take A Look Mirror. Now that you know where you stand with the law, don't become a statistic.

Regards.

use the bike lane. they are there for a reason. doesn't matter that you were slowed down and
wanted to leave the lane and pass other cyclists. you chose a bad time to do so.

your fault.

you are lucky to have bike lanes 99% of us don't have that luxury.

fail

In short...."technically, everyone is right". It's easy to make someone else wrong, it's easy to brand an entire group of people as "useless" because one person had one bad experience. It's easy to rant and gain other's empathy. It's hard to just say to yourself "well that person was a jerk!" and get on with what is really important, like your own life, family, friends and your ride. It's over, done, kaput. Stop driving with your rear-view mirror and get on with it.

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa131/AEObikes/commuting/morning044.jpg
And I catch up to her here.

Is that the driver in the bike lane? :D That bike lane is useless when there are cars using them.

use the bike lane. they are there for a reason. doesn't matter that you were slowed down and
wanted to leave the lane and pass other cyclists. you chose a bad time to do so.

your fault.

you are lucky to have bike lanes 99% of us don't have that luxury.

fail

That particular bike lane is not a luxury. It's a death trap. It's in the door zone, a dangerous area for cyclists. It also appears to go to the right of a right turn lane, an even more dangerous area to be riding in.

That said, I agree that the OP probably made an illegal pass. The law requires the vehicle that's entering another lane to yield the right-of-way to other vehicles that are already in that lane. The burden of responsibility is always on the driver or cyclist who is changing lanes. I think the OP could have been ticketed for failure to yield, and the motorist probably did a good job of driving to avoid hitting him.

That said, I agree that the OP probably made an illegal pass. The law requires the vehicle that's entering another lane to yield the right-of-way to other vehicles that are already in that lane. The burden of responsibility is always on the driver or cyclist who is changing lanes. I think the OP could have been ticketed for failure to yield, and the motorist probably did a good job of driving to avoid hitting him.

I don't see anything he wrote that implies that he violated the right of way of another driver when moving out of the bike lane. I can easily imagine myself taking the lane to pass some cyclists 10 or more seconds before overtaking traffic would arrive, but not clearing the cyclists before the overtaking driver caught up to me. In fact, this has happened a few times on my commutes.

Cyclists are allowed to overtake other cyclists. They are also allowed to travel slower than the prevailing speed in a leftward lane as long as they are passing drivers in the rightward lane.

That said, I think it's quite possible that the police officer didn't see enough of the incident to instantly and justifiably conclude that the car driver's actions warranted intervention. Maybe the cyclist cut it a little close, and so did the driver, and the officer decided no harm, no foul. But certainly the officer was incorrect to point out the bike lane as the only place where the cyclist must be; this is exactly the type of marginalization that bike lane striping/stenciling opponents are concerned about.

I don't think the officer told him to get into the bike lane.

I don't see anything he wrote that implies that he violated the right of way of another driver when moving out of the bike lane. I can easily imagine myself taking the lane to pass some cyclists 10 or more seconds before overtaking traffic would arrive, but not clearing the cyclists before the overtaking driver caught up to me. In fact, this has happened a few times on my commutes.

Cyclists are allowed to overtake other cyclists. They are also allowed to travel slower than the prevailing speed in a leftward lane as long as they are passing drivers in the rightward lane.

That said, I think it's quite possible that the police officer didn't see enough of the incident to instantly and justifiably conclude that the car driver's actions warranted intervention. Maybe the cyclist cut it a little close, and so did the driver, and the officer decided no harm, no foul. But certainly the officer was incorrect to point out the bike lane as the only place where the cyclist must be; this is exactly the type of marginalization that bike lane striping/stenciling opponents are concerned about.

I was thinking the same thing. It's very possible there was plenty of clearance when the cyclist took the lane to pass the slower bikes. Then the impatient motorist came upon the cyclist and decided to pass, leaving insufficient clearance. Whether they intentionally went too close (to teach the cyclist a lesson) or were just sloppy, will never be known. Either way, since the the officer saw the pass they should have at least talked to the driver about it. And, if there are laws requiring a minimum passing clearance, as there are in NC, should have ticketed to reinforce the concept of safe driving.

.... I told him that as a cyclist I am allowed to use the vehicle lane if there are obstacles in my path that would make it unsafe to be in the bicycle lane, and that she's not supposed to pass that close. His retort? "Move along". ....

I think this is the mistake you are making. If there is an 'obstacle' in your way (other cyclists in this case, from the sounds of it...) you have no right to just swerve into the other lane of traffic to get around it; you must wait until it is safe to do so. When driving a motor vehicle, I can't just jump into the passing lane on an interstate for example, simply because someone in front slows down. I might add that at no point do you suggest that you SIGNALED your turn into the vehicle lane. My suspicion is you just dashed your butt into the lane of traffic. My sympathy for you is quite limited, and if you had been bumped, the cop would have given ya a good lesson in getting what you deserved.


People don't take lane changes seriously enough.

roughstuff

I don't think the officer told him to get into the bike lane.

The OP wrote:
He says "yeah, I saw it, you should have been in the bicycle lane".

He didn't tell him to get into the bike lane. He told him that he should have been in the bike lane. There's a difference. Seems to me that the officer is pointing out that had he been in the bike lane, he would not have been buzzed by the motorist.

Soooo many of Toronto's BLs are in the doorzone, hateful things.

He didn't tell him to get into the bike lane. He told him that he should have been in the bike lane. There's a difference. Seems to me that the officer is pointing out that had he been in the bike lane, he would not have been buzzed by the motorist.

Seems to me that if the police enforced safe passing laws and educated the public about cyclists' road rights, rather than blaming the victims, the OP would not as likely have been buzzed by the motorist.

This of course assumes that the cyclist made a safe movement into the travel lane in the first place. But I'm willing to give the OP the benefit of the doubt for the sake of the discussion. If the police officer was unsure who was at fault, he should not have said anything.

This all goes back to the taboo about cyclists causing motorists to slow down. As long as violation of this taboo is seen as justification for the unlawful endangerment of cyclists, rather than addressing the unlawful endangerment, cyclists will remain marginalized, second class road users.

This of course assumes that the cyclist made a safe movement into the travel lane in the first place. But I'm willing to give the OP the benefit of the doubt for the sake of the discussion. If the police officer was unsure who was at fault, he should not have said anything.




And I am not. Before switching lanes one should (1) make sure that no other vehicles are rapidly approaching in that lane. (2) Signal to indicate that a lane change is imminent. I don't see any reference to this in the discussion. Why? because it didn't happen. (95% sure). My suspicion (and it is only that, but I am perfectly at liberty to make inferences based upon limited data, as the cop is also), is that the cyclist yahoo-ed his way into the left lane and got brushed back by someone who had the right of way.

roughstuff

And I am not. Before switching lanes one should (1) make sure that no other vehicles are rapidly approaching in that lane. (2) Signal to indicate that a lane change is imminent. I don't see any reference to this in the discussion. Why? because it didn't happen. (95% sure). My suspicion (and it is only that, but I am perfectly at liberty to make inferences based upon limited data, as the cop is also), is that the cyclist yahoo-ed his way into the left lane and got brushed back by someone who had the right of way.



It's good that we've cleared up our different assumptions.

I agree that a lateral movement should not be made when a driver is approaching too close to be able to slow down safely and reliably.

What we don't know at this point is whether this was a case where a driver did not have adequate opportunity to slow, or had plenty of opportunity, but chose not to. Hopefully the OP can chime in to give us some more information.

When I went cycling with my 13yo niece this summer, I had to tell her to get back into a bike lane to allow drivers to pass. She had safely left the bike lane because of debris and because we had been descending a hill at near the speed limit. As we started to climb, we slowed down a lot, and the bike lane became a lot cleaner, but she did not move over, and a driver slowed to follow behind us. After she moved back into the bike lane I explained that staying outside the bike lane was not dangerous or illegal, but could be considered rude if there was no valid operational reason not to use it to make overtaking easier.

And I am not. Before switching lanes one should (1) make sure that no other vehicles are rapidly approaching in that lane. (2) Signal to indicate that a lane change is imminent. I don't see any reference to this in the discussion. Why? because it didn't happen. (95% sure). My suspicion (and it is only that, but I am perfectly at liberty to make inferences based upon limited data, as the cop is also), is that the cyclist yahoo-ed his way into the left lane and got brushed back by someone who had the right of way.


Everyone interprets descriptions and lack of information differently.

When I read:
"I was overtaking a few other cyclists who were using that lane. I was pretty much dead center in the right lane because I didn't want to freak out other cyclists as I was passing. At this point I was already ahead of the biker police. Now all of a sudden this car comes within inches of hitting me on her overtake."

I understood that the OP had safely (signal, check for fast approaching vehicles, negotiate if needed, etc.) merged into the lane, then later as they were passing multiple cyclists a faster vehicle approached and passed unsafely. I made this assumption based on them being in 'dead center of right lane' and passing 'other cyclists' - which I interpret as having been in the right lane for a 'non-sudden swerving' period of time.

Fortunately unlike many of the speculative threads here, the cyclist in this case can followup and clarify to us.

Al

[snip]I explained that staying outside the bike lane was not dangerous or illegal, but could be considered rude if there was no valid operational reason not to use it to make overtaking easier.

Shhh. Don't let Serge see this.

I'm really not sure why many of you have jumped to the conclusion that the OP jumped out into the lane with flagrant disregard to his own safety or consideration of others on the road. Changing lanes without doing a shoulder check is plain stupid no matter how you look at it, and I reasonably assume the OP knows this. It is *very* easy to imagine a scenario where a cyclist enters the lane with motor traffic well behind him but, instead of slowing or passing safely once they catch up, said motor traffic executes an unsafe pass out of general surliness or whatever. Whether the OP signalled or not does not matter for this discussion if we assume that he was well ahead of any approaching motorists, which I am inclined to do since absolutely none of us has any reason to believe otherwise.

Shhh. Don't let Serge see this.

I think Serge would fully agree with what sggoodri wrote.

There are many valid reasons to stay out of the bike lane, but if none of those are present and if there is faster same direction traffic/driver that has reacted, even subtlety, to his presence, then I am pretty sure he'd move into the BL as well.

Al

I canceled a trip to Toronto this year because of all that I read about the Toronto police's contempt for cyclists.

But I have to disagree with the OP's all encompassing conclusion. Last week I saw a bike cop here in Pittsburgh, pull over a SUV that had no plate! I'd seen this particular police woman before and she gave a friendly hello. To be fair, I have seen other bike cops during CM here in the 'burgh who appeared to be roid-raging at some young heroes because he wanted to cork, not them.

Why don’t they realize that they are role models and can improve the civility of the population? In the Toronto case, there is a blatant lack of knowledge of the rules of the road and dereliction of duties, since he made no attempt to stop the red-light runners.

Shhh. Don't let (so and so) see this.

To be clear, I asked my niece to move into the bike lane only after a driver came up behind us and slowed to our speed. If I understand so and so correctly, he will move into a clean, safe bike lane after a driver arrives behind him wishing to overtake.

Sometimes I ride in a bike lane when no traffic is coming (if this suits me), othertimes I use the travel lane. I don't care which choice other people make. I only consider it discourteous to use the travel lane when I know the bike lane is perfectly good for one's purposes and a driver is waiting to overtake. Riding my own bike behind my niece on that particular road was one of those few cases where I could really know that the bike lane was a more appropriate place for her to be, enough so to ask her to move over.

Back to the OP topic, I think overtaking other cyclists is a perfectly good reason to move out of the bike lane, although as a courtesy I prefer to time this to limit the amount of delay to other drivers. I've received horn honks from motorists while passing cyclists on my own bike regardless, much as I've received aggressive tailgaitng from wanna-be-speeding motorists while passing slower traffic on freeways using my car.

cops don't give a crap about this type of situation - no citation, no ticket, no revenue, you get screwed and too bad so sad is the reality.

I think this is the mistake you are making. If there is an 'obstacle' in your way (other cyclists in this case, from the sounds of it...) you have no right to just swerve into the other lane of traffic to get around it; you must wait until it is safe to do so. When driving a motor vehicle, I can't just jump into the passing lane on an interstate for example, simply because someone in front slows down. I might add that at no point do you suggest that you SIGNALED your turn into the vehicle lane. My suspicion is you just dashed your butt into the lane of traffic. My sympathy for you is quite limited, and if you had been bumped, the cop would have given ya a good lesson in getting what you deserved.


One has to wonder why you ASSUME the OP just dashed their butt into the lane of traffic? Sounds like you've convicted based on limited knowledge.

I don't see anything he wrote that implies that he violated the right of way of another driver when moving out of the bike lane. I can easily imagine myself taking the lane to pass some cyclists 10 or more seconds before overtaking traffic would arrive, but not clearing the cyclists before the overtaking driver caught up to me. In fact, this has happened a few times on my commutes.

Cyclists are allowed to overtake other cyclists. They are also allowed to travel slower than the prevailing speed in a leftward lane as long as they are passing drivers in the rightward lane.

That said, I think it's quite possible that the police officer didn't see enough of the incident to instantly and justifiably conclude that the car driver's actions warranted intervention. Maybe the cyclist cut it a little close, and so did the driver, and the officer decided no harm, no foul. But certainly the officer was incorrect to point out the bike lane as the only place where the cyclist must be; this is exactly the type of marginalization that bike lane striping/stenciling opponents are concerned about.

I think the vehicle code is quite clear. The very fact that the car was in his space before he completed the pass is proof that the OP failed to yield right of way.

You are not supposed to overtake if there is traffic approaching in the other lane. Cyclists sure get angry when a car passes them, then squeezes them off because they have to get back into the lane to avoid oncoming traffic. We rightly expect them to slow down and drive behind us until it's safe to make the pass, so we should extend the same courtesy.

The OP should have slowed down (riding behind the slow cyclists) and waited until he had the time and space to make a safe pass. I'm not sure (and neither are you) what the officer meant when he said the rider should be in the BL. He may have meant that the cyclist should have stayed there until it was safe to enter the non-BL. I do agree that the no harm-no foul principle applied.

I think the vehicle code is quite clear. The very fact that the car was in his space before he completed the pass is proof that the OP failed to yield right of way.

You are not supposed to overtake if there is traffic approaching in the other lane.

Huh? Of course one can pass or change lanes if there is an approaching vehicle in the adjacent lane. If not it would be impossible in many localities to make left turns or avoid obsticals in the BL. You are making the assumption that the driver of the car was already 'in his space.' Not that he had approached the OP cyclist who was already in the lane.

What one can not do is unsafely merge into the adjacent lane. But if one signals and merges with ample room for the approaching vehicle to slow down, that is fine.

The law is often stated as such:
"A person shall drive a vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not move the vehicle from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety."

Al

I think the vehicle code is quite clear. The very fact that the car was in his space before he completed the pass is proof that the OP failed to yield right of way.

You are not supposed to overtake if there is traffic approaching in the other lane. Cyclists sure get angry when a car passes them, then squeezes them off because they have to get back into the lane to avoid oncoming traffic. We rightly expect them to slow down and drive behind us until it's safe to make the pass, so we should extend the same courtesy.




Thanks, this would have been my point to piper chuck's comment. Though, piper, I do often assume things and in the process make an ass out of Me and Me :)

roughstuff

I think the vehicle code is quite clear. The very fact that the car was in his space before he completed the pass is proof that the OP failed to yield right of way.

The fact that "the car was in his space before he completed the pass" only proves that "the car was in his space". It says nothing about what was happening at the time that the OP took the lane. You are assuming that the OP violated the right of way of the car driver, by taking the lane unsafely, when it's just as, or even more, likely that the OP took the lane when it was clear and the car came upon the bike well after it was already in the lane.

I think the vehicle code is quite clear. The very fact that the car was in his space before he completed the pass is proof that the OP failed to yield right of way.

You are not supposed to overtake if there is traffic approaching in the other lane. Cyclists sure get angry when a car passes them, then squeezes them off because they have to get back into the lane to avoid oncoming traffic. We rightly expect them to slow down and drive behind us until it's safe to make the pass, so we should extend the same courtesy.

The OP should have slowed down (riding behind the slow cyclists) and waited until he had the time and space to make a safe pass.

I disagree.

Failure to yield right of way when moving laterally means moving too closely in front of adjacent overtaking traffic for that driver to have adequate time to slow for you. It does not mean failure to prevent other drivers from slowing at all.

A driver of any vehicle traveling under the speed limit can use a leftward through lane to overtake a slower driver in the right lane. The only legal burden on the slow driver wishing to pass the even slower driver is that he not change lanes too closely and suddenly in front of another driver so as to create an immediate danger such as requiring emergency braking. Anybody driving at an appropriate speed for conditions will not require harsh braking, emergency or otherwise, to slow for slow vehicles that have merged properly into the lane a safe distance ahead.

I think it is valid to debate the courtesy of using a leftward lane to overtake if the inconvenience this creates for others significantly exceeds the convenience gained for oneself. However, that particular issue of courtesy is beyond what is covered by the vehicle code. A cyclist can legally pass to the left of a slower driver who is already passing to the left of an even slower vehicle. I don't encounter this situation often, but it does happen sometimes. Legal priority for overtaking does not go to the fastest vehicle on the road; it goes to the first driver to move safely into the section of roadway they intend to use for overtaking - first come, first served.

Using an oncoming traffic lane to pass when traffic is coming is dangerous and unlawful if one cannot leave the lane in time to yield to the oncoming traffic. Using a same-direction lane to pass is safe and lawful as long as other drivers already traveling in that lane at a lawful rate of speed behind you have adequate time to yield to you after you move into it.

The very fact that a car nearly hit him immediately after he swerved to overtake other traffic is clear evidence that he didn't check carefully enough before making his lane change. It seems clear that he didn't allow the driver safe space to slow down, or she would have slowed down rather than swerve into another lane to avoid him. The car did not come out of nowhere as the OP claimed. It came out of somewhere, even though he didn't see it. I'm 95 % confident that the reason he didn't see it is that he didn't look for it.

Every vehicle operator is responsible for the safeness of the situation whenever he/she deviates from a course. The only way the car operator in this case could be responsible is if she was speeding, or driving recklessly. Since the cop didn't cite her, this probably wasn't the case. I don't buy into the conspiracy theory that cops always favor car drivers over cyclists.

The very fact that a car nearly hit him immediately after he swerved to overtake other traffic is.

This has not been established as a 'fact'. He was already in center of lane and had been passing ' a few other' cyclists. 'Immediately after swerve' does not fit into this scenario as I imagine it.

Yes the driver 'suddenly' passed close, but how long had the OP cyclist already been in the center of lane before the sudden pass occured?

Where is the OP to clarify?

Al

Where is the OP to clarify?

Al

Probably out riding his bike in traffic! :eek:

Is it possible that the officer had a better point of view of what actually happened then both the motories and the bicycle?

It would have been nice for the police officer to maybe explain to the cyclist why he said move along.
This kind of thread, and listening to my wifes stories, has me thinking of definately not being a police officer. I am scheduled to go take the test but overwhelming it seems like a losing battle.

Not only are people unappreciative but I'm probably going to get beaten into me by my superiors not to hassle people when they break the law if it isn't dangerous or intentionally so. I could see that officer huffing it after those 8 people running that stop sign initially to put them in line but after the 100th one did it they gave up and after the 10,000 one did it or they don't even notice. Perhaps some vocal resident got harrassed and called up the cops to complain about being harrassed by an officer for riding in a bike lane. Those people seem to get their way regardless of whether they break the law or not as long as they aren't hurting anyone while doing it, unless it's a cyclists ;)

The very fact that a car nearly hit him immediately after he swerved to overtake other traffic ...

The OP's words do not indicate that he swerved to overtake.



...is clear evidence that he didn't check carefully enough before making his lane change. It seems clear that he didn't allow the driver safe space to slow down, or she would have slowed down rather than swerve into another lane to avoid him.


A pass at unsafe distance does not imply that the cyclist swerved. It sometimes means a driver chose to overtake at unsafe distance rather than slow down or change lanes. This happens to many of us cyclists operating properly on occasion.


The car did not come out of nowhere as the OP claimed.


The OP did not claim this. His words:

I was overtaking a few other cyclists who were using that lane. I was pretty much dead center in the right lane because I didn't want to freak out other cyclists as I was passing. At this point I was already ahead of the biker police. Now all of a sudden this car comes within inches of hitting me on her overtake.



The only way the car operator in this case could be responsible is if she was speeding, or driving recklessly.

If the cyclist merged into the lane properly, with adequate distance, the proper charge for the motorist's collision or near-collision would either be improper passing (unsafe distance) or failure to reduce speed.

In light of there not a being a cyclist swerve, the onus is on....yet again...the overtaking vehicle to do the right thing....safe distance pass or slow the frik down. But nooooooo that would too easy. The lanes are crap, ignored by motorist who need to buy a paper,drop off dry cleaning or some such thing. Generally designed in door zones, the ones near my house were designed as a traffic calming measures and are all but abandoned by residents, as the motorists are still just as insane as they were before, just more upset.

I hate to say it, but if you're in and out of the bike lane, you may be making a hazard of yourself. Having the right of way means very little when you get hit. Exercise your right to the road, but temper it with caution.

That's so wonderful. I couldn't have said it better myself.

^^^ which is why I don't generally roads/streets with BLs, cars just aren't tuned into you at all (even less then the normal minimal), even if all you are is on the other side of a painted line.

The college st. bike lane sucks, I think everyone can agree (too many double parked cars, and it's mostly in the door zone).

I'm surprised that the bike cop was rude - I haven't had that experience.

If a motorist gives you 'tude - I prefer to say 'eat my dust' and drop em like the slow losers that they are :) Did that to a cabbie today (he layed on the horn to pass me just before a stack of six cars waiting at a red light (he had to slam on brakes after passing me - I was a block ahead of said cab by the end of the end of my (short) commute.

cops don't give a crap about this type of situation - no citation, no ticket, no revenue, you get screwed and too bad so sad is the reality.

You are so right, they just don't care. And it's all about revenue. That cop would have preferred to be the one to step over mashed brains to check for ID. Or maybe he's the lucky one that gets to knock on the door and give the bad news.

It certainly would be nice for the OP to fill in some of the blanks in his story made obvious by all the assumptions being made in order to take one position or the other on this incident.

What is very clear to me is that the OP has (and had) an attitude with respect to this issue that clearly influenced the way in which he reacted to the driver.

Legal or not, on cycle or in car, I think it extremely rude and unsafe to pull into a lane of faster moving traffic forcing them to slow down for no other reason than ones convenience in passing slower moving traffic in the lane one currently occupies.

For me, the polite and safe thing to do when passing slower moving traffic is to check to the rear and pull into the adjacent lane only when one can do so without causing traffic in that lane to have to drastically scrub speed (or in this case squeeze by you).

If traffic is heavy, scrubbing speed can necessitate the need for subsequent cars in that lane to have to do likewise in a chain reaction that, in some cases could cause one or more rear end collisions. Not wanting to do that may have been why the driver in this case chose to squeeze by the driver of the car. She may actually have saved him from involvement in a very dangerous accident.

The OP seems to be aware of his immediate surroundings, but doesn't state how much traffic was behind the OP, whether the lane to her left was open, etc.

There is much detail either unavailable to or not supplied by the OP, but, when I see this sort of attitude and an admission that he was pretty much carrying a chip on his shoulder going into this situation, my guess is that those missing details probably would not flatter his position.

I get as 't'd off as anyone when a car unnecessarily passes me too closely. But, I would never pull out and slow down a line of traffic just to maintain my speed in a crowded bike lane (or to gain position from behind a line of bikes bike lane or no).

I would err on the side of caution and support the cool-headed opinion of the cop on this one rather than side with the ranting, out of control OP.

Caruso