Advocacy & Safety - Taking the Lane, and Not Quiet About It

During my ride this afternoon I approached a stoplight and moved to the left in the lane to take my place behind the cars in front of me. Taking the lane is important at this intersection because it has a right turn lane and cyclists need to avoid being clobbered by drivers making that turn. As I was stopping, an elderly driver who had turned out of a parking lot pulled up next to me and veered right to force me out of the lane. I yelled my standard "Hey!" to get his attention, but he ignored me. After he stopped I pulled in front of him, turned around to face him, and shouted, "You don't push me out of the lane!" I said it again after he opened his door. His reply is one of my favorites: "I've got to get this car through here." I yelled again, "You don't push me out of the lane!" then took my place in the center of the lane in front of him. I crossed the intersection and moved right as I always do. On the other side was a family on a walk--mom, dad, small child, and infant in a stroller. They applauded as I rode by. I'm glad I did not employ the profanity that drivers often give me reason to use.

I honestly believe this man is so inflexible in thought that he cannot imagine that a bicycle should be in front of him at an intersection. Nor, I believe, can he imagine that he is actually in control of his automobile; the automobile obviously controls him, and he is merely an agent that allows that automobile to travel on the roads. What frightens me, I also believe, is that this man is not unusual.

Edited to correct a typo.

Originally posted by Prosody
Nor, I believe, can he imagine that he is actually in control of his automobile; the automobile obviously controls him, and he is merely an agent that allows that automobile to travel on the roads. What frightens me, I also believe, is that this man is not unusual.

VERY well said. :)

Originally posted by Prosody
During my ride this afternoon I approached a stoplight and moved to the left in the lane to take my place behind the cars in front of me.

As I was stopping, an elderly driver who had turned out of a parking lot pulled up next to me and veered right to force me out of the lane.
How many times has this happened to me? Or people trying to pass me at the last possible second as I approach a red light.

Such shoddy manners. For people to take advantage of their superior size and power in that way is childish, but unfortunately too common. Such a person is better off in front of me, anyway!

Consider the man on horseback, and I have been a man on horseback for most of my life. Well, mostly he is a good man, but there is a change in him as soon as he mounts. Every man on horseback is an arrogant man, however gentle he may be on foot. The man in an automobile is one thousand times as dangerous, I tell you. It will engender absolute selfishness in mankind if the driving of automobiles becomes common. It will breed violence on a scale never seen before. It will mark the end of the family as we know it, the three or four generations living happily in one home. It will destroy the sense of neighborhood and the true sense of Nation. It will create giantized cankers of cities, false opulence of suburbs, ruinized countryside, and unhealthy conglomerations of specialized farming and manufacturing. It will make every man a tyrant.

-R.A. Lafferty
late 19th century

Lest we also forget, it was the bicyclists who led the 'good roads' movement in the late 19th century, that later was taken advantage of co-opted by the motorists.

I was sitting at a light waiting for it to change the other day and a woman pulled up next to me and tried to cut me off to make a right turn. Well traffic was heavy and she almost hit me in the process so I said you know that when I am in the street you need to treat me as another vehicle she got snotty with me so I repeated my self and said "besides the traffic is so heavy that you ain't going anywhere until I do anyway" and moved up closer to the light well that ticked her off enough she gunned her engine and almost caused a wreck cutting off the car that was trying to legally go through the green light just to prove a point to me. She had her daughter with her so I made the comment "go ahead be unsafe its your daughter with you not me" and she flipped me off. What a fine example she made to her daughter on how to be a fine outstanding citizen. I want to start a movement that whenever you see some one like that you can take their car keys away and show them the nearest bus stop and tell them that they can't get their keys back until they can prove they know how to drive sanely and safely. :D

I used to know a police officer that was also a cyclist and was on the City of Portland's Bicycle Advisory Committee with me. Whenever I was treated like this by a motorist, I took some notes at the scene regarding the incident (location, time, what happened, including actual or potential violations such as failed to yield ROW, reckless endangerment, etc., etc.), a description of the vehicle and driver (license #, make, model, age, color of vehicle; driver age, gender, race, physical description), and sent this info in a letter or email to my officer friend on a template form that I created and saved just for this purpose. Usually I wasn't interested in pressing formal charges, although I could have; my officer friend just tracked down the vehicle owner via the license plate number and gave them a lecture on cyclists' rights and a warning over the phone, in a polite way. The fact that there was an official police follow-up seemed to be surprising enough to many of these folks that they were usually extremely appologetic to the officer--"didn't know that what I was doing was illegal; sorry, won't do it again, etc., etc." In at least one instance a record of one of my complaints was used in support of incarcerating a repeat offender on a later DUI charge.

To make a long story short, if this is a frequent occurance, I would suggest making friends with a sympathetic local cop--i. e. bike officer, public safety officer, or anyone else on the force who understands this issue -- and try and establish a relationship with them that allows you to generate an official response to these motorists, through your police dept. contact.

Originally posted by Prosody
....I honestly believe this man is so inflexible in thought that he cannot imagine that a bicycle should be in front of him at an intersection. Nor, I believe, can he imagine that he is actually in control of his automobile; the automobile obviously controls him, and he is merely an agent that allows that automobile to travel on the roads. What frightens me, I also believe, is that this man is not unusual.

Edited to correct a typo.

I have had more than one motorist tell me that they had no choice but to run me off the road because there wasn't enough room to get by. It seemed to honestly never occur to them that if it was unsafe to pass, the rational, moral, and legal solution was to wait until it was safe.

When I stop at lights in the lane, I tend to leave a lot of space in front of me so I can get time to roll up to speed better when the light goes green. This is space often starts at about a car length and a half, but as traffic inches forward to the red light I don't bother inching myself so sometimes it can grow to 3 car lengths. Sometimes I have people in cars right behind me rev up and zoom around to stop in front while the light is still red. I don't typically do what you did (meaning go in front of them) because after all I am on a bicycle and if they hit me, I will be finished. I have on occaision though, I just look back at them. The people can never look me right in my face (I take off the sunglasses so they can see my eyes).

Originally posted by Spire
I don't typically do what you did (meaning go in front of them) because after all I am on a bicycle and if they hit me, I will be finished. I have on occaision though, I just look back at them. The people can never look me right in my face (I take off the sunglasses so they can see my eyes).

Well, I wouldn't take the lane back in front of a moving car, but since this fellow had stopped, and since I had an opportunity to assert myself in front of him, I did. I would never aggrressively compete with moving autos for a lane, but this was a case of someone deliberately running me out of the lane. If I have an opportunity to be vocal about something like this, I will.

Originally posted by randya
Consider the man on horseback...
Amazingly accurate...

Some motorists are clueless. Once on a Vintage Bicycle Association ride, four of us had stopped for a red light. In our best Effective Cycling style, we occupied the rightmost portion of the rightmost through lane, to permit right-turning motorists to use the TWO right-turn-only lanes. An elderly motorist actually pulled up on our LEFT, intending to turn right, because he could not fathom the concept of approaching an intersection to the RIGHT side of a cyclist.

On a couple of occasions when approaching an intersection, I've had motorists attempt to move from the left lane to the right in hopes of positioning themselves to go forward once the light changed. Apparently they were content with the left lane until a few feet from the intersection. Fortunately I perceived via peripheral vision the snout of the vehicle beginning to enter space I was currently occupying. In these instances a look over my shoulder and a very emphatic jabbing point with my index finger dissuaded the driver from lane-snatching.

Riding in traffic, one cannot afford to be vague. :D

-Rob

Well, to each his own! Where i live there is a busy highway with a right turn lane into a shopping mall. I go straight thru this intersection, so by all rights I should be in the left lane. As a practical matter, I rarely do this.

If there is no traffic at all behind me and the light is already green, then yes I get into the left lane and proceed straight as I am entitle to under the law.

If the light is red or soon will be, and/or if cars are coming up from behind, sorry, but my practical response is to ride near the shoulder of the roadway, dismount, and walk across the intersection. This is especailly the case if there are cars turning to the right. I hardly wish to proceed into the correct lane and have cars pass me to the RIGHT and LEFT at the same time. I don't care what the law says, this is not only intimidating to me as a rider, but to me as a driver when I see it happen as well.

Exactly why my extremely practical solution of walking across the intersection has failed to catch on is, sadly, quite simple: it is too courteous, humble, and 'beneath the dignity' of many cyclists who want to own the road as much as any motorist, truck driver, or chewbacca redneck.

roughstuff

Originally posted by Roughstuff
Exactly why my extremely practical solution of walking across the intersection has failed to catch on is, sadly, quite simple: it is too courteous, humble, and 'beneath the dignity' of many cyclists who want to own the road as much as any motorist, truck driver, or chewbacca redneck.

Sorry, Roughie, your "extremely practical" solution can be dangerous, because pedestrians get plowed by right-turning cars proportionately more often then cyclists do. As a cyclist, I can position myself for maximum visibility, and I can clear an intersection quickly, minimizing my exposure time.

If there is a right-turn-only lane at every intersection, do you actually ride a block, walk an intersection, ride the next block, walk the next intersection, etc? What if pedestrian crossing is prohibited for your desired direction of travel, at one of those deplorable intersections in which one or more of the four possible pedestrian movements are banned?

Originally posted by Roughstuff
it is too courteous, humble, and 'beneath the dignity' of many cyclists who want to own the road as much as any motorist, truck driver, or chewbacca redneck.


They dont want to own the road as much as any blah blah, they DO own the road as much as anyone as long as they follow the law.

the law says that you can ride in that lane through the intersection, and I feel it is MUCH safer than the way you do it. But your way is legal too, so more power to ya.

Peas.

Jester

WOW.....being confrontational and challenging 4,000 lb. cars. Such bravery. Well, I prefer to stay alive. I dont know the laws if your states but I'll give ya the low down in Forida.

In florida a cyclist is to obey all laws as they pertain to motorists. They must obey the laws but we are not permitted to the same 'rights' as motorists. All cyclist must ride closet to the shoulder or edge of the roadway at all times unless it is deemed unsafe to do so. Cyclists are not permitted to ride two abreast nor are they permitted to ride in the middle of the road or a lane. Cyclist MUST YIELD to faster moving vehicles.....The only time a cyclist is permitted to ride in the middle of a lane is when making a left turn the the cyclisy must immediatley move to right most lane.

In Florida your 'taking my lane' arguement holds no validity.

Well, one does what one should to stay alive but here are the laws I found regarding bicycles in Florida.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/SEC2065.HTM&Title=-%3E2002-%3ECh0316-%3ESection%202065

(5)(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 curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

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.

3. When reasonably necessary to avoid any condition, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or substandard-width lane, that makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For the purposes of this subsection, a "substandard-width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.

(6) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane.

I do not see how 316.2065(5)(a)(3) contradicts the principle of claiming the lane. Practical considerations of course will apply.

Originally posted by miamijim
WOW.....being confrontational and challenging 4,000 lb. cars. Such bravery. Well, I prefer to stay alive. I dont know the laws if your states but I'll give ya the low down in Forida.

In florida a cyclist is to obey all laws as they pertain to motorists. They must obey the laws but we are not permitted to the same 'rights' as motorists. All cyclist must ride closet to the shoulder or edge of the roadway at all times unless it is deemed unsafe to do so. Cyclists are not permitted to ride two abreast nor are they permitted to ride in the middle of the road or a lane. Cyclist MUST YIELD to faster moving vehicles.....The only time a cyclist is permitted to ride in the middle of a lane is when making a left turn the the cyclisy must immediatley move to right most lane.

In Florida your 'taking my lane' arguement holds no validity.

Sorry to hear that you live in Florida, the suckiest state in the union for bicyclists, from a safety perspective. I've reviewed the Florida laws, they are very similar to the Oregon laws, and I've posted them below.

As far as taking the lane, you should pay close attention to 316.2065(5)(a)(3). This is the section that allows you to take the lane under certain conditions, including substandard lane widths and road hazards. I have to emphasize that it is you, the cyclist, that must make the determination whether it is safer and legal for you to take the lane or not--not the idiot in the SUV tailgating you.

Here's a further suggestion: Make up some bumper stickers for your bicycle that say:

BICYCLES ALLOWED FULL LANE
FS 316.2065(5)(a)(3)

Most motorists don't know the law and it will at least give them pause to reflect. I've got a similar message with the equivalent Oregon statute on my bike and I get a WHOLE LOT LESS hassles from motorists these days...

2002 Florida Statutes

316.2065 Bicycle regulations.--

(1) Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this chapter, except as to special regulations in this chapter, and except as to provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

(2) A person operating a bicycle may not ride other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached thereto.

(3)(a) A bicycle may not be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed or equipped, except that an adult rider may carry a child securely attached to his or her person in a backpack or sling.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a), a bicycle rider must carry any passenger who is a child under 4 years of age, or who weighs 40 pounds or less, in a seat or carrier that is designed to carry a child of that age or size and that secures and protects the child from the moving parts of the bicycle.

(c) A bicycle rider may not allow a passenger to remain in a child seat or carrier on a bicycle when the rider is not in immediate control of the bicycle.

(d) A bicycle rider or passenger who is under 16 years of age must wear a bicycle helmet that is properly fitted and is fastened securely upon the passenger's head by a strap, and that meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 Bicycle Helmet Standards), the standards of the Snell Memorial Foundation (1984 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling), or any other nationally recognized standards for bicycle helmets adopted by the department. As used in this subsection, the term "passenger" includes a child who is riding in a trailer or semitrailer attached to a bicycle.

(e) Law enforcement officers and school crossing guards may issue a bicycle safety brochure and a verbal warning to a bicycle rider or passenger who violates this subsection. A bicycle rider or passenger who violates this subsection may be issued a citation by a law enforcement officer and assessed a fine for a pedestrian violation, as provided in s. 318.18. The court shall dismiss the charge against a bicycle rider or passenger for a first violation of paragraph (d) upon proof of purchase of a bicycle helmet that complies with this subsection.

(4) No person riding upon any bicycle, coaster, roller skates, sled, or toy vehicle may attach the same or himself or herself to any vehicle upon a roadway. This subsection does not prohibit attaching a bicycle trailer or bicycle semitrailer to a bicycle if that trailer or semitrailer is commercially available and has been designed for such attachment.

(5)(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 curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

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.

3. When reasonably necessary to avoid any condition, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or substandard-width lane, that makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For the purposes of this subsection, a "substandard-width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.

(6) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane.

(7) Any person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand upon the handlebars.

(8) Every bicycle in use between sunset and sunrise shall be equipped with a lamp on the front exhibiting a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and a lamp and reflector on the rear each exhibiting a red light visible from a distance of 600 feet to the rear. A bicycle or its rider may be equipped with lights or reflectors in addition to those required by this section.

(9) No parent of any minor child and no guardian of any minor ward may authorize or knowingly permit any such minor child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this section.

(10) A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

(11) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.

(12) No person upon roller skates, or riding in or by means of any coaster, toy vehicle, or similar device, may go upon any roadway except while crossing a street on a crosswalk; and, when so crossing, such person shall be granted all rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to pedestrians.

(13) This section shall not apply upon any street while set aside as a play street authorized herein or as designated by state, county, or municipal authority.

(14) Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake or brakes which will enable its rider to stop the bicycle within 25 feet from a speed of 10 miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement.

(15) A person engaged in the business of selling bicycles at retail shall not sell any bicycle unless the bicycle has an identifying number permanently stamped or cast on its frame.

(16)(a) A person may not knowingly rent or lease any bicycle to be ridden by a child who is under the age of 16 years unless:

1. The child possesses a bicycle helmet; or

2. The lessor provides a bicycle helmet for the child to wear.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a nonmoving violation, punishable as provided in s. 318.18.

(17) The court may waive, reduce, or suspend payment of any fine imposed under subsection (3) or subsection (16) and may impose any other conditions on the waiver, reduction, or suspension. If the court finds that a person does not have sufficient funds to pay the fine, the court may require the performance of a specified number of hours of community service or attendance at a safety seminar.

(18) Notwithstanding s. 318.21, all proceeds collected pursuant to s. 318.18 for violations under paragraphs (3)(e) and (16)(b) shall be deposited into the State Transportation Trust Fund.

(19) The failure of a person to wear a bicycle helmet or the failure of a parent or guardian to prevent a child from riding a bicycle without a bicycle helmet may not be considered evidence of negligence or contributory negligence.

(20) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a pedestrian violation as provided in chapter 318. A law enforcement officer may issue traffic citations for a violation of subsection (3) or subsection (16) only if the violation occurs on a bicycle path or road, as defined in s. 334.03. However, they may not issue citations to persons on private property, except any part thereof which is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic.

History.--s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 76-31; s. 2, ch. 76-286; s. 1, ch. 78-353; s. 8, ch. 83-68; s. 5, ch. 85-309; s. 1, ch. 86-23; s. 7, ch. 87-161; s. 21, ch. 94-306; s. 899, ch. 95-148; s. 1, ch. 96-185; s. 2, ch. 97-300; s. 161, ch. 99-248.

Originally posted by miamijim
All cyclist must ride closet to the shoulder or edge of the roadway at all times unless it is deemed unsafe to do so.

The question is, deemed unsafe by whom? This law is actually remarkably similar to the law everywhere else in the world. IF it's me who's deeming whether or not a situation is unsafe, it's me who's deciding when I should or should not claim the lane.

And for those arguing that claiming the lane is somehow "dangerous" - I merely ask this, how do you know? I'm not asking why you think it's dangerous, or why "it must be" dangerous. I'm asking how do you know that it is. My own experience of over 100,000km of riding has taught me that in many, many situations, it's actually the safest way to approach cycling in traffic.

Originally posted by Roughstuff
Exactly why my extremely practical solution of walking across the intersection has failed to catch on is, sadly, quite simple: it is too courteous, humble, and 'beneath the dignity' of many cyclists who want to own the road as much as any motorist, truck driver, or chewbacca redneck.


Actually, it hasn't caught on because it isn't going to get me to work on time. Nor is it necessarily going to make me any safer.

I think it really helps when you give a signal that you're going to take the lane. I point down at a 45-degree angle to the position I'm about to take. I also wave cars past me when I move onto the shoulder.

It's different in the country & suburbs, but most NYC driving is 30 MPH or slower, so I'm taking the lane most of the time (except for sliding between lanes of slow or stopped traffic).

Originally posted by John E
Sorry, Roughie, your "extremely practical" solution can be dangerous, because pedestrians get plowed by right-turning cars proportionately more often then cyclists do. As a cyclist, I can position myself for maximum visibility, and I can clear an intersection quickly, minimizing my exposure time.

You mean the %age of pedestrians crossing who get plowed is greater than the %age of cyclists walking who get plowed? I doubt doubt doubt that such statistics are even compiled. I can see your point though, as I always have a sharp eye for right turning vehicles.



If there is a right-turn-only lane at every intersection, do you actually ride a block, walk an intersection, ride the next block, walk the next intersection, etc? What if pedestrian crossing is prohibited for your desired direction of travel, at one of those deplorable intersections in which one or more of the four possible pedestrian movements are banned?

Actually I had forgotten this point, which was made during a discussion of this issue last year. In a city with a zillion blocks it does not seem practical at all. Still, my answer would have to be yes; in some stretches of busy road where I have ridden, I recall doing it. Annoying, but I am still alive and felt I was doing the right thing. I found it a more attractive choice then having cars on both the right and left of me.

Don't forget I have my rear view mirror telling me if someone is in that right turn lane to turn right; if there isn't I can go with the flow of traffic as any one else.

roughstuff

Originally posted by Roughstuff
You mean the %age of pedestrians crossing who get plowed is greater than the %age of cyclists walking who get plowed? I doubt doubt doubt that such statistics are even compiled. I can see your point though, as I always have a sharp eye for right turning vehicles.

Well, I tend to think that a cyclist walking in an intersection is now considered a pedestrian. And studies have shown that overall pedstrians are more at risk than cyclists on the road. That said, I do think that it is safer and sometimes faster to do what you have described for a variety of reasons:

It can be faster to dismount and cross at a crosswalk if timed properly... especially at complicated intersections where the traffic lights can be long.

It can sometimes be safer especially if the intersections are clearly marked and pedestrian traffic is not unusual. Drivers are more succeptable to looking into the crosswalks fore pedestrians than they are to check their right side for a cyclist when they're in the through-lane because they expect the cyclist to be even further right in the right-turn lane. Also a vehicle turning right out of the cross-street may disregard a cyclist and if they see a gap, may just go for which can cause a left-hooking situation.


Although I admit I should be thinking more about reason #2 and I often don't dismount to cross as a pedestrian unless I'm in a real hurry, I usually do so for reason #1 when I do do it. I think technically (in my state) I'm also allowed to ride up to and cross in the crosswalk without dismounting but I think I'd feel weird about doing that if there are pedestrians about.

Originally posted by John E
...pedestrians get plowed by right-turning cars proportionately more often then cyclists do.
As a pedestrian, I like to carry my whistle to alert drivers who are in outer space.

Just last week, I was walking to the train station. I started cautiously across the pedestrian crosswalk, but a large utility van driver was looking away from me at traffic, waiting for a chance to turn right. I looked him in the eye, but he didn't look at me. I didn't have my whistle, so I started clapping loudly. He still didn't look my way. He started to roll out into me, so I tapped his hood with my hand a few times. He still didn't look my way and started to run straight into me!

I banged my hand on his front hood as hard as I could about three times before he stopped.

I wish I carried nuclear weapons, sometimes.

Moral: Don't cross in front of anyone who isn't looking straight in your eye.

Originally posted by Pete Clark
I wish I carried nuclear weapons, sometimes.


Pete's co-worker, looking out at a spreading mushroom cloud in the distance one morning: "Looks like Pete might be a few minutes late."

:D

I have two things to announce:

1) I have nuclear weapons and soon will detonate one in a test to prove that I have them.

2) I have decided to withdraw from the race for governor of California.

Thank you.

Right turn on red is the ultimate motorist-first traffic law, w/ the excuse to promulgate this law in most states being "to save fuel" in the late 70's. Why should a motorist be able to judge when traffic is clear and it is safe to turn right, but a pedestrian or bicyclist isn't capable of making the same judgement when wanting to cross against the light? All those right-turning motorists become very dangerous to pedestrians crossing legally, because they are all looking for cars coming from the left, and totally not paying attention to pedestrians legally crossing with the light to their right. What a bunch of dangerous BS.

Originally posted by randya
Why should a motorist be able to judge when traffic is clear and it is safe to turn right, but a pedestrian or bicyclist isn't capable of making the same judgement when wanting to cross against the light?

I think it's two different issues. Right-turn-on-red first of all not only applies to motorists but to cyclists too. Secondly, when doing so, one is merging into the flow of traffic whereas crossing against a light means crossing the flow of traffic.




Originally posted by randya
All those right-turning motorists become very dangerous to pedestrians crossing legally, because they are all looking for cars coming from the left, and totally not paying attention to pedestrians legally crossing with the light to their right. What a bunch of dangerous BS.

Agreed that many motorists only see other cars (sometimes that's even stretching) but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with right-turn-on-red. There is a problem with motorists failing to yield to pedestrian traffic in general and this seems to happen whether regardless of the signal or if they're turning right or left. I've almost been hit as many times by motorists attempting a left turn as I have by them making rights.

Originally posted by khuon
I think it's two different issues. Right-turn-on-red first of all not only applies to motorists but to cyclists too. Secondly, when doing so, one is merging into the flow of traffic whereas crossing against a light means crossing the flow of traffic.

Either one requires an assessment or judgement on whether or not it is safe based on the cross traffic. You can 'merge' while turning right and still be hit by someone in an outer lane of the cross traffic that is merging to their right into the same space you want to occupy. Two of the three accidents I've had in thirty years of driving have involved these types of turns--once I was hit by someone turning right on red who failed to yield to the through traffic (me) and once while turning right at an uncontrolled intersection I was hit by someone in the cross traffic merging right into the same space I was turning into. Turning maneuvers at intersections are in fact some of the most dangerous maneuvers motorists make.

On the other hand, a jaywalking pedestrian usually makes absolutely certain that there is no cross traffic before crossing, and therefore is probably safer in doing so than a motorist 'merging' while making a right on red.

Agreed that many motorists only see other cars (sometimes that's even stretching) but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with right-turn-on-red. There is a problem with motorists failing to yield to pedestrian traffic in general and this seems to happen whether regardless of the signal or if they're turning right or left. I've almost been hit as many times by motorists attempting a left turn as I have by them making rights.

This I agree with -- many motorists are either subconsciously or willfully blind to other road users. If you're not in a motor vehicle, they often just look right through you. I've even been flipped the bird while crossing with the light by a motorist wanting to make a turn through me.

probably a cardinals fan. they are insufferable.

Originally posted by Prosody
I have two things to announce:

1) I have nuclear weapons and soon will detonate one in a test to prove that I have them.

2) I have decided to withdraw from the race for governor of California.

Thank you.

:lol:

Bot Yoo'll be bock!

Originally posted by Pete Clark
Moral: Don't cross in front of anyone who isn't looking straight in your eye.

Addenda to Moral above:

And don't trust that they have seen you, even if you have looked them in the eye. . .unless you get some other reaction from them, like a smile or nod or something!

I have had people who I thought saw me, because they "looked me in the eye" and they still pull out in front of me.

Better to go as if you were invisible and trust yourself than to trust in someone else's "look in the eye" that they may have not even realized they gave!

And learn to yell, really, really loud. If you can use that diaphragm to efficiently oxygenate yourself at peak demand, then you can surely learn to holler at 100 decibels, at least!

Originally posted by foehn
And learn to yell, really, really loud. If you can use that diaphragm to efficiently oxygenate yourself at peak demand, then you can surely learn to holler at 100 decibels, at least!

I have seen rechargeable bicycle air horns that are incredibly loud -- the air supply comes from a bottle that fits in your water bottle rack, and you recharge them w/ your bicycle pump.

Originally posted by randya
I have seen rechargeable bicycle air horns that are incredibly loud -- the air supply comes from a bottle that fits in your water bottle rack, and you recharge them w/ your bicycle pump.

Louder is better if you have a horn. The horn on my motorcycle is very loud and piercing .. good attention-getter.