Advocacy & Safety - Cop defended me today

Here's the scenario:

I was climbing a tall hill on a 45 mph. two-lane artery, approaching the top where I make a left on the crest at a small intersection. Looking in my mirror, I saw a cluster of cars approaching at about 500 ft back. I was almost to the top, but I knew they would reach me at about the same time I was ready to turn left.

I signalled left early, and signalled long. But since I've had knot-heads try to pass me on a blind hill when I moved center, I stayed to the right. I didn't trust anyone, but looked back (a full head-turn) to see if the lead driver was going to yield.

She slowed quite a bit, but despite my repeated signalling, she proceeded to pass me, blocking me from making my turn, opening the way for the rest of the group to violate my right-of-way. It wouldn't have been a big deal for me, I wasn't in danger, and my next move would have been to wait for the group to pass, then make a u-turn back to my intersection, or something like that. :rolleyes:

Just as she was alongside me, I just got mad, and shouted into her open window, "Hey!!!" :D

To my suprise, just then, I heard a police loudspeaker:

"If someone's turning left, you have to stop!" I didn't know a police car was in that cluster of cars. ;) (I was actually close enough to hear the woman inside the car say, "HUH?" in confusion.)

She stopped.

That was a really nice left turn. :D :beer:

Cool! I wish Philly cops would use their loudspeakers for people that run red lights, park in the bike lane, use the bike lane like a turning lane and throw trash at me.

There was some kind of accident on down the street from me with the road blocked off by a patrol car. I was planning on going through where the accident was, but asked the cop "Can I get through?" and he told me

"You can do whatever you want, you're on a bike. Just be careful."

I was kind of amazed and ended up just going up a block and making a left.

She probably just passed you because you never moved over to turn.

I would have done the same thing. She slowed, you never made you move so she went on.

That was nice of the cop. Although I bet the lady was probably still confused well after you made your turn. :)

-Nate

Awesome!

She slowed quite a bit, but despite my repeated signalling, she proceeded to pass me, blocking me from making my turn, opening the way for the rest of the group to violate my right-of-way.

What right-of-way?

The fact that you're signalling a lane change doesn't give you any right-of-way over the people who are already in that lane. They can slow and let you in, but that's a courtesy, not a requirement.

If you had moved left earlier, when the cars were further back, then you would have clear right-of-way to the lane you occupied. If you wait until the cars are too close for a safe lane change, then you have to wait for them to pass unless one of them decides to yield to you.

I'm not "siding with cagers" on this point; it's often the car driver who believes that just because they're signaling a move, the cyclist should yield to them. They're wrong in that case, and I'm just as wrong if I think that as a cyclist I can establish right-of-way by singaling.

Sorry, I am with "divergence" on this one, but I admit that I often resort to a two-part left turn or to stopping and waiting for a big gap, instead of trying to fight my across high-speed traffic.

She probably just passed you because you never moved over to turn.

I would have done the same thing. She slowed, you never made you move so she went on.

I disagree. The last time I did that, I moved all the way over to the left of the lane. The woman in question (babbling away on her cell phone) simply crossed the double yellow and passed me anyway. She nearly ran me right over.

I agree with original poster. Stay right until you can make sure it's clear. It's much easier to make a Uturn 100 ft down the road than it is to reinsert your intestines into your abdominal cavity.

Az

It's much easier to make a Uturn 100 ft down the road than it is to reinsert your intestines into your abdominal cavity.

Az
depends how large the laceration is and whether your intestines are in a pile or spread out down the road.

So if your riding far right and sticking left arm out and/or looking back you are in process of negotiating a left merge. It is courteous for faster vehicle drivers to slow and let you merge, but not legally required.

If one does not respond by merging left when a driver has slowed, I would not expect a driver to then stop or slow to let you complete a turn from the far right once you are at the point where the turn is desired.

Once you have moved over and are using full lane and are signaling a left turn, the driver must slow for you and must not overtake on left. If you move over far enough left, drivers can pass on your right.

Al

What right-of-way?

The fact that you're signalling a lane change doesn't give you any right-of-way over the people who are already in that lane. They can slow and let you in, but that's a courtesy, not a requirement.



But this wasn't a lane change; he was in the left turn lane. If it was an all-car scenario, there would be no possibility of passing on the inside and thus no question of right-of-way (everyone takes their turn in the order they arrived). But since he was on a bike and he didn't take the full lane, drivers could easily pass on the left.

That said, my feeling is that the lady in the SUV didn't do anything illegal, as the cyclist essentially ceded the lane by remaining on the right. She could have assumed he intended to turn alongside the cars on their right side (which I've seen many times).

Then again, as others have pointed out, you put yourself at risk of being rear-ended if you do take the lane. But really not any more so in any other situation where car and bikes share the road.

I disagree. The last time I did that, I moved all the way over to the left of the lane. The woman in question (babbling away on her cell phone) simply crossed the double yellow and passed me anyway. She nearly ran me right over.

I agree with original poster. Stay right until you can make sure it's clear. It's much easier to make a Uturn 100 ft down the road than it is to reinsert your intestines into your abdominal cavity.

Az

There are times when I'll signal and take the lane just like anyone in a motorised vehichle would. It would be considered by some as 'vehichular cycling', the rest of just just refer to it as riding with traffic. But there are times when I won't for the reason stated by Az.

Experience has taught me that similar vehichular techniques lead to different results based on the type of road I'm on. They work well in medium-heavy traffic where the average speed is abut the same as mine and the top speed is only a little higher than mine, it also works well on quiet suburban local roads. It doesn't work too well on fast arterials, or just about anywhere where there's high speed flowing traffic with no shoulder, limited lanes (only 1 or 2 in each direction), especially on winding roads with poor sight lines.

The op should have either signalled and completely taken the lane early, or waited on the shoulder and executed a u-turn once traffic was clear. Signalling a turn then staying to the side just created confusion.

But this wasn't a lane change; he was in the left turn lane.
I didn't get that impression from reading the original post...and as I reread it now, it still sounds like LBM was on the right side of the through-traffic lane, signaling a lane change/left turn.

If it was actually a left-turn lane, then I understand why he was angry with the woman who passed him, and I agree with the cop for chewing her out. If it was a through lane (and if there's nothing else about the story that I misunderstood), then LBM and the cop both yelled at someone who had done nothing wrong.

As described, the driver would have broken the law here in Illinois. One cannot legally left-pass a left-turning vehicle signaling a turn.

The rider, it seems to me, acted legally and did many things right, but created some confusion. While the hand and arm was saying "Left turn," road position was saying "Not really."

It would have been better, I think, to either take the lane before the cars were close or to stay right, slow down, wait for traffic to clear and then take the lane. Depending on the situation, either option makes sense.

When lanes the lanes are wide enough, I've been known to invent some law and do my left turns from very near the center line. So far, no road pizza, no close calls, and even a few pleasant remarks.

What right-of-way?

The fact that you're signalling a lane change doesn't give you any right-of-way over the people who are already in that lane. They can slow and let you in, but that's a courtesy, not a requirement.

If you had moved left earlier, when the cars were further back, then you would have clear right-of-way to the lane you occupied. If you wait until the cars are too close for a safe lane change, then you have to wait for them to pass unless one of them decides to yield to you.

I'm not "siding with cagers" on this point; it's often the car driver who believes that just because they're signaling a move, the cyclist should yield to them. They're wrong in that case, and I'm just as wrong if I think that as a cyclist I can establish right-of-way by singaling.

I have been nearly hit, just barely dodged the idiots, when doing EXACTLY this. Sitting on the double yellow line on a 15mph road at the entrance to a college taking a left turn. It has happened twice WHILE I was signaling my left turn in to the college, no more than 150 ft from the beginning of the road. I was doing 15mph so I have NO IDEA what speed the idiots were doing as they approached me from behind while I signalled AND sat on the yellow line, eliminating their "right" to pass me.

Thank fully they did not hit my out streached hand. And the one "gentleman" who got out to have words with me, got worked over by the 80 year old woman who saw the entire incident.

I know this is probably an unacceptable veer from the never ending battle of good vs evil (VC vs non VC or vice versa), but speaking of cops "defending" cyclists.

There's a stretch of road I'm typically on about the same time frame whenever I ride my "standard" century loop. About once a month or so. Invariably, I'll have a cop use me as his stalking horse. I'll get close passed, the cop will go by & have the close passer pulled over up the road a bit. I'm on this road for about 7 miles & he'll typically pull 2-3 people over (I'm pretty sure he's only warning them, he's about his business pretty quickly).

I don't mind a bit.

She probably just passed you because you never moved over to turn.

I would have done the same thing. She slowed, you never made you move so she went on.
Gosmsgo, that's a good absentee analysis, but if you had read my post more thoroughly, you would have understood that my failure to take the center of the lane was due to my extensive experience with knotheads that pass me on a blind hill anyway, regardless of lane position, which still effectively blocks my left turn and endangers me and everyone else through risk of head-on collision with traffic coming up the other side of the hill.

I hope your assertion that you also drive that way is an incorrect statement.

What right-of-way?

The fact that you're signalling a lane change doesn't give you any right-of-way over the people who are already in that lane.
As you clearly indicate, right-of-way is determined by the fact that I was already in the lane, and had been so since before those cars even saw me. As the police officer correctly determined, I had the right-of-way over all overtaking traffic.

I am amazed at the number of self-appointed instructors here who haven't done their homework.

I didn't get that impression from reading the original post...and as I reread it now, it still sounds like LBM was on the right side of the through-traffic lane, signaling a lane change/left turn.

If it was actually a left-turn lane, then I understand why he was angry with the woman who passed him, and I agree with the cop for chewing her out. If it was a through lane (and if there's nothing else about the story that I misunderstood), then LBM and the cop both yelled at someone who had done nothing wrong.
Read the original post again.

There was not turn lane. Just a two-lane street. I was occupying the only lane available.

Please show me the Georgia traffic code which states that a cyclist must be in the center position of a lane to be considered occupying that lane. Otherwise, submit your suggestion to the GDOT for a revision of the traffic code.

While vehicular cycling practices, such as destination positioning, are frequently the best way to ride a bike, they should not be confused with state law, since they are superfluous to traffic code, and only serve to help cyclists navigate more effectively.

There is no law against violating vehicular cycling principles.

I know this is probably an unacceptable veer from the never ending battle of good vs evil (VC vs non VC or vice versa), but speaking of cops "defending" cyclists.

There's a stretch of road I'm typically on about the same time frame whenever I ride my "standard" century loop. About once a month or so. Invariably, I'll have a cop use me as his stalking horse. I'll get close passed, the cop will go by & have the close passer pulled over up the road a bit. I'm on this road for about 7 miles & he'll typically pull 2-3 people over (I'm pretty sure he's only warning them, he's about his business pretty quickly).

I don't mind a bit.
A refreshingly on-topic post, especially for the A & S subforum. ;)

As described, the driver would have broken the law here in Illinois. One cannot legally left-pass a left-turning vehicle signaling a turn.

The rider, it seems to me, acted legally and did many things right, but created some confusion. While the hand and arm was saying "Left turn," road position was saying "Not really."

It would have been better, I think, to either take the lane before the cars were close or to stay right, slow down, wait for traffic to clear and then take the lane. Depending on the situation, either option makes sense.

When lanes the lanes are wide enough, I've been known to invent some law and do my left turns from very near the center line. So far, no road pizza, no close calls, and even a few pleasant remarks.
This is my standard practice.

However, (once again I wonder why folks seem not to be reading my post,) my experience on the crest of this hill (two lanes, no passing, 45 mph. limit, no shoulder, blind hill) is that when I take the center of the lane in front of overtaking traffic, some motorists will pass me anyway.

In other words (let me make myself very clear, and forgive the bold print,) TAKING THE CENTER POSITION OF THE LANE TO PREVENT PASSING DOES NOT STOP DRIVERS FROM PASSING. THIS CREATES A HAZARD FOR ME IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE HILL IS COMPLETELY BLIND. SO, IF TAKING THE CENTER OF THE LANE DOES NOT PREVENT PASSING, AND DOING SO CREATES AN ADDITIONAL HAZARD, THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO IT.

In fact if I am not in the center when someone tries to pass while I'm signalling a turn, I'm not put in harm's way by a sudden swerve back into my lane as the overtaking motorist tries to avoid the sudden appearance of an oncoming Hugh Jass dump truck flying up the blind side of the hill.

By the way, I avoid turning left from the center line as it allows passing on my right, and can imprison me between two lanes of opposing traffic with no way out in an emergency.

My visit to A & S has certainly been an educational field trip.

;)

Given the circumstances I would have done the same thing. You can't trust the drivers to be aware of you and you certainly can't trust them not to be smart enough not to pass you even though you're obviously signaling a left turn. Better to go when it's a sure safe thing than put yourself into a potentially deadly situation.

On topic: I once t-boned the right rear quarter panel of a car who pulled out in front of me from a stopped position. I was going downhill and probably traveling at about 30-35mph. She pulled up to the stop sign, stopped, edged out a little, stopped again, and then sloooowly pulled out in front of me, couldn't stop in time but I also couldn't get behind her because she was going too slow and I couldn't go around the front because there was oncoming traffic. She pulled over and got out of her car and started givin gme a hard time for hitting her car. I don't think she even checked to see if I was OK. Amazingly I kept a cool head. There was a fire or some kind of medical emergency nearby and so a few EMTs came over and checked me out, I was fine, a little bruised but all in all OK. They also called the police who after asking each of us individually what happened gave her a ticket on the spot for pulling illegally from a stopped position. Nothing came of it (amazingly the bike was fine and I didn't even have to go to the doctor) but at least she got the ticket in case anything did come of it.

I always find it nice to hear about police officers backing cyclists up.

As for people saying that it was OK for her to pass you on the left. Passing someone on the left who is signaling for a left turn is illegal and incredibly likely to cause an accident. Although the laws are often fuzzy in areas bicycle related generally a bicycle is supposed to follow the same laws as cars, and cars are supposed to treat bicycles as vehicles, but as we all know the reality is very different. Personally I try to use the rules when they work and apply some common sense when they'll put me in a dangerous situation.

In other words (let me make myself very clear, and forgive the bold print,) TAKING THE CENTER POSITION OF THE LANE TO PREVENT PASSING DOES NOT STOP DRIVERS FROM PASSING. THIS CREATES A HAZARD FOR ME IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE HILL IS COMPLETELY BLIND. SO, IF TAKING THE CENTER OF THE LANE DOES NOT PREVENT PASSING, AND DOING SO CREATES AN ADDITIONAL HAZARD, THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO IT.



I'd also worry about cars going straight. If you take the lane, left-turning cars may pass you on the inside anyway, and straight-going cars may try to squeeze by on the right. If the hill is truly blind, I'd just go to the sidewalk and cross as a ped. It sounds a bit risky otherwise.

So if your riding far right and sticking left arm out and/or looking back you are in process of negotiating a left merge. It is courteous for faster vehicle drivers to slow and let you merge, but not legally required.

No, actually it is required. Replace the bicycle with a car. If you are in a car, waiting in the lane to make a left turn - it is illegal for the person behind you to pass you on your left while you are waiting to make the left turn (for one, if you're waiting there is probably oncoming traffic, so it's stupid to pass a left turning car - for two if the car is turning left, and you try to pass on the left, the turning car can turn right into you as you pass - that's why it's illegal).

No, actually it is required. Replace the bicycle with a car. If you are in a car, waiting in the lane to make a left turn - it is illegal for the person behind you to pass you on your left while you are waiting to make the left turn (for one, if you're waiting there is probably oncoming traffic, so it's stupid to pass a left turning car - for two if the car is turning left, and you try to pass on the left, the turning car can turn right into you as you pass - that's why it's illegal).

I had understood the cyclist was in the far right position of a thru lane and was signalling to merge left to the center position and then left position of the thru lane. This is different than being centered or left biased in lane and stopped ('waiting in the lane') with signal on to make a left turn.

It really depends if one is considering the cyclist to already be in the lane, or in a different lane, marked or not. I can see the point that if a narrow unsharable lane that the right most position is 'as good' as being in the lane. However if the cyclist had been riding thru/straight in this rightmost position while being passed by faster vehicles prior to signaling the turn, I would interpret that signal to be a desire to merge into lane, not a signal to make a left turn.

If a driver is signaling a desire to merge, rear approaching vehicles are not required to yield.
If a driver is signaling a left turn, rear approaching vehicles are not permitted to pass on left.

Al

But this wasn't a lane change; he was in the left turn lane. If it was an all-car scenario, there would be no possibility of passing on the inside and thus no question of right-of-way (everyone takes their turn in the order they arrived). But since he was on a bike and he didn't take the full lane, drivers could easily pass on the left.

That said, my feeling is that the lady in the SUV didn't do anything illegal, as the cyclist essentially ceded the lane by remaining on the right.
Show me the GA traffic code which supports your statement. (Again, nobody seems to read. There was no SUV.)

I had understood the cyclist was in the far right position of a thru lane and was signalling to merge left to the center position and then left position of the thru lane. This is different than being centered or left biased in lane and stopped ('waiting in the lane') with signal on to make a left turn.

It really depends if one is considering the cyclist to already be in the lane, or in a different lane, marked or not. I can see the point that if a narrow unsharable lane that the right most position is 'as good' as being in the lane. However if the cyclist had been riding thru/straight in this rightmost position while being passed by faster vehicles prior to signaling the turn, I would interpret that signal to be a desire to merge into lane, not a signal to make a left turn.

If a driver is signaling a desire to merge, rear approaching vehicles are not required to yield.
If a driver is signaling a left turn, rear approaching vehicles are not permitted to pass on left.

Al
Al, according to traffic law, I was not merging: I was turning left. Also according to traffic law, overtaking vehicles are required to wait until I've completed my turn. Of course we all know that they often don't.

Since I was not following strict "vehicular cycling principles," there are many who would say I was wrong. They are entitled to their opinions. But vehicular cycling principles are not traffic law.

As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said (paraphrased,) "People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." The facts are that I violated strict vehicular cycling destination-positioning principles, but the traffic laws still had me in the right-of-way.

Traffic laws, not vehicular cycling principles, are what motorists are legally accountable to. That's why the cop corrected the motorist.

Now anyone can argue with me until the cows come home that I should have taken the center of the lane as a vehicular cyclist. That's a valid argument in the parameters of vehicular cycling.

But let's not confuse vehicular cycling principles with traffic code. (I can see a judge now--"Your fine is $100 for not using destination positioning when signalling a left turn." ;) )

Besides, I believe my approach was safer and more intelligent than holding the center of the lane at a place where I've had numerous motorists pass me illegally on that blind hill when I did it "right."

Normally when I make this turn (which is almost every day,) the timing is good and I can hold the center of the lane before turning, or I see that overtaking traffic is going to yield before I turn left on my signal. But this was one of those judgement calls, and I think I made the right one.

The key is, signal your intention, look back for cooperation, and when you have cooperation, follow through.

Also, having the right-of-way does not mean we should always take it.

I hear the echo of a voice on the television from way back saying, "He was right--he was dead right."

Also, having the right-of-way does not mean we should always take it.


Not sure about your rules, but in general, there's no such thing as 'right of way'. You won't see that expression in any road rule. What is described is who has the duty to give way. There is also the duty to do all within your power to avoid a collision, no matter who is supposed to give way. Giving way is an act of humility. Taking right of way is an act of arrogance. The former encourages safety, the latter, aggression.

First LBM I am not intending to debate what you did was right or wrong, safer or not safer, or that the officer should not have said what they did. I think its great they called the motorist out to let you turn, specifically legally required or not, the motorist should have let you merge and turn. As to your safety, you know best from first hand experience.

I am only considering that if one is traveling in the far right of a lane (understandably with good reason in mind) and has a continuous stream of traffic passing on the left, that when one then signals with the left arm outstretched that generally means one is desiring to merge left into the stream of traffic. But it can also mean one desires to turn left. I can see the drivers and/or law confusion in this case. Whereas, being in center or left biased in lane with same signal is unambiguous.

Arizona law says this about left turns:
" The driver of a vehicle intending to turn shall do so as follows:
2. Left turns. The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left shall approach the turn in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle. If practicable the driver shall make the left turn from the left of the center of the intersection and shall make the turn to the left lane immediately available for the driver's direction of traffic."

In other words, left turns are to be made from the left most position in the roadway.

There is also this exception noted in the far right as practicable law for bicycle operators:
"2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway."

These two laws combined to me indicate that a cyclist should turn left from the left most side in the direction of travel on the roadway, based on legal principles, not because of vehicular cycling.

Again, this is just for thought, not intended to argue what you or the officer did should have been done differently, this time or in the future.

Al

First LBM I am not intending to debate what you did was right or wrong, safer or not safer, or that the officer should not have said what they did. I think its great they called the motorist out to let you turn, specifically legally required or not, the motorist should have let you merge and turn.
Al, I have to stop you there.

Let me repeat: I did not "merge." Merging is changing lanes.

What happened is that the lead vehicle of a stream of overtaking traffic saw a gap they could slip through, and tried.The cop was right to say something about it.

If I had used center positioning, that driver might have passed me anyway. Happens all the time.

Also, there was not a continuous stream of traffic as you describe. I was way ahead of the traffic stream.

As for lane-positioning, you are confusing lane position with actual lanes, as in the reference, "The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left shall approach the turn in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle."

There is only one lane here. Not two lanes, not a turn lane.

You are merging traffic law with vehicular cycling principles (no pun intended.)

In other words, left turns are to be made from the left most position in the roadway.


There is no Arizona, nor Georgia, traffic code which states this for cyclists. That is a concept you inferred from your application of Arizona traffic code to the concept of vehicular cycling.

The bit about "If practicable the driver shall make the left turn from the left of the center of the intersection and shall make the turn to the left lane immediately available for the driver's direction of traffic" can only apply to my situation if you omit the key phrase, "If practicable," a phrase dearly-beloved amongst us vehicular cycling advocates when defending our right to take the lane.

Besides, I usually make my left turns from the center of the appropriate lane, not the left-hand side of the lane. I think it's more "practicable."

Relax, I am just thinking about it, exploring the situation, that's all. I know you were not merging and never said you were.

Roadways are often un-striped, yet lanes still exist. There are some roads with two same direction lanes, yet no stripe between them. When driving a motor vehicle I merge from the accepted outer to the inner.

If this road had a bike lane you would have to merge out of it. (just a thought, not applicable to situation)

If this road had a WOL or even a narrow lane I was sharing and I was right biased, I would feel I would have to merge from right side into center position if I was moving laterally, preparing for a left turn or just moving position for other reasons such as debris. I do this every day, negotiate a merge from far right position (whether BL or WOL) to centerish position when approaching intersections. I feel these are merges, not because of vehicular cycling principles, but because of how traffic flow works.

Also I can see in a narrow lane situation if one if right biased, say in right tire track one is still controlling the lane sufficiently to make a left arm signal a clear intent to turn left, not to merge. I think this may be the situation you were in.

Al

Show me the GA traffic code which supports your statement. (Again, nobody seems to read. There was no SUV.)

It's common sense. If a car were to signal left but continue to hug the right side of the left turn lane and not initiate the turn, I'd sure as hell be confused as to what he was up to. In fact I'd probably pass him if I had room because I'd have to assume he didn't actually intend to turn, but just left his signal on accidentally.

Bottom line is, both you and the driver did not act totally correctly. You should have taken the lane with authority and turned as soon as you reached the intersection, and the driver should have waited behind you. Instead you confused the driver as to your intention (never a good thing on a bike) and essentially invited her to pass you by leaving the lane open.

Now I totally understand your fear of being hit, but you can't have it both ways. Either ride like a real vehicle on the road and take the lane, or use the crosswalk as a ped. From your description of that particular hill, I personally would use the crosswalk. I'm pro VC but it's not worth your life to prove the point.

It's common sense. If a car were to signal left but continue to hug the right side of the left turn lane and not initiate the turn, I'd sure as hell be confused as to what he was up to. In fact I'd probably pass him if I had room because I'd have to assume he didn't actually intend to turn, but just left his signal on accidentally.
This is your opinion.

But it's technically, and completely, illegal.

And you would be charged at-fault in the event of a crash.

Passing a turning motorist is against the law. But if you wanna go for it...

By the way, what is the legal indication of a turn? I think it's that little blinkie thing operated by a switch-arm on the steering column...

:lol:

When that certain undefinable VC panache fails, it's nice to have the men in blue there to help you out.

"Don't trust your fate to the police, the planners, the pedestrians, or the paramedics." - Robert Hurst, The Art of Urban Cycling

Had to say it...

You should have taken the lane with authority and turned as soon as you reached the intersection...
I'm really getting weary with people that don't read.

That is my standard practice. In fact, I've challenged similar streams of motor traffic near the top of this same hill (two-lanes, shoulderless, 45-55 mph. traffic, BLIND PASSING) many times before.

What I learned (and you might someday, too) is that some drivers don't have the patience to wait for you to make your turn, even though you are occupying the center of the lane, AND THEY PASS YOU ILLEGALLY IN THE ONCOMING LANE ON A BLIND HILL.

Perhaps you have the gonads to risk some idiot that suddenly sees another speeding vehicle coming head-on, and swerves back into your lane, right into you. Oh, well, better to hit a cyclist than die in a head-on crash.

But you are welcome to "take authority" in that situation, that's your completely your choice. As for me, I'm "taking authority" over my own safety.

Well, I guess years of taking the lane accounts for nothing, the internet "experts" will always expose you with armchair philosophy...

;)

The law might assign "right of way", but you can't argue with physics. I tend to let something that has several thousand pounds on me have the right of way....the possible end result isn't worth it. I still say, he was a nice cop. :)

-Nate

This is your opinion.

But it's technically, and completely, illegal.


I believe holding up traffic is also illegal, which is what you would be doing by waiting behind someone who refuses to turn.




Passing a turning motorist is against the law. But if you wanna go for it...

My definition of a turning motorist is one who is actually turning. Someone with his turn signal on only is simply signaling a desire to turn and may be passed safely in some instances. You could have been interpreted as being the latter case.


By the way, what is the legal indication of a turn? I think it's that little blinkie thing operated by a switch-arm on the steering column...


I think the question is, what is the legal definition of a turn? Simply signaling does not define you as "turning" nor does it give you right-of-way. Legal initiation of the turn does both.

I'm really getting weary with people that don't read.


Maybe what you're actually tiring of is people who read between the lines ;)


What I learned (and you might someday, too) is that some drivers don't have the patience to wait for you to make your turn, even though you are occupying the center of the lane, AND THEY PASS YOU ILLEGALLY IN THE ONCOMING LANE ON A BLIND HILL.

Perhaps you have the gonads to risk some idiot that suddenly sees another speeding vehicle coming head-on, and swerves back into your lane, right into you. Oh, well, better to hit a cyclist than die in a head-on crash.

But you are welcome to "take authority" in that situation, that's your completely your choice. As for me, I'm "taking authority" over my own safety.


What you're saying is that there's no real safe way to turn left on this hill on a bike. So why not use the crosswalk if you value your safety so highly (my personal choice, as stated earlier)? Why do you instead turn left anyway but hedge it in such a way as to actually encourage cars to pass you even more?

One thing I see all the time is buses stop far right in a lane to drop passengers off. When they want to re-merge back into the traffic flow they put their left blinker on and when there is a sufficient gap they merge into the flow.

Al

You know, there's a point where there is right, and then there is dead right. If people are being stupid, you are by no means forced to have to participate in their stupidity. I see this a lot in my own neighborhood, when people will swing into oncoming traffic to make a point and pass me riding in the lane. I don't challenge them for the most part because if they mess up, I can't take 4-6 thousand pounds of metal and make it move from the outside.

I would hate or the epitaph on my headstone to read "Dead Right." Be smart... there are times and places to pick battles, and I would hate to think I was part of a head-on crash or be someone's hood ornament because of pride. It is a deadly sin.... LOL

Not sure about your rules, but in general, there's no such thing as 'right of way'. You won't see that expression in any road rule.Same here, and something that my driving instructor repeatedly hammered in my thick skull when I was preparing for the DL test. Our rules only have obligations to yield in various situations. There are 3 signs in our traffic code that somehow contain the concept "right of way", but those are informational and accompanied by yield signs to other directions.

--J

:D

Y'all through?

See page 42, especially, "Passing Bicyclists," and "Passing is prohibited on two-lane roads," number 5.

http://www.dds.ga.gov/docs/forms/FullDriversManual.pdf

Passing is prohibited "...On a hill or curve where it is not possible to see oncoming vehicles which might be close enough to be a hazard."

As I said, everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

;)

(Page 39 specifically mentions "Laws Governing Right-of-Way." I realize, however, that people in different locations use different terminology. No sweat, eh? In the GA manual it specifically mentions that right-of-way is somthing to be given, not taken.)

:beer:

Ride well.