Commuting - construction flagman directed me to the sidewalk

You moron, the outfit he works for is authorized by the state. They are also authorized by the state to delegate authority.

Wow, rude much?

I don't live in his state (if his avatar is any indication), and I must have missed the part where every construction employee is deputized as a traffic cop. Don't think that applies in my state. And if it does, I'm still not going to blindly obey him if he tells me to do something illegal/unsafe.

No, if someone tells me to do something dumb, I assume they're just stupid until proven otherwise.

Except that you don't know that it's dumb. The flagman has information that you lack.


First, how dare you malign malt liquor like that. ;) Second, if he expects me to do something that appears unsafe/illegal, I'll expect some clarification. I'm not blindly listening to the guy, because the possibilty that he's just another jackass telling me to get on the sidewalk does exist. But I'll still put that well behind the possibility that he's just an idiot.

And I'd put that a distant second to the possibility that he/she knows more than you about the conditions, is not out to get you, is not directing you to do something dangerous, and does not have the time to stop and dispense "clarification" to each and every individual who's trying to make it through the construction zone, no matter how many wheels they've got. The non-issue of the "illegality" of directing you to the sidewalk has already been addressed, multiple times, so I'm not going to explain it again.


Nope. In fact, so far, you're about 0/10 in assuming what I'm thinking. I don't ride on the sidewalk because it's unsafe for me and others. They're narrow, uneven, cars don't see you there, and they're populated by people walking, pushing strollers, handling dogs, etc.

Except that they aren't, always, and it isn't, always.


You seem to have me confused for the hard-core VC crowd. Not so. Of my usual commute, 60% is a wide MUP, 30% is a road wide enough to share (so I ride to the right), and 10% is a road with narrow lanes, where I take the lane. I have no ego-driven need to be on a road, be treated like a car, etc. I'm all about doing the safest thing for me and others. Note if I *decide* that a sidewalk is the safest recourse for a short distance, no problem, I'll coast at about 8mph. But I'm not going to blindly follow orders from some idiot hired by a construction company. I'm not a blind follower - on or off a bike - and never have been. So if he tells me to do something I know to be generally a bad idea, I'll ask why. Minus clarification, I'm going with my own judgment.

Whatever, dude. You may not be a "blind follower", but I'd say in this case you're establishing your credentials as a blindly stubborn person who insists that others who know more about a situation are "idiots". Guess that makes you the an original genius, huh?

Wow, rude much?

Someone who refers to people as "idiots" because of the job they do isn't in much of a position to criticize others for rudeness.

Someone who refers to people as "idiots" because of the job they do isn't in much of a position to criticize others for rudeness.
Again, you fail at reading comprehension. I don't call the person an idiot because of their occupation, I call them an idiot if they tell me to do something unsafe. The fact that they're a construction worker is only relevant because it means 1) they're not an officer of the law, and 2) probably haven't had extensive traffic safety training with specific emphasis on bicycles (remember, the premise is that he's giving me cycling-specific advice, unless he's directing cars onto the sidewalk too).



And I'd put that a distant second to the possibility that he/she knows more than you about the conditions, is not out to get you, is not directing you to do something dangerous, and does not have the time to stop and dispense "clarification" to each and every individual who's trying to make it through the construction zone, no matter how many wheels they've got.

Except you're wrong again, as the OP stated clearly that the sidewalk in question is an un-cyclable disaster. And if he has time to tell me to get on the sidewalk, he has time to tell me why I should obey unsafe advice. If the sidewalk is more rideable than the road, sure, I'll happily do it. However, in this case:


The sidewalk on one side is completely closed, the sidewalk on the other side is partially covered with construction debris and is partially being used as a parking lot for construction vehicles that I have to ride around. The traffic lane is clear when cars are going through. Therefore, the traffic lane is safest as long as I am moving with the flow of traffic.

I'm riding in the clear road. So you're avoiding the clear road and dodging bulldozers and debris on the sidewalk? Really?


Whatever, dude. You may not be a "blind follower", but I'd say in this case you're establishing your credentials as a blindly stubborn person who insists that others who know more about a situation are "idiots". Guess that makes you the an original genius, huh?
Nope. I'm just going off the premise the OP laid out. Known unsafe sidewalk, told to get on it by a person who is not an officer of the law. Do you do it? I don't, you apparently do. I don't understand the vitriol; I've been quite polite. You've made a number of baseless assumptions about my intelligence and mindset which, to date, have been 100% incorrect.

My standpoint is very simple. If the traffic lane is clear, I'm not following bad advice to dodge bulldozers on the sidewalk. I don't think that's crazy.

Again, you fail at reading comprehension.

You sure are cranky today. Eat some bran, willya?


Except you're wrong again, as the OP stated clearly that the sidewalk in question is an un-cyclable disaster.

Timing is everything, isn't it?


I ride through a road construction zone on my way to work and today the flagman directing traffic sternly told me to get on the sidewalk!! It was too busy to have a conversation and I didn't want to argue. So, I went to the sidewalk, rode around the flagman, and went back onto the street. It is bad enough that drivers don't know the rules of the road, but you'd think someone who is paid to direct traffic would.

No mention there about uncyclable disasters, is there? Like I said, timing is everything.


Nope. I'm just going off the premise the OP laid out.

Except he didn't, until about an hour ago. Must be nice to be prescient.

No, if someone tells me to do something dumb,..

Like, oh, maybe, just guessing, stay out of a construction zone?

Sorry, I quit reading your post after that opening phrase.

What's the deal here? So you rode on the sidewalk and then you got back on the street, get over it.

What's the deal here? So you rode on the sidewalk and then you got back on the street, get over it.

He's over it already (speaking for the OP; his second post is back at #50... shows how fast these threads take off, hm ;) ).

The issue, really, is disobeying the directions of a construction worker -- who's tasked, and given legal authority, to redirect traffic for safety reasons -- and such directions that would have a cyclist go somewhere that's normally illegal or discouraged.

To the OP, before your further clarification, I would have thought that the flagman... I mean, flagwoman was trying to do you a favor by letting you through on the sidewalk. Those situations are what I experience the most, where a whole block might be blocked off but there are other streets to use as detours. But, that wasn't the same in your case.

They certainly do take off

I must have missed the part where every construction employee is deputized as a traffic cop.

Yes, you did.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6685928&postcount=42

You sure are cranky today. Eat some bran, willya?
No, I'm cool actually. But if I'm insulted as either paranoid/VC (yeah, them's fightin' words!)/moron/elitist, I will defend myself calmly. No big deal.



Timing is everything, isn't it?

Don't know what you mean - you've made like 3 posts since he posted his 2nd, with yours directly contradicted by information in his posts. Certainly that's why my opinion of the situation became a little more concrete after his post.



Except he didn't, until about an hour ago. Must be nice to be prescient.
Passive aggressive much? I hear bran's good for that. ;)

I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a nice clear sidewalk he was being directed to over a torn-up roadway. I mean, that's logical right? Because even absent a flagperson, it would take a real moron to choose the chewed-up stuff instead of coasting for a block if that's the choice. But I stand by what I said, I'm not taking unsafe advice. The fact that it turned out to actually *be* dangerous shouldn't be surprising - I mean, why the heck else would he post about it? He didn't come across to me as one of the VC crazies who ride in the road wherever. Like I said, I'm not a VC guy, that's not my point.

Yes, you did.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6685928&postcount=42

As to your reference, I read it and am surprised at the level of legal authority vested in people with no little or no training. However, this stuff varies widely state to state. I don't know for sure what state he's in (guessing LA), so I can't say. That said, even if it is the law that you have to obey anyone with a flag, I'm guessing one could successfully argue that you're not required to obey patently dangerous advice. My guess is the law is not intended to give them such latitude to direct traffic outside the traffic plan that the engineers have established. In any event, if I'm ever forced to choose between safe and legal, I'll choose safe and deal with the consequences.

As to your other responses, I'm assuming you have read the guy's second post regarding the relative safety of the sidewalk in question, and how it had him dodging construction materials and equipment. I mean, obviously if what the flagger is suggesting is safe, I don't have a problem. Yes, if they're doing me a favor, I'll kindly wave and proceed if the sidewalk is clear. Yes, if it's to avoid a line of cars, or chewed roads, that's no problem. That's not the case here.

But if the question is, 'will you blindly obey the flagger no matter what?' - probably not. Fortunately all the ones I've encountered have been cool and I've never had a problem.

As to your reference, I read it and am surprised at the level of legal authority vested in people with no little or no training. However, this stuff varies widely state to state. I don't know for sure what state he's in (guessing LA), so I can't say.

That part that I quoted is from the Uniform Vehicle Code, a national outline. How much of it is used varies between states, true, but that specific passage is not state-specific.

Tell ya what, Mr. Underbridge, I think you're ignoring my points rather than refuting them, but I'm done with you all the same. Enjoy the last word and don't ever try to ride a fixie.

Wow, rude much?

I don't live in his state (if his avatar is any indication), and I must have missed the part where every construction employee is deputized as a traffic cop. Don't think that applies in my state. And if it does, I'm still not going to blindly obey him if he tells me to do something illegal/unsafe.

Where I live, the Ontario Highway Traffic Act applies. It clearly defines who can be a traffic control person (aside from a police officer):

“traffic control person” means a person who is directing traffic and,

(a) is employed by,

(i) the road authority with jurisdiction over the highway,

(ii) a public utility within the meaning of the Public Utilities Act or the Municipal Act, 2001,

(iii) a transmitter or distributor within the meaning of the Electricity Act, 1998, or

(iv) a person under contract with the road authority, public utility, transmitter or distributor to do construction or maintenance work on or adjacent to the roadway, or

(b) is employed by or under contract with a person who has been issued a permit or written authorization by the road authority with jurisdiction over the highway to occupy a lane or a portion of a highway in order to undertake work on or adjacent to the highway. (“agent de régulation de la circulation”) 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 23.

So, to answer your question: no, not any john doe can be "deputized" to direct traffic.