Advocacy & Safety - Enough of this "As Far to the Right as Practicable" Crap!

Read this, then give your thoughts if you'd like;
http://bicycleadvocacyandsafety.blogspot.com/2009/03/enough-of-this-as-far-to-right-as.html

You have just discovered the Mediterranean. Congratulations.

Its funny to see you guys in the US discover things that have been common knowledge in countries with more cycling culture for 20-odd years...

What I mean by take the lane is ride in the right hand tire track of the travel lane. This will mean I am about 3' to 4' off of the curb instead of 1' to 2'.


Freemason Cyclist has figured out to ride in a manner that prioritizes his safety instead of hugging the gutter. That is good.:thumb:

It's never practicable to ride to the right of the right hand tire lane for precisely the reason you outlined. The law is fine, it just took you a long time to realize its practical implications.

When I used to hug the curb I got passed too close, honked at, and occasionally harassed. Now I ride farther out and I rarely get anything more than an engine rev and the occasional honk. It may be that I simply exude more confidence (which scares off the weak monkeys) or it may be that they feel less afraid of what I'm doing.

"Taking the lane" for me means riding a couple feet right of the line. Riding there absolutely says in no confusing terms: "You must change lanes first."

Taking the lane means you will be butting heads with motorists that feel they own the road... Welcome to America, where the "car is king."

I am not against taking the lane, but detest the ongoing battle that tends to ensue, and that I have dealt with for years and years... it just gets old "swimming upstream."

(snip) "...it just gets old "swimming upstream."

Well, Gene, you know why Salmon swim upstream! ;)

Well, Gene, you know why Salmon swim upstream! ;)
...to get harassed by impatient motorists?

I've always interpreted "as far right as practicable" to mean riding in the right-hand tire track of the the right lane, unless there's a bike lane, or a clear, wide shoulder. (And don't get me started on the stupidity of some bike lane designs..) I don't think it's a good idea to idea to ride amongst gravel and other debris in the gutter, and riding in the "door zone" is just asking for it. There have been at least a dozen occasions over the last few years where a car door flew open just as I was passing; it could be that all the drivers looked in the mirror before opening the door, and decided I was safely out of range, but I doubt it. Taking the lane does annoy some drivers, usually more on principle than because you're actually slowing them down all that much, but an occasional 3-second conflict is still way better than eating asphalt.

Ride where you feel safe. That law is silly in many (not all) cases.

Well, Gene, you know why Salmon swim upstream! ;)

Yeah, but Salmon only do it ONCE!

As far as I'm concerned I have no problem with riding as far to the right as practicable because it allows for a varied interpretation. Sometimes, for example when I'm about to make a left hand turn, the most practicable place to be is the left hand lane of a three lane road. Sometimes if the road is narrow and busy and lined with parked cars it's right in the middle of the lane. And sometimes on high speed roads with lots of traffic traveling at 50 mph+ and no shoulder it's most practicable to be right on the white line if need be- I know there are some who will disagree with that choice on-line (no pun intended:rolleyes:) but I'd really like to see those sentiments put into practice on certain roads.

BTW my computer dictionary defines practicable like this-

practicable: able to be done or put into practice successfully

what's so crappy about that? push for something more specific and you could regret it.

I've grown to believe that "as far right as practicable" ought to apply to motorists as well as bicycles. If your tire isn't six inches from the edge of the road, we're gonna ticket your ass!

Seriously, the biggest problem with this advice, as I teach my students in my classes, is that it is *not* a safety directive, and is a weak third to 1) stay far enough to the left to avoid road hazards, and 2) stay far enough to the left that motorists do not attempt unsafe passes.

"As far right as practicable" is a *courtesy tip* and should never be observed when it places safety at risk.

Seriously, the biggest problem with this advice, as I teach my students in my classes, is that it is *not* a safety directive, and is a weak third to 1) stay far enough to the left to avoid road hazards, and 2) stay far enough to the left that motorists do not attempt unsafe passes.

"As far right as practicable" is a *courtesy tip* and should never be observed when it places safety at risk.

Who are the "students" in what "classes" of yours? How old are the students ?Are your teachings part of the approved course material/lesson plan, or are your own improvisations on the approved course and local law?

Now I ride farther out and I rarely get anything more than an engine rev and the occasional honk. It may be that I simply exude more confidence (which scares off the weak monkeys) or it may be that they feel less afraid of what I'm doing.

I think the fear factor is it. Commute Orlando recently did a survey of cyclist and motorist attitudes about bicycles on the road, and one of the most common comments from motorists is about being afraid of hitting a cyclist. Perversely, it seems to be a common reason for motorists to rush past them, sometimes unsafely, because they just "want to get the bicycle behind me", in their words.

I admit I'm getting into amateur psychology now, but I have heard that anger is called a "secondary emotion", which I guess means that anger most often arises out of some other emotion, not directly from the situation. The "primary emotion" that leads to the anger might be helplessness, frustration, or fear. For example, racist attitudes often arise from any or all of these primary emotions.

So you take an unpredictable cyclist alternating between apparently trying to stay out of the way, but then suddenly darting out to take a turn, or riding the wrong way, and the motorist response is "What they hell are they doing, they're going to get hit, they shouldn't be on the road!" Confusion and fear leading to anger.

Take a cyclist that is "acting like a car", riding in a straight line, signaling moves, stopping for red lights, and dressed visibly, and even if they delay a motorist for a few seconds, it is clear to the motorist what the cyclist is about to do, and the motorist has been given sufficient time to respond in a safe manner. No surprises, no confusion, possibly still some trepidation (after all, most motorists unfortunately have been conditioned to expect the unexpected from cyclists), but at most minor irritation, far less outright anger.

At least that has been my experience, and the experience of many others who ride this way.

Who are the "students" in what "classes" of yours? How old are the students ?Are your teachings part of the approved course material/lesson plan, or are your own improvisations on the approved course and local law?

Don't take the troll-bait, dogbreathpnw! If you are an LCI teaching LAB-sanctioned courses, he will slam you for drinking the VC kool-aid, and if anything else, he will slam you for passing off your own ideas as official recommendations. You can't win.

(Maybe you're outside the U.S., in which case I don't know exactly what he will say, but you still won't win.)

One of the few advantages of living in a state with a 3 foot law is, in a 12 foot or narrower lane, the "as far right as practicable" doesn't apply. There is an exception for lanes too narrow to safely share and a lane that narrow can not be safely shared with most cars. Most states have a similar exception even if they don't have a 3 foot law. If your state doesn't have a 3 foot law, you might be able to make the case that you need that minimum clearance based on other states laws and/or bike safety publications from advocacy groups or your state departement of trasportation.

Of course even if I wasn't covered by these laws, I would still ride where I need to ride to be safe.

I say one of the few advantages because the 3 foot law is almost never enforced.

I think the fear factor is it. Commute Orlando recently did a survey of cyclist and motorist attitudes about bicycles on the road, and one of the most common comments from motorists is about being afraid of hitting a cyclist. Perversely, it seems to be a common reason for motorists to rush past them, sometimes unsafely, because they just "want to get the bicycle behind me", in their words.
I admit I'm getting into amateur psychology now, but I have heard that anger is called a "secondary emotion", which I guess means that anger most often arises out of some other emotion, not directly from the situation. The "primary emotion" that leads to the anger might be helplessness, frustration, or fear. For example, racist attitudes often arise from any or all of these primary emotions.

So you take an unpredictable cyclist alternating between apparently trying to stay out of the way, but then suddenly darting out to take a turn, or riding the wrong way, and the motorist response is "What they hell are they doing, they're going to get hit, they shouldn't be on the road!" Confusion and fear leading to anger.

Take a cyclist that is "acting like a car", riding in a straight line, signaling moves, stopping for red lights, and dressed visibly, and even if they delay a motorist for a few seconds, it is clear to the motorist what the cyclist is about to do, and the motorist has been given sufficient time to respond in a safe manner. No surprises, no confusion, possibly still some trepidation (after all, most motorists unfortunately have been conditioned to expect the unexpected from cyclists), but at most minor irritation, far less outright anger.

At least that has been my experience, and the experience of many others who ride this way.

You've hit the nail on the head. I have seen this in practice, where car driver will be driving very calmy, and not in the least bit aggressive, but as soon as they approach a bicyclist from behind they will go into what seems like an attack mode, crowding the cyclist and then making a crazy, aggressive and dangerous pass, putting the cyclist, themselves and oncoming traffic in harms way. Anything to get ahead of the cyclist.

Continuing in your pop psychology analysis, I think the driver reaction comes from a very basic animal instinct, fight or flight. Whenever an animal, including human beings, are afraid, they basically have to pick between two options, running away, or becoming aggressive. The unsafe passes are merely the animal part of the human brain choosing to be aggressive.

Of course, I'm not justifying drivers behavior, I'm simply trying to explain it, since if you know what a person's motivation is, you can more effectively adapt a strategy to deal with it.

I try to stay as far right as possible and always will. I understand that we are truly guests of the public roadways. We are not capable of maintaining most speeds limits unless it's on a downhill and we don't pay taxes for the roadways since we don't use gas or get tags for our bikes. If we are to be considered the same as cars then vehicles passing us on a double yellow is technically illegal. But if cops enforced the double yellow law then we'd be impeding traffic which would mean we'd get a ticket too. Also we scream we want to be treated the same as cars but how many of us while riding on roadways lane split to the front of the line? We don't even need a license or insurance to ride our bikes on a roadway.

As for wearing high viz clothing. At my work I am required to wear high viz safety vests and we have a saying. "The yellow is so they can find the body". Don't get a false sense of security with a yellow vest.

I try to stay as far right as possible and always will. I understand that we are truly guests of the public roadways.

No more and no less than car drivers are.


We are not capable of maintaining most speeds limits unless it's on a downhill
...
If we are to be considered the same as cars then vehicles passing us on a double yellow is technically illegal. But if cops enforced the double yellow law then we'd be impeding traffic which would mean we'd get a ticket too.

Slower speed does not mean we have less of a right to use the road. Riding slower than prevailing traffic basically brings you under the wording of the Slow Moving Vehicle and/or Bikes on the Right laws, both of which usually say you should be as far right as "practicable", which basically means "able to be practiced by a reasonable person". If riding too far to the right means you are passed too closely by motorists trying to squeeze by you in the same lane, that is not a reasonable way to use the road because it is not safe.

Traffic impedence laws vary from state to state, and I'm not familiar with them. In at least some states, I have read that it explicitly applies only to motor vehicles, and in other cases, applies only when the vehicle is intentionally operating slower than it is capable of. These don't apply to bicyclists. However, as I said, I don't know too much more about this. Certainly, I too have heard stories of cyclists getting such tickets. However, I'd rather get a ticket than be killed by a too-close pass, especially if there's a chance I can do some legal research and get it thrown out in court, with some education of law enforcement happening as a result. Consult your local bicycle coalition.

That said, certainly be courteous and pull over for a bit if traffic is piling up behind you.


and we don't pay taxes for the roadways since we don't use gas or get tags for our bikes.

Most local roads are not 100% covered by gas and vehicle taxes. In most places, other general funds also go into it, which cyclists pay into as much as other people -- sales tax or property tax. (Even if you rent, you are helping your landlord pay his/her property tax). In addition, many cyclists also own and operate cars anyway.

Besides all that, even if local roads were 100% paid for by motor vehicle users, that still does not legally diminish the rights of users of other modes on them -- bicycles, pedestrians, horseback-riders, Amish buggies, etc.


Also we scream we want to be treated the same as cars but how many of us while riding on roadways lane split to the front of the line? We don't even need a license or insurance to ride our bikes on a roadway.

My personal feeling about this is I will filter up on either the right or left, very slowly and carefully, if traffic is congested and either stopped or moving extremely slowly for a long distance. I do not filter up at intersections under normal conditions. In fact, if traffic is slowing to a red light, I signal and move into the center of the appropriate lane for my destination (not always the right-most) to control the lane when stopped. Under those conditions, I am not moving less than the prevailing speed of traffic, so any Slow Moving Vehicle, Bikes on the Right, or Impeding Traffic laws do not apply. Technically, I suppose you might be cited for splitting the lane. But I doubt you would.


As for wearing high viz clothing. At my work I am required to wear high viz safety vests and we have a saying. "The yellow is so they can find the body". Don't get a false sense of security with a yellow vest.

But you have to make some kind of assumption that you are seen, in order to interact predictably. Hi-Viz and being further into the lane, where people are concentrating, both help a lot. Of course nothing is guarenteed. "Trust but verify" is the phrase that comes to mind.

I thought this was just common sense. Doesn't everyone do it?

trust but verify is a worthless cold war propaganda slogan that is not applicable to defensive bicycling...

that operating directive for bicycling into potential conflict is more like "trust and go; if not, then slow"

As far as I'm concerned I have no problem with riding as far to the right as practicable because it allows for a varied interpretation...

practicable: able to be done or put into practice successfully

what's so crappy about that?

Yeah. I think the problem lies in the bloggers ignorance of what practicable means.

Practicable does not mean hugging the curb. What is practicable in one block and situation may not be in another. It means the cyclist can choose where to ride in the lane based on the potential safety of riding in that space.

Yeah. I think the problem lies in the bloggers ignorance of what practicable means.

Practicable does not mean hugging the curb. What is practicable in one block and situation may not be in another. It means the cyclist can choose where to ride in the lane based on the potential safety of riding in that space.

And I live by the motto " when in doubt, take the lane".

If the lane is not wide enough so that a car can pass me while giving me 3 feet of room when I am a couple of feet from the right edge of the road, I take the lane.

When I approach an intersection, I always take the lane well before I reach it. Intersections are some of the most dangerous situations a cyclist will encounter, I don't want a car trying to pass me in my lane right before or in an intersection.

You've hit the nail on the head. I have seen this in practice, where car driver will be driving very calmy, and not in the least bit aggressive, but as soon as they approach a bicyclist from behind they will go into what seems like an attack mode, crowding the cyclist and then making a crazy, aggressive and dangerous pass, putting the cyclist, themselves and oncoming traffic in harms way. Anything to get ahead of the cyclist.

Continuing in your pop psychology analysis, I think the driver reaction comes from a very basic animal instinct, fight or flight. Whenever an animal, including human beings, are afraid, they basically have to pick between two options, running away, or becoming aggressive. The unsafe passes are merely the animal part of the human brain choosing to be aggressive.

Of course, I'm not justifying drivers behavior, I'm simply trying to explain it, since if you know what a person's motivation is, you can more effectively adapt a strategy to deal with it.

Hmmmmm Elephant and mouse scenario??

I've grown to believe that "as far right as practicable" ought to apply to motorists as well as bicycles. If your tire isn't six inches from the edge of the road, we're gonna ticket your ass!

Seriously, the biggest problem with this advice, as I teach my students in my classes, is that it is *not* a safety directive, and is a weak third to 1) stay far enough to the left to avoid road hazards, and 2) stay far enough to the left that motorists do not attempt unsafe passes.

"As far right as practicable" is a *courtesy tip* and should never be observed when it places safety at risk.

If it's not safe it can't be considered practicable. I fail to see where you disagree with the law.

One of the few advantages of living in a state with a 3 foot law is, in a 12 foot or narrower lane, the "as far right as practicable" doesn't apply. There is an exception for lanes too narrow to safely share and a lane that narrow can not be safely shared with most cars. Most states have a similar exception even if they don't have a 3 foot law. If your state doesn't have a 3 foot law, you might be able to make the case that you need that minimum clearance based on other states laws and/or bike safety publications from advocacy groups or your state departement of trasportation.

Of course even if I wasn't covered by these laws, I would still ride where I need to ride to be safe.

I say one of the few advantages because the 3 foot law is almost never enforced.

It is hoped that this will change in Iowa. It has passed in the Senate, but right now the so called Bicycle Bill of Rights, which includes a 5' passing law is stalled in the House. Once it passes, if it passes in this session, the as far to the right as practicable will no longer apply. Problem is I can no longer nor will I wait that long.

Let me clear something up. Sorry I didn't mention this before. When ever I approach an intersection that is controlled by stop signs or lights I always take the lane, in fact I put myself in the center of the lane to prevent any other traffic from coming up beside me. I even take the lane if the light is green until I get across, then I move back to the right. There are some roadways where I have to take the lane to safely ride on it, these are narrow residential roadways. There is no other choice but to take the lane to stay out of the door zone and prevent drivers from doing other stupid things like right hooking, etc. and to force them to either wait or safely pass.

Hamilton Blvd, one of the roadways mentioned in the blog, is on of Sioux City's major arterials. At the intersection of 36th and Hamilton is where it tapers down to 2 lanes and is in a residential area, but the speed is still 30 to 35 mph. I think this is because the road is wide enough and there is no on street parking allowed. From Stone Park Blvd north Hamilton is not too bad to ride on. I will not ride on it south of Stone Park though. Much more busy going south toward the interstate, this area is 99% commercial.

Cunningham Dr. is not an arterial, but still a very busy roadway. A lot of traffic use it when there is a train blocking access to Lewis Blvd, etc. Cunningham is 30 to 35 mph and is in an area that is 100% industrial/commercial.

Continuing in your pop psychology analysis, I think the driver reaction comes from a very basic animal instinct, fight or flight. Whenever an animal, including human beings, are afraid, they basically have to pick between two options, running away, or becoming aggressive. The unsafe passes are merely the animal part of the human brain choosing to be aggressive.

It's not that complicated. Most drivers see cyclists as erratic and unpredictable. Cyclists are also in a place that is less visible to the driver. Reducing the time spent in the vicinity of the bicyclist decreases the (apparent) risk (to the driver). (Note too that the driver is seeking to reduce the need for the buffer on the left side.)


Seriously, the biggest problem with this advice, as I teach my students in my classes, is that it is *not* a safety directive, and is a weak third to 1) stay far enough to the left to avoid road hazards, and 2) stay far enough to the left that motorists do not attempt unsafe passes.
"As far right as practicable" is a *courtesy tip* and should never be observed when it places safety at risk.
One is supposed to take into account road condition/safety issues when deciding what is "practicable" in a given situation. "Courtesy" never, never overrides safety on the road and everywhere else.

Read this, then give your thoughts if you'd like;
http://bicycleadvocacyandsafety.blogspot.com/2009/03/enough-of-this-as-far-to-right-as.html

I started 'taking the lane' in May'08, after a car ran me off the road!!!!:mad: Then, When the police from two jurisdictions(county n' city) showed up, she told the officers, she never saw me, when I was in front of her, only moments before!!!!!!:mad:

Don't take the troll-bait, dogbreathpnw! If you are an LCI teaching LAB-sanctioned courses, he will slam you for drinking the VC kool-aid, and if anything else, he will slam you for passing off your own ideas as official recommendations. You can't win.

(Maybe you're outside the U.S., in which case I don't know exactly what he will say, but you still won't win.)
Trolling :lol:. What a laff and even more a bogus attempt to deter any straying from the reservation.
Since you apparantly have all the answers and don't want him to answer for his own statements - Is dogbreathpnw's specific "teachings" found in the LAB sanctioned materials? Does the LAB approve of teaching minors in class about traffic laws just being advisory to be overruled by the impromptu advice provided by its instructors?

Do all LCI's and the LAB, or just you, consider it trolling to suggest that LAB and any off the reservation instructors may be looking for legal problems if LAB approved paid instructors' are known for teaching not in the lesson plan "advice", contrary to the traffic law, to students, especially minors, and any students get involved in a bike accident that somehow can be associated with that improvised "advice".

Interesting and timely topic for me...Sat. I was riding on a not busy, local street with a bike lane, that folks park in, in places. it is a very wide, 2 lane street.(not sure but atleast 50' wide) When I am in that situation, and pass the parked car I take the right wheel path of the lane when I go around the parked cars.(clear them by at least 2 or 3 feet) There were no other cars for blocks coming from the other direction. Some CS'er in a 4w/d Jeep came within a foot and a half of me when he passed. I got really angry, and caught him at the stop light about a block further up the street.I stopped behind him and called the State Patrol number to report Dangerous drivers,on my cell, then moved up to wait for the light to change. he started to jaw at me and I lost it ,and screamed various epithats (sp.) at him ..Still feel bad about it. did I err to yell at him, and make a scene????

Don't take the troll-bait, dogbreathpnw! If you are an LCI teaching LAB-sanctioned courses, he will slam you for drinking the VC kool-aid, and if anything else, he will slam you for passing off your own ideas as official recommendations. You can't win.

(Maybe you're outside the U.S., in which case I don't know exactly what he will say, but you still won't win.)

Why is this troll bait? I don't understand your warning. dogbreath, like several others who posted in this thread, seems to not understand the meaning of the word "practicable". If this misunderstanding of the law is being taught in schools or courses it's certainly worthy of discussion.

One of the basic understandings of road use by all vehicles is that the slower vehicle stay to the right, which allows faster vehicles to pass on the left. Even on a freeway in my car I follow this maxim and don't like cars passing on my right. Staying as far to the right as practicable, as I said in a previous post, can mean basically anywhere on the road way provided you can reasonably justify your presence in that position.

This is what gives some of the "take the lane" advocates a kind of "drunk the kool-aid" reputation because it seems to override common sense. Yeah, take the lane when it's appropriate but know that it's not always going to be appropriate.

To me "riding as far to the right as practicable" makes perfect sense. If some of you interpret that as "ride in the gutter" that's your problem but it sure ain't mine.

One of the basic understandings of road use by all vehicles is that the slower vehicle stay to the right, which allows faster vehicles to pass on the left. Even on a freeway in my car I follow this maxim and don't like cars passing on my right. Staying as far to the right as practicable, as I said in a previous post, can mean basically anywhere on the road way provided you can reasonably justify your presence in that position.
I get passed on the right sometimes, it's about the most dangerous thing that can happen and freaks me out every time. It's extremely illegal and the police here are generally hard on people making such maneuvers.

I get passed on the right sometimes, it's about the most dangerous thing that can happen and freaks me out every time. It's extremely illegal and the police here are generally hard on people making such maneuvers.


I was recently passed on the right as I took the right lane on my bicycle by a car too impatient to wait for the cars in the left lane to make their way past me.

sometimes you just can't win.:rolleyes:

"Taking the lane" is legal in California under the provisions indicated in the California Vehicle Code. It is unfortunate that a lot of Ca. LEOs are not even aware of the CVC regarding bicycles and bicyclists. A friend/cyclist of mine carries a print-out of CVC 21200 & co. It came in handy one day when he was stopped by a cop for taking the lane (in the city of Alameda). The cop was nice enough to admit he was not aware of the vehicle code, and eventually released my friend.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21200-21212

Cops can't be aware of every law. They'd have to spend years and years in law school to do that, and at that point the last thing I'd do is take a $28k a year job to be shot at by some 16 year old who doesn't want to be caught with a joint.

It's cool he let him go but I'd have to atleast give him one good tasing for proving me wrong.

Why is this troll bait?
Presumably because John Brooking like some other Guardians of VC™ has no rational or logical response so instead resorts to the tried and true method of ad hominem argument (or cry of "personal insult" or some other lame/bogus label) to deflect any questioning or doubt of the wisdom of the mantras and Great Truths about VC™ that get posted on BF.

I notice that many states---including Massachusetts---now have laws that require motorists to slow down and, if safely possible, to move left into the other lane when passing police or emergency vehicles stopped at the side of the road. Perhaps this will make the coppers more sympathetic to the argument that bikes need similar passing laws, as well?

roughstuff

.....Staying as far to the right as practicable, as I said in a previous post, can mean basically anywhere on the road way provided you can reasonably justify your presence in that position.

This is what gives some of the "take the lane" advocates a kind of "drunk the kool-aid" reputation because it seems to override common sense. Yeah, take the lane when it's appropriate but know that it's not always going to be appropriate.

To me "riding as far to the right as practicable" makes perfect sense. If some of you interpret that as "ride in the gutter" that's your problem but it sure ain't mine.

I think these questions of interpretation are why courtesy is a more powerful weapon on the roadways than 'laws' are. I have always viewed the shoulder (if there is one) as THE bike lane, and enter the main lane of traffic only when absolutely necessary. This is of course, perfectly consistent with your viewpoint about 'riding as far to the right as practicable.

roughstuff

[QUOTE=smittie61984;8537763]I try to stay as far right as possible and always will. I understand that we are truly guests of the public roadways.

You are not "truly guests, etc." You are on public roadways by right, and that right is superior to that of the driver, for the following reasons:
You are entitled to be on it without passing any kind of test or being required to have a licence whereas a driver must meet that requirement

Your bike does not have to have a current licence plate/annual tax/whatever, whereas a driver is so required

You can ride on the road without any form of public liability insurance, whereas the driver must have it (I assume that such is the case in your state)

Your bike does not have to meet specified annual mechanical safety tests. I assume again, that, in most states this is also the case


We are not capable of maintaining most speeds limits unless it's on a downhill and we don't pay taxes for the roadways since we don't use gas or get tags for our bikes.
Is there any law which requires all road users to maintain the posted speed limit? If not, then I have read on this forum that the only condition which might apply is that pertaining to "slow moving vehicles". In such cases, common sense applies: in the UK, you are required not to hold up a line of vehicles unless it is unavoidable. Ordinary road users' courtesy should be applied.


If we are to be considered the same as cars then vehicles passing us on a double yellow is technically illegal. But if cops enforced the double yellow law then we'd be impeding traffic which would mean we'd get a ticket too.
Crossing a double yellow is the freely decided action of the driver and not forced on him/her by your speed/position. How can you be blamed?


Also we scream we want to be treated the same as cars but how many of us while riding on roadways lane split to the front of the line?
Does the law forbid this? And does it affect any drivers you overtake in doing so? Are they held up by your action?


We don't even need a license or insurance to ride our bikes on a roadway.
See my opening argument.

[QUOTE]

You are not "truly guests, etc." You are on public roadways by right, and that right is superior to that of the driver, for the following reasons:


Okay, the use of "Rights" has gone too far. Everyone has a "Right" to whatever it is they want. F you cars, I have a "Right" to this road or "F U McDonalds it's my right to get Sweat Tea". And if we are going to scream "Rights" let's make it something worthwhile. "I have a right to cheap Asian prostitutes to be paid for by others". Sounds good to me.

And where is this "right" to have a bicycle on a government roadway? I'm checking my Bill of Rights. Let's see something about arms, yapping, soldiers, speedy gonzalez, etc. Oh well I'm sure your "right to bicycle" is in there somewhere. I'll get to it tommorow.

When you have little blue-haired grandmas in Buicks honking at you to get out of the way. You are obstructing traffic and just being a jackass. Get to the right and let her by.

To me "riding as far to the right as practicable" makes perfect sense. If some of you interpret that as "ride in the gutter" that's your problem but it sure ain't mine.

Yup. I used to take the lane much more than I do now. Now I just ride in the right half of the lane instead of in the center. Cars have more room to pass, yet still have to move without just driving straight past me as if I weren't on the road. It's a good mix for me. There are still some areas where I take the whole lane, but as soon as practical (i.e., once there are no longer cars parked on the side of the road, or once the road is uphill), I move to the right half or third of the lane. I'm less in the way of cars, while not significantly compromising my safety (and potentially increasing it, due to the reduction of road rage). So yeah. I ride as far to the right as practicable. It's not such a big deal.

[QUOTE=atbman;8547342]

Okay, the use of "Rights" has gone too far. Everyone has a "Right" to whatever it is they want. F you cars, I have a "Right" to this road or "F U McDonalds it's my right to get Sweat Tea". And if we are going to scream "Rights" let's make it something worthwhile. "I have a right to cheap Asian prostitutes to be paid for by others". Sounds good to me.

And where is this "right" to have a bicycle on a government roadway? I'm checking my Bill of Rights. Let's see something about arms, yapping, soldiers, speedy gonzalez, etc. Oh well I'm sure your "right to bicycle" is in there somewhere. I'll get to it tommorow.

Our roads and highways are "public rights of way". Most of the roads I travel on daily, the street I live on, for example, was a road long before cars existed, even before bikes existed. And more than likely these rights of way will exist long after automobiles are the primary means by which we travel. So your point about "where is this "right" to have a bicycle on a government roadway" could just as much apply to automobiles and trucks as it does to bikes. Our right has to do with unimpeded access. Freedom to travel. And our freedom to travel under our own power precedes motorized transport by several centuries. In Western Europe the oldest roads are pre-Saxon, pre-Roman, pre-Celtic.

So when you say that "the use of Rights has gone too far" you're talking about a pretty old right here. If it "went too far" it went too far a long, long, long, long time ago.

The old lady in the Buick may have the same right to the public way as a cyclist and yes, a cyclist, should no more impede her right of way as she should the cyclist but it's a shared space and common sense and reason should prevail over the dominance of one means of transport over another.

Well, Gene, you know why Salmon swim upstream! ;)

To feed the hungry bears

Our roads and highways are "public rights of way". Most of the roads I travel on daily, the street I live on, for example, was a road long before cars existed, even before bikes existed. And more than likely these rights of way will exist long after automobiles are the primary means by which we travel. So your point about "where is this "right" to have a bicycle on a government roadway" could just as much apply to automobiles and trucks as it does to bikes. Our right has to do with unimpeded access. Freedom to travel. And our freedom to travel under our own power precedes motorized transport by several centuries. In Western Europe the oldest roads are pre-Saxon, pre-Roman, pre-Celtic.

So when you say that "the use of Rights has gone too far" you're talking about a pretty old right here. If it "went too far" it went too far a long, long, long, long time ago.

The old lady in the Buick may have the same right to the public way as a cyclist and yes, a cyclist, should no more impede her right of way as she should the cyclist but it's a shared space and common sense and reason should prevail over the dominance of one means of transport over another.

Fully agreed!

The issues come when folks believe that speed = rights. Or that they have the "right" to drive at the speed they want. That is the real crux of the problem. Far far too many motorists misunderstand what speed LIMIT means... somehow it has become the norm to drive as close to the LIMIT as possible.

Fully agreed!

...it has become the norm to drive as close to the LIMIT as possible.

In my experience it has become the norm to drive as much over the speed limit as local law enforcement allows. Usually between 5 and 15 mph above the speed limit depending on circumstances.

On a recent road ride I was going between 22 and 27 mph on a country lane with a 25 mph speed limit and on that particular road riding as far right as practicable, which, at those speeds and with frost heaves and potholes, was pretty much dead center of the lane. Cars would race right up behind me and pull around gunning it to at least 40 to go around me.

I'm not even saying this by way of "complaint" it's just the reality of riding on the roads.

In my experience it has become the norm to drive as much over the speed limit as local law enforcement allows. Usually between 5 and 15 mph above the speed limit depending on circumstances.


Yup. I'll freely admit I do this when driving as well; the only time I or most cars I see observe the limit is when traffic, police, or inclement weather intercede. I almost always cruise at 5 mph over the limit when in town. Speed limits are read as "at least" markers by most drivers; you should be going "at least" the speed on the sign, and higher if possible.

In my experience it has become the norm to drive as much over the speed limit as local law enforcement allows. Usually between 5 and 15 mph above the speed limit depending on circumstances.

On a recent road ride I was going between 22 and 27 mph on a country lane with a 25 mph speed limit and on that particular road riding as far right as practicable, which, at those speeds and with frost heaves and potholes, was pretty much dead center of the lane. Cars would race right up behind me and pull around gunning it to at least 40 to go around me.

I'm not even saying this by way of "complaint" it's just the reality of riding on the roads.

Agreed... you are right that is generally the case... which means LIMIT means nothing to these folks.

I also see far too much close following... the 2 second rule apparently no longer exists. I often see these "trains" of cars with not much more than one car distance between them. Which means for us cyclists, that when the fast leading vehicle suddenly pulls over, the one behind may not have time to react to the cyclist in the road.

All things considered, if speed limits and safe driving practices were readily followed, "sharing the road" wouldn't be such a big deal....

But bad habits along with cell phones and other distractions... just take the fun out of it. :mad:


Yup. I'll freely admit I do this when driving as well; the only time I or most cars I see observe the limit is when traffic, police, or inclement weather intercede. I almost always cruise at 5 mph over the limit when in town. Speed limits are read as "at least" markers by most drivers; you should be going "at least" the speed on the sign, and higher if possible.

BTW as a driver, we can set examples... I drive at or below the speed limit, always. You can too.

[QUOTE]Okay, the use of "Rights" has gone too far. Everyone has a "Right" to whatever it is they want. F you cars, I have a "Right" to this road or "F U McDonalds it's my right to get Sweat Tea". And if we are going to scream "Rights" let's make it something worthwhile. "I have a right to cheap Asian prostitutes to be paid for by others". Sounds good to me.

And where is this "right" to have a bicycle on a government roadway? I'm checking my Bill of Rights. Let's see something about arms, yapping, soldiers, speedy gonzalez, etc. Oh well I'm sure your "right to bicycle" is in there somewhere. I'll get to it tommorow.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between the legally established right for cyclists to use the highway and the OTT "Rights" you use as somewhat bizarre comparisons. If you disagree with my analysis, please feel free to demolish it by pointing out where it is wrong. I'm unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights, but I take it that not all rights are enshrined in it.

You certainly have freedom of movement, whether in the Constitution or not. If you do have freedom of movement, then that freedom can only be limited by legislation. The legislation limiting a driver's freedom is enshrined in the regulations which a driver must comply with before taking to the highway. The only legislation which affects a cyclist's right to ride is that which refers to such roads as freeways. There is none limiting that right, to the best of my knowledge, regarding the highway generally.


When you have little blue-haired grandmas in Buicks honking at you to get out of the way. You are obstructing traffic and just being a jackass. Get to the right and let her by.

If you have a little blue-haired grandma in a Buick honking at you to get out of the way, you may or may not be obstructing her, bearing in mind that most states, AFAIK, give cyclists the right to take the lane in certain, legally defined circumstances, so whether or not you are obstructing her will depend on those circumstances. For example, if you are in a narrow lane, 2 lane highway, with central lane markings forbidding her to overtake, then you are not obstructing her, not being a jackass, but doing what is prudent and legally allowed for your own safety.

If you are holding her up for no good, legally justified, reasons, then you are being a jackass and should move over. Nothing in my argument said otherwise.