Advocacy & Safety - Pulled over for cycling vehicularly

So I'm cruising south on La Brea with my messenger bag loaded with groceries just barely outside of the door zone of parked traffic. I'm not flying, maybe 16 mph and I overtake a recreational cyclist fully in the door zone. There are two lanes of traffic to my left and a middle turn lane. I signal and then move into the middle of the middle lane, safely go around the recreational cyclist, and then get right again just outside of the door zone.

Next thing I know some motorcycle cop is pulling alongside of me and starts lecturing me as were cruising about how unsafely I'm cycling and that I need to stay as far right as possible. This pisses me off because the most unsafe thing that's happening is this guy distracting me while I'm cruising down a big arterial and second I tell him that he's flat out wrong and needs to read the motor vehicle code again as I have the right to be as far right as is safely possible, which I read to mean out of the door zone.

At this point he directs me to the curb and changes his story that he just wants me to be more careful.
So I reply about what? It's either ride careful or more dangerously as far right as possible. And well we know how much cop's love having someone question their authority, so this guy looks like he's about ready to pull a Rodney King on me and I decide to just nod along to his lecture. But then he starts in about the proper way to ride a bike and he's just telling me this for my own safety that I need to get as far right so that cars can safely pass me. Which is just wrong, so I tell the cop to go back and brush up on his bicycle law and further that he knows he is wrong or he would write me a ticket. It reminded me of some of the conversations I've had on this forum.

It just makes me sad that it's not only the drivers that need an education down here, but even law enforecement. BTW there is no bike lane on this road and even if there had been I still would have been in the right, so don't even go there. It's just a good thing someone didn't decide at that moment to run me down as it's clear that this cop would have cited me and not the driver.

Next thing I know some motorcycle cop is pulling alongside of me and starts lecturing me as were cruising about how unsafely I'm cycling and that I need to stay as far right as possible. This pisses me off because the most unsafe thing that's happening is this guy distracting me while I'm cruising down a big arterial and second I tell him that he's flat out wrong and needs to read the motor vehicle code again as I have the right to be as far right as is safely possible, which I read to mean out of the door zone.

Did you get his badge number? (And would a complaint make any difference where you are?)

So I'm cruising south on La Brea with my messenger bag loaded with groceries just barely outside of the door zone of parked traffic. I'm not flying, maybe 16 mph and I overtake a recreational cyclist fully in the door zone. There are two lanes of traffic to my left and a middle turn lane. I signal and then move into the middle of the middle lane, safely go around the recreational cyclist, and then get right again just outside of the door zone.

Next thing I know some motorcycle cop is pulling alongside of me and starts lecturing me as were cruising about how unsafely I'm cycling and that I need to stay as far right as possible.
This is a perfect example of how important educating everyone about the rights and duties of cyclists is. When a police officer doesn't even know what any 10 year-old trained cyclist knows, we are in trouble.

I think it might be a good idea to report his error in a respectful manner. Police have been known to be ignorant of traffic laws pertaining to cyclists, and you never know but that you might be just the lesson this one needs. But if you say nothing at all, his superiors will never know about it and he will continue to think he was right.

This is, of course, the most common misunderstanding nonbicyclists have regarding proper bicycling technique and the reason so many find vehicular cycling threatening. I used to live near Pico and Robertson and know the Fairfax/La Brea area well. The best place to ride on some of those streets is the right tire tracks, or in some cases, the center of the right lane. I occasionally get honked on Coast Highway 101 in downtown Encinitas, where I routinely take the center of the right lane because of diagonal on-street parking, midblock curb bump-outs, and other hazards.

I tell him that he's flat out wrong.

May I ask, what did you expect to happen next? I'm not saying you deserved it, but, hell, tell someone with a badge that he's "flat out wrong," and it's almost assured you will end up the loser. Sad to say, maybe, but the laws of human nature are far more immutable than the laws of vehicular cycling.

I was pulled over while cycling today . A motorist saw me and thought I was having difficulty riding my bike and called the cops. I explained to the officer that i was riding a fixed wheel with( 16 inch wheels) a 60 inch gear and it was rather hard going up a grade that way. It was cool once he found out I was alright . I got my boots all muddy though.

It just makes me sad that it's not only the drivers that need an education down here, but even law enforecement.

Wouldn't it be nice if PDs made it mandatory that every officer had to do a few months on bike patrol? It'd give them valuable perspective, for sure!

Why did you move into the center of the middle lane in order to pass a cyclist who was at the far right ("in the door zone") of the right lane? I would think there was plenty of room to safely pass the cyclist within the confines of the right lane. Perhaps this is what got the officers attention.

Why did you move into the center of the middle lane in order to pass a cyclist who was at the far right ("in the door zone") of the right lane? I would think there was plenty of room to safely pass the cyclist within the confines of the right lane. Perhaps this is what got the officers attention.
On some streets, the right/curb lane is used for travel during peak hours and for parking non-peak. I assumed from his post that the parked cars were in the right lane and Treespeed had to move over into the next lane to overtake the other cyclist. Please clarify, Treespeed.

Why did you move into the center of the middle lane in order to pass a cyclist who was at the far right ("in the door zone") of the right lane? I would think there was plenty of room to safely pass the cyclist within the confines of the right lane. Perhaps this is what got the officers attention.

You don't pass another car in the same lane; so why a bike?

Did you get his badge number? (And would a complaint make any difference where you are?)

Please note my words very carefully. If you ever get pulled over for any reason, and the officer only warns you, but you think you're being harassed, DO NOT ASK FOR THEIR BADGE NUMBER. They'll have a name badge on, and there's a unit number on the car. If you ask for their badge number, I can almost guarantee they will find something to write you a ticket for.

If they get a complaint that they pulled someone over, and did not write a citation, it leaves the onus on them to prove they weren't harassing you. If they give you a citation, it's much easier to just write you off as a disgruntled offender.

May I ask, what did you expect to happen next? I'm not saying you deserved it, but, hell, tell someone with a badge that he's "flat out wrong," and it's almost assured you will end up the loser. Sad to say, maybe, but the laws of human nature are far more immutable than the laws of vehicular cycling.

Yeah, pigs are pigs, just give em the "Yes sir" "No sir" routine then be on your way. Waste of time to try and "educate" a cop.

You don't pass another car in the same lane; so why a bike?

Because lanes are 12-14 ft. wide and a bike is less than three. Because riding two abreast is legal in many (most?, all?) states.

Because lanes are 12-14 ft. wide

not the ones I ride on :mad:

I guess it freaks out everyone when a cyclist actually takes not only a lane, but a middle lane.

I can hear 'em saying, "This isn't China, you know!"

:D

Riding as far to the right as practicable (who uses words like, "practicable..." ...oh, that's right, I do!) does not mean you can't pass. You can legally pass a car that's moving slower than you, which means changing lanes--but you can bet nobody will believe their eyes.

Riding as far to the right as practicable ... does not mean you can't pass. You can legally pass a car that's moving slower than you ...Or a ready-mix truck (they can be really slow to accelerate when they're spinning a full load of cement!). Now I feel inspired to tell another story. Ready? Here goes!

Once upon a time, NCDOT published a really excellent pamphlet called "Streetwise Cycling, a Guide to Safe Bicycling in North Carolina". NCDOT paid a firm owned by a nationally recognized expert, John Williams, to write the 32-pages. The stated purpose of Streetwise was to "... explain the rights and duties of bicyclists, as vehicle operators on North Carolina's roads."

As an example of what's in the "You're the Driver of a Vehicle" chapter of Streetwise, here's the explanation of NCGS § 20-146(b) which is titled "Slow moving vehicles must keep to the right side":
If you are going slower than the speed limit, you must ride
in the right through lane
or
as close to the curb as practicable.
However, you can move to the left to make a left turn or pass another vehicle going the same direction.

What does practicable mean? There is no hard and fast definition. In one situation, it might mean two feet; in another, eight feet. Just how close "practicable" is depends on the road, the surface, the traffic, the speed of the rider, and other factors. For example, you can ride far enough to the left to avoid a roadside hazard (like a drain grate, a parked car door, right turning cars or debris).
Note that there are two terms in this rule:
in the right through lane
as close to the curb as practicable
and that the operator which acts on those two terms is "or".

In other words, every operator traveling slower than the posted speed should be
in the right-hand through lane if it's marked and if it's usable
or
as close as practicable to the edge of the traveled way.

If you are going slower than the speed limit, you must ride
in the right through lane
or
as close to the curb as practicable.
However, you can move to the left to make a left turn or pass another vehicle going the same direction.


Is that really a quote from the pamphlet? Am I reading it right that he's saying I must exceed the speed limit to move off the curb? That can't be right? Aren't all vehicles supposed to be operated under the speed limit?

Is that really a quote from the pamphlet? Yup.


Am I reading it right that he's saying I must exceed the speed limit to move off the curb? The following quote is from the N.C. General Statute § 20-146. Drive on right side of highway; exceptions (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-146.html)
(b) Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the legal maximum speed limit shall be driven
in the right-hand lane then available for thru traffic,
or
as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the highway,
except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn.

Yup.

The following quote is from the N.C. General Statute § 20-146. Drive on right side of highway; exceptions (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-146.html)

Ah. Got it know. If I'm traveling at the speed limit I can move off the right side. Thanks for the clarification.

I was pulled over while cycling today . A motorist saw me and thought I was having difficulty riding my bike and called the cops.

LOL!

I hope the motorist pulled over before he used his phone :)

May I ask, what did you expect to happen next? I'm not saying you deserved it, but, hell, tell someone with a badge that he's "flat out wrong," and it's almost assured you will end up the loser. Sad to say, maybe, but the laws of human nature are far more immutable than the laws of vehicular cycling.

Wearing a badge doesn't make one infallible. Any cop that thinks that he is doesn't deserve to wear one.

A very funny thing. Laws are very much so subject to interpretation. For example. on my daily patrol I see people riding their bikes around. Both on the sidewalk and in the roadway. I have only had one person remove themselves from the roadway due to safety hazards. I don't harrass any of the riders on the sidewalk as there is only a few bike lanes that are more than sufficient for riders here in my town. That one person that I had remove himself from the roadway was riding on the right hand side of the road. Had only a rear reflector with no light and there was 8 inches fo snow on the ground and more still falling. It was extremely unsafe for him to be riding in the road along with the snow plows that were pushing the snow off to the sides (the right) and that visibility was very little.

A lot of what I'm hearing from most of you complaining about law enforcement is the demeanor of the officer. Not just your perception of your "rights being violated." The police officers demeanor. Is he talking to you like your parents did when you were in trouble, or is he calm and collective talking to you like you and him are adults.

Yes as a cyclist you have the same rights to the roadway. Along with the same duties. Rights and Duties are two different things. Yes you can use the lane, no you can't stay there unless. I say unless because there are things that come up that prevent you as a slower moving vehicle that keep you from being as close as practicable to the right hand side.

I hear everyone saying, "It's unsafe to ride near the curb because." I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually experienced enough to ride a bike. Some quick questions: There is a drainage grate ahead what should you do? Yes you can take the lane, but if you aren't confident enough to ride over the slats that run vertical to the road and take a bit of vibration? I don't understand. Ahead is another obstacle. A rock, a branch, a coke can. How do you proceed? Go around it quickly and get back to the right? Take the lane a half mile back to assure you position in the roadway? Slow down and wait for a good time to overtake it? Goodness knows you shouldn't have to slow down. Drivers never do. They just plow by me in my pertty little car with the flashy little red and blue lights saying "Caution, there's a problem ahead or right here."

Okay so driver's do have to slow down. But do they normally? From expience. Not a chance in hell. Pardon my French. If an officer pulls you over and asks you, tells you, or anything else he is looking out for your best interest. I do it all the time for the people that are driving their vehicles at 75, 80, or even 110 through areas that the speed limit is 35, 45, or 55. I'm looking out for everyone's safety. I've seen accidents that people have had to be cut out of vehicles. Could you imagine having soemone that just pulled away from the curb that was crushed between those two vehicles or vehicle vs. object. No you probably can't because your rights are your rights.

Driving is a priviledge. You as a cyclist has the right to utilize the roadway along with those that have had the priviledge of driving bestowed upon them, along with the one's that have had that priviledge taken away and are still disobeying the law, oh yeah and those that still have their priviledge but have chosen to impair their driving abilities with drugs, alcohol, or a combination of both. Don't let your "Right" impede your life. Most all officers are looking out for your safety whether you think so or not. You need to come to the realization that we see so much in a day that would lead us to believe that we are protecting you as the cyclist.

Now onto my speech that I give to every teenager that can't seem to get right and obey the rules, laws, and parents. We expect you to screw up here and there. Hell we screw up ourselves. "We are still human even though we wear that badge and gun." Yes there are a few that think that they are never wrong. But for the largest majority we try not to be right all the time.

The moral of the story. Don't just hate cops because they are harrassing you. They are looking out for you.

I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually experienced enough to ride a bike. Some quick questions: There is a drainage grate ahead what should you do? Yes you can take the lane, but if you aren't confident enough to ride over the slats that run vertical to the road and take a bit of vibration? I don't understand. Ahead is another obstacle. A rock, a branch, a coke can. How do you proceed? Go around it quickly and get back to the right? Take the lane a half mile back to assure you position in the roadway? Slow down and wait for a good time to overtake it? Goodness knows you shouldn't have to slow down. Drivers never do. They just plow by me in my pertty little car with the flashy little red and blue lights saying "Caution, there's a problem ahead or right here."


It's really not a good idea to be weaving in and out of the lane to avoid obstacles. It's far safer to take a predictable consistent line, and if that means taking it further into the lane then so be it. Didn't you know that?

That one person that I had remove himself from the roadway was riding on the right hand side of the road. Had only a rear reflector with no light and there was 8 inches fo snow on the ground and more still falling. It was extremely unsafe for him to be riding in the road along with the snow plows that were pushing the snow off to the sides (the right) and that visibility was very little.


I see what you are saying, but I still detect a paternalistic and 'motor vehicles first' mentality. If the cyclist riding in the snow was riding with lighting that was legal in your state would you still have 'had (him) remove himself from the roadway'?

What if he was returning home from work or going to work and had no other form of transportation? It would seem to me that any snowplows should be operated in such a manor in the stated weather conditions that they could safely see and pass a cyclist riding where he is supposed to be riding with the proper illumination. If the plow operators can't, they should not be operating plows.

How about removing unsafe plow operators or other motor vehilce operators from the road for everyone's safety?

Yeah, pigs are pigs, just give em the "Yes sir" "No sir" routine then be on your way. Waste of time to try and "educate" a cop.

That's a poor attitude. What happens when there is an altercation between a cyclist and a motor vehicle with the motor vehicle being at fault, however the police officer doesn't understand the law and cites the cyclist instead?

I always try to be friendly and courteous with the police I see on the streets. If I ever need their help, hopefully they'll remember me.

It's really not a good idea to be weaving in and out of the lane to avoid obstacles. It's far safer to take a predictable consistent line, and if that means taking it further into the lane then so be it. Didn't you know that?

Allister is right- I have seen a couple of cyclists here nearly get hit (within an inch or so) because they weave in and out of parked cars. You cant even 100% percent blame the car drivers because cyclists should check backwards before they move out and I know as a driver that it is very tempting to overtake cyclists in such circumstances.

Of course you should let faster vehicles pass when you can (I even sometimes stop and let them past) but my safety is much more important to me than someone elses desire to get to the next set of lights half a second faster and I believe it should also be more important to law enforcement representatives if they are worth anything.

Allister is right- I have seen a couple of cyclists here nearly get hit (within an inch or so) because they weave in and out of parked cars...

Indeed. Whether I am a motorist or a cyclist, riding along a line of parked cars drives me BATTY. I always worry about kids popping out between them. I almost always edge further over to the left when going by a line of cars. When I am on my bike I edge out into the main lane and stay there until I am past the line of cars; I can't see any other safe way to do it.

roughstuff

I always ride on the sidewalk to avoid such troubles...

That's a poor attitude. What happens when there is an altercation between a cyclist and a motor vehicle with the motor vehicle being at fault, however the police officer doesn't understand the law and cites the cyclist instead?

I always try to be friendly and courteous with the police I see on the streets. If I ever need their help, hopefully they'll remember me.

Agreed. The cops I know are just fellow citizens as far as I am concerned (I live in a small town).

Carry a copy of your local vehicle code with you on your ride.
Then you can say "good morning officer, thank you for your concern regarding my safety. I have a copy of the code right here and I am sure I am riding within the law. Now if you'll excuse me I don't want to be late for my next law school class."

Enjoy

Carry a copy of your local vehicle code with you on your ride.
Then you can say "good morning officer, thank you for your concern regarding my safety. I have a copy of the code right here and I am sure I am riding within the law. Now if you'll excuse me I don't want to be late for my next law school class."

Enjoy

Is that really what it comes down to? Do cyclists have to be "cycle lawyers" just to get their rights?

And shouldn't the cop have a copy of the CVC with him? Now since he did not issue a ticket, it seems that indeed the cop knew he was in the wrong and tried intimidation to try to sway the cyclist.

Of course there is probabaly a law that says that you have to obey a cop in areas of public safety... much as there is a rule in baseball that for any issues not covered by the rule book, the ump has the right to make judgements.

I was riding through a parking lot to Tower City (the downtown shopping mall of "Christmas Story" fame). I was stopped by the police and told I was not allowed to ride thriough the parking lot. He then proceeded to inform me that I should have heeded the "no pedestrian" sign. Apparently you are banned from access unless you are in a car. (and they wonder why they loose anchor stores)
So, yes, we must fight ignorance and bias with education and fact.

Enjoy

Why did you move into the center of the middle lane in order to pass a cyclist who was at the far right ("in the door zone") of the right lane? I would think there was plenty of room to safely pass the cyclist within the confines of the right lane. Perhaps this is what got the officers attention.

The far right lane was filled with parked cars. The next open spot was the middle lane.

Please note my words very carefully.

I'll take the ticket. I would rather prevent the cop from bothering someone else due to lack of education, not to mention doing so in a potentially dangerous way. (Of course, I know a complaint would be listened to here.)

GLOBAL INTERNET GOVERNMENT BY CHARLES WEBSTER BAER OF DOWNTOWN , PORTLAND , OREGON , USA , EARTH , IS ,



http://giglive.myblogsite.com

Wearing a badge doesn't make one infallible. Any cop that thinks that he is doesn't deserve to wear one.

I gave a cop **** last night for being parked in the bike lane (and half-way into the lane next to it). I was good natured about it, and he sort of stammered, "Uh... sorry sir. I didn't expect anyone to be cycling tonight." Gee, it was a few degrees above freezing with no windchill, why wouldn't I be on a bike? We exchanged pleasantries and I went on my way.

Does the LAPD have any bike officers?

You don't pass another car in the same lane; so why a bike?

Because lanes are 12-14 ft. wide and a bike is less than three. Because riding two abreast is legal in many (most?, all?) states.

Yes, but a cyclist (whether bi or motor) really should have about 3 feet of safety-margin space on both sides, in case he needs to suddenly swerve around a balance-throwing obstacle, like a pothole, which makes him effectively 8-9 feet wide.

Does the LAPD have any bike officers?

I haven't seen any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

They do have a wicked helicopter that circled over our neighborhood for almost an hour Friday night. Made it feel just like the WTO riots in Seattle all over again.

The far right lane was filled with parked cars. The next open spot was the middle lane.

Fair enough.

Yes, but a cyclist (whether bi or motor) really should have about 3 feet of safety-margin space on both sides, in case he needs to suddenly swerve around a balance-throwing obstacle, like a pothole, which makes him effectively 8-9 feet wide.

Nonesense. Two cyclists may, and do share the three foot buffer between themselves.

Consider that your hero advocates only three feet between car and cyclist (Effective Cycling 6th Edition, Chapter 29, page 294, "...cyclists lane-width rule:..."). Do not cars need to swerve to avoid obstacles like potholes, children, and vehicular cyclists?

Although I can find no reference to spacing between bicycles in Effective Cycling (curious that Forester does not address this common situation) there is an illustration in chapter 31, page 310 (figure 31.1) showing a car and two cyclists overtaking each other. The illustration shows the car on the left, a cyclist about 3 feet to the right of the car, and another cyclist about 3 feet to the right of the first cyclist. Although there is no scale to the figure, there is obviously not six feet between the two cyclists. It's obvious that there is the same distance between cyclist and car as there is between the two cyclists.

Forester also states that riding two abreast for the sake of campany is acceptable when conditions allow this to be done safely. In my opinion, being 8-9 feet apart would not constitute keeping company. In my experience on many bicycle rides, nobody rides 8-9 feet apart when they ride together, let alone when passing another cyclist.

Nonesense. Two cyclists may, and do share the three foot buffer between themselves.

Consider that your hero advocates only three feet between car and cyclist (Effective Cycling 6th Edition, Chapter 29, page 294, "...cyclists lane-width rule:..."). Do not cars need to swerve to avoid obstacles like potholes, children, and vehicular cyclists?

Although I can find no reference to spacing between bicycles in Effective Cycling (curious that Forester does not address this common situation) there is an illustration in chapter 31, page 310 (figure 31.1) showing a car and two cyclists overtaking each other. The illustration shows the car on the left, a cyclist about 3 feet to the right of the car, and another cyclist about 3 feet to the right of the first cyclist. Although there is no scale to the figure, there is obviously not six feet between the two cyclists. It's obvious that there is the same distance between cyclist and car as there is between the two cyclists.

Forester also states that riding two abreast for the sake of campany is acceptable when conditions allow this to be done safely. In my opinion, being 8-9 feet apart would not constitute keeping company. In my experience on many bicycle rides, nobody rides 8-9 feet apart when they ride together, let alone when passing another cyclist.
You're right. Thanks.

But still, then two cyclists need 3 (left buffer)+2 (cyclist)+3 (buffer)+2 (cyclist)+3 (right buffer)=13 feet.

Of course, the risk in reducing the buffer between two cyclists is considerably less than reducing the buffer between cyclist and motor vehicle - hence the danger of bike lanes that encourage motorists to pass cyclists in adjacent bike lanes without slowing down, and separated by little more than the width of the BL stripe...

They do have a wicked helicopter that circled over our neighborhood for almost an hour Friday night. Made it feel just like the WTO riots in Seattle all over again.
Your police friend must have mentioned you to his friend the nice police helicopter pilot! :D

May I ask, what did you expect to happen next? I'm not saying you deserved it, but, hell, tell someone with a badge that he's "flat out wrong," and it's almost assured you will end up the loser. Sad to say, maybe, but the laws of human nature are far more immutable than the laws of vehicular cycling.

Lets remember a COP's job is to enforce the law, not to make it up. No officer has the right just to harrass you because he does not like what you are doing, particularly when you have the law on your side. Take no crap from the police unless you are in the wrong, they have no legal power to harrass you when you are not breaking the law.

Other examples here where police favor motorists, especially the one in the article where the experienced cyclist's pedal "clipped the truck," not the "truck was passing so close that it clipped the cyclist's pedal."

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050314/NEWS/503130832/1060

Yes, there are many, many idiot cyclists out there and they give us all a bad name.

Of course there is probabaly a law that says that you have to obey a cop in areas of public safety... much as there is a rule in baseball that for any issues not covered by the rule book, the ump has the right to make judgements.
Thankfully, the USA is not run by MLB and we have a Constitution, including the 9th Amendment:




Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Please note my words very carefully. If you ever get pulled over for any reason, and the officer only warns you, but you think you're being harassed, DO NOT ASK FOR THEIR BADGE NUMBER. They'll have a name badge on, and there's a unit number on the car. If you ask for their badge number, I can almost guarantee they will find something to write you a ticket for.

We have a right to have our grievances heard in court in front of a judge, correct?

If ticketed, I'd call the police officer to court on it, bringing along a copy of the state law as it pertained to the situation. I'd probably be tempted to call the newspaper as well, as I'm sure they'd love to hear all about it... or at least I would write a letter.

If the cyclist riding in the snow was riding with lighting that was legal in your state would you still have 'had (him) remove himself from the roadway'?

He met the Arizona Statutes. He had a rear reflector, Arizona doesn't require a rear flashing light. The problem was that the snow was falling so heavily it was difficult to see him even once you got up on him. The plows here have the extra heavy lighting and would have been able to see him but the pushing the snow to the right as they normally do was my biggest concern. We had received those 8 inches within 2 hours and was still coming down.


I see what you are saying, but I still detect a paternalistic and 'motor vehicles first' mentality.

I do have to comment on this opinion. It would be a 'Public Safety' mentality. In any respect I don't believe that there are many officers that believe it is motor vehicle first. I sort of get the gist from most members here that they are first. It is a shared aspect. On another note it appears that some people don't seem to understand 'car vs. cyclist'. It is somewhat inevitable that the 150lb. person will lose to the 2000lb. plus vehicle. Public Safety First.


It's really not a good idea to be weaving in and out of the lane to avoid obstacles. It's far safer to take a predictable consistent line, and if that means taking it further into the lane then so be it. Didn't you know that?

Allister, you have this thing about you. Again I'm not sure, and reiterate, about some people's abilities to ride safely. Yes I understand the right to the lane. Yes I do understand the safety issues of obstacles on the right hand side of the road. There are very few areas in my town where the right hand side of the road is completly safe and has a bike lane. What I don't understand is if you know of the area problems, and if you can see an obstacle in advance, are you riding abilities that poor that you have "Weave" in and out of traffic again reminding you that as a cyclist you are the slower of the vehicles and are supposed to stay as close to the right as practicable. And don't start in with the "I pass vehicles when there is stand still rush hour traffic all the time because they aren't moving." I understand the aspect of rush hour. I lived in the Phoenix Metro area for 20 years. Anyway, you need to understand that last tid bit of information. Yes you have the right to utilize the lane if need be but you must do it safely. And again I still don't understand the whole I have to take the lane beause there is a small obstacle ahead i.e. a storm drain with horizontal grate or a small rock or stick in the way. Don't dig in with the whole car in the bike lane or on the right, that I do understand.

He met the Arizona Statutes. He had a rear reflector, Arizona doesn't require a rear flashing light. The problem was that the snow was falling so heavily it was difficult to see him even once you got up on him. The plows here have the extra heavy lighting and would have been able to see him but the pushing the snow to the right as they normally do was my biggest concern. We had received those 8 inches within 2 hours and was still coming down.


I stand by my original statement. If the cyclist was law-abiding as you state above he was, than you should have left him alone. Snow happens and it is up to those operating vehicles to respond accordingly. Snow plows can slow down, stop, lilft the plow, toot the horn, or take any number of precautions so that they don't plow snow on a cyclist or anybody else. If there is a little old lady trying to cross the street would they plow her in?

It just takes A TINY AMOUNT OF COMMON SENSE to handle these situations.

If you are concerned about the safety, than I suggest checking out those who pose the threat to other, not those who are threatened by others.

Thankfully, the USA is not run by MLB and we have a Constitution, including the 9th Amendment:


Don't kid yourself. MLB runs everything.

I hear they even have satellites that keep track of everything we do. :D