Originally Posted by
sudo bike
I don't entirely agree that any one road user's opinion should be the end all and be all of what is safe. By that token, one could argue that it should be up to the motorist to decide what constitutes a safe pass, since they have a better view and are engaging in the passing. As we know, what they deem safe isn't always so.
Agreed to a point. But as I've said given that we cyclists have the most to lose if the area that a motorist chooses for them (the cyclist) to pull over and let them (the motorist) pass turns out not to be safe. Their (the cyclists) judgment should weigh more than the motorists. And as you've said if the motorist and the LEO on the scene don't agree that is what the courts are for.
Originally Posted by
sudo bike
The truth is, the cyclist is practically the one who decides what riding position is safest for himself, because he is engaging in the activity; choosing his riding position. But that can always be challenged by authority, and to some degree that should exist. If a cyclist chooses to ride in the left tire track of a 30' lane because he feels unsafe, an officer should be able to challenge that opinion with his own (that he would be safe riding FRAP). The courtroom is where you have to actually defend your choice.
I think that most here would agree that a cyclist riding in the left tire track of a 30' wide lane is a gross violation of any states FRAP requirements (unless said cyclist was preparing to make a left hand turn). And such a cyclist should be challenged either by a LEO and/or in court.
Originally Posted by
sudo bike
Regardless, my point really was that any vehicle can impede traffic and be cited for hindering flow, including bicycles. Thankfully, we have special laws and rulings that support our right to travel, but that doesn't mean we have no duty to facilitate roadway sharing when needed.
Exactly, and exactly, I think that the case of Selz v Trotwood is one of those cases that has helped to clarify the law by stating that a cyclist traveling at a speed that is reasonable for them cannot be cited as impeding traffic as they are also part of traffic.
Originally Posted by
sudo bike
My experience is that most people don't especially care, and generally don't even think about cyclists when they're not on the road. But there will always be a large share of jerks... that's no excuse for shirking our duty to share the road. Respect is a two-way street, as it were.
Sadly, I think that the highlighted part is more likely to be true as evidenced by the number of posts that we have here about cyclists who have gotten buzzed while on their rides. Exactly, sadly there will always be a large share of jerks, and they're on both sides of the roads. Exactly, respect is a two-way street and I try to be respectful to other road users.
But if it's going to place my life or safety at risk than I'm sorry but by ass/safety takes priority over being respectful.
Originally Posted by
sudo bike
Yes they should be pateient, and no, they shouldn't be doing those things and I'm absolutely not defending that (and in my experience, they generally don't anyway, especially when a little courtesy is extended... I even get a wave now and again). I'm merely pointing out that as equal users of the road, we have as much duty to share it as anyone, as it seems to be the implication that we have a right to the roads with no legal duty to facilitate other traffic flow.
Exactly, and those cyclists who run run red lights, stop signs, blow past pedestrians at a high rate of speed, or doing nothing to show that we can all live together safely. And also sadly as we know it's the minority who are the bad apples, and that most folks remember them and not the majority who are sharing the road with other road users.