Originally Posted by
Bekologist
not sure you missed the reference to not unduly obstruct, or the reference to cyclists duties.....
you don't read this in the current mass rules of the road?
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Ge...r85/Section11b
"Nothing in this clause shall relieve a bicyclist of the duty to facilitate overtaking as required by section 2 of chapter 89. "
A bicyclist has a clear duty to facilitate overtaking in massacusetts that long predates statutory traffic law as a common law governing public use of the roadways.
If a rider fails to meet the entirety of their duties under the law, they are not 'within their rights'. riding without regard to not unduly delay could rise to the level of reckless disregard for others' expected fair use of the roadway, as similar circumstances that led to chipseals legal failure to prove similar 'rights' like those speciously claimed by the videographer.
the language directing cylists to safely and considerately share the road with faster traffic is firmly emplaced in the traffic laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. do not unduly delay, facilitate overtaking, give way to the right....
How much more explicit does traffic statutes about the historical and commonsense application of fundamental rules of the road have to be for the bicycle drivers "got to be in the LANE" obstreperousness club to come to grips about their false, contrived constructs about 'cyclists rights'?
This is where cyclists like Mr. Damon do not serve cyclists as a group because we end up splitting hairs over the law and how we interpret it. And cyclists who might otherwise be on the same side suddenly end up in dispute. But the fact of the matter is he is NOT breaking Massachusetts law in that video. The cops ultimately knew it, I know it but you are disputing that and that is where we disagree.
Again, for me, the law in this case is on Mr. Damon's side but being reasonable and sensible may not be.
As for me:
#1 I would have moved right on that section of that road either to the right of the white line or close to it. Or, if possible, chosen a better route for cycling.
#2 I would not have argued with the cop. I would have complied with his order and if I wanted to take the time i would take it up with a superior under less stressful circumstances.
# 3 this looks very much like Route 20 in West Springfiled. The road gets better in about 10 miles when travelling west but "better" is debatable, more rural, less traffic but smoother and with a more rideable shoulder. But the road upon which Mr. Damon is traveling is inconsistent in the amount of space offered on the shoulder especially in the section he is on and from West Soringfield east. It is a challenging road that requires the cyclist to move in and out of the shoulder frequently if that is where they choose to ride. The constant adjustment is frustrating and possibly dangerous.
I mean, I personally, don't see the sense of getting out on my bike with a camera on a road that poorly accommodates cyclists and push the interpretation of the law as it pertains to cyclists and take issue with ill-informed law enforcement officers. Just doesn't float my boat. If Mr. Damon wants to be the cycling equivalent of Patrick Henry shouting, "Give me liberty or give me death!" in order to point out the inequities of transportation infrastructure, well, good for him. But I doubt he does any of us any favors by so doing.
Sorry to disagree, Bek. but I really don't see where be broke the law as it currently exists in Massachusetts as there is no evidence in the video of him obstructing traffic. they have a lane to pass him and, if it is Route 20, a little further down the road there is no shoulder for him to move to and he would have no choice but to either hug the edge of the road or move into the lane where he was in the video.