baron von trail 

Not riding on the far right side of the road makes no sense to me. None.

kickstart

Agreed, and it makes even less sense to offer a one-size-fits-all solution to an unknown equation.

Daniel4

So you’re saying the people at fault and awarded the Darwinian Award are those who obey the law and get killed or victimized by criminals or offenders who are generally a hazard to everyone else.

Daniel4

It does to me and the traffic laws. Read any of the other postings already done here and in other threads (and in map showing city bike routes) for the reasons why.

Rollfast

The usage of 'Darwinism' in the thread's title was enough of a problem. We should be discouraging the usage of such improper and inflammatory terms...they suggest we approve of the idea.

Is the thread promoting a solution, or is it simply a spectator thread? Spectator threads run counter to the purpose of this forum.

vatdim

I can't comment on the specific incident, as all you have provided is a video of the aftermath of the event. But having witnessed your preaching the Far Right Principle in as many posts as I can think of, I expected you to be some sort of lazy motorist who gets bothered by every necessity to shift their right foot between the two pedals. If you really don't own a car, however, it looks like John Forester is ultimately right about the way in which government with its sponsored bike-way projects is actually pushing bicycles away from the road on which they belong and on to some child facilities. Looks like the propaganda has been strong enough to convert even cyclists to the anti-bicycle cause.

You may not trust me as a cyclist. But trust me when I'm telling you this as a driver - I've never passed closely a cyclist using the full lane, it has never occurred in my head to attempt it and it hasn't been a logical choice whatsoever. However, it has happened to me on multiple occasions to pass closely a cyclist riding in the gutter due to them being practically invisible amidst heavy traffic, as well as cyclists riding solo in wooded areas. Decide for yourself which type of cyclist you want to be.

Jaywalk3r

My own experience is that, in urban environments, motorists leave more room and pass in a safer, more courteous manner when I'm in the lane, compared to riding right. It is admittedly counterintuitive, but it's true. My experience mirrors that of many other highly experienced utility cyclists.

I was once pulled over for taking he lane one night as I was riding through a city in South Carolina on tour. The cop told me that in SC, cyclists were supposed to ride right. I calmly and politely explained that I had tried riding right, but motorists were passing too closely, so I moved farther out into the lane, adding that that is the conventional, albeit counterintuitive, solution to motorists passing too closely. The officer told me that as long as I was aware of my lane position and had a reason for it, it was okay. Apparently he understood what practicable meant.

plumberroy

Yep same rights same rules which at least in Ohio, means following laws against impeding the normal flow of traffic O.R.C. 4511.22 A .. You can't hold up traffic in a 30 M.P.H. zone by driving or riding 15 .M.P.H.
Roy

Daniel4

I just googled "orc 4511.22 A". Please read the sentence from the word "except". It talks about safety. You CAN hold up traffic if your safety is violated otherwise.

Jaywalk3r

In many, if not most, jurisdictions, impeding traffic excludes traveling at speeds reasonable for the vehicle being operated. In other words, riding a bicycle at 15 mph in a 30 mph zone is not impeding traffic, because 15 mph is a reasonable speed for a bicycle.

Edit: That appears to be the case in Ohio, as well:

4511.22 Slow speed.
…
(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact, in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its operator.

plumberroy

They don't write tickets for it often . The times I've known of were tractors or trucks with 3-4 grain wagons . When the farmer tried the safety issue ,he was told that pertain to weather conditions etc. Not the fact he could only run a certain speed because of vehicles limitations.

kickstart

But that is also further quantified in most jurisdictions with SMV regulations for vehicles that are limited to speeds under 25 mph, some state a delay of a certain number of vehicles is unlawful, and cyclists are usually required to keep right as far as safe/practicable when slower than the speed of other traffic.

Its a misrepresentation to selectively use one regulation alone to claim its ok to impede traffic as one sees fit without obligation to minimize it when possible and safe.

Jaywalk3r

I've never known about any such qualification, though it sounds reasonable for unlicensed farm vehicles operating for short distances on secondary highways (but not for bicycles). That being said, the Ohio statute says what it says. The judge/magistrate is specifically instructed to consider the capabilities of the vehicle being operated. It doesn't, however, instruct the judge to consider the number of vehicles behind the bicycle.

If it is practicable to ride right, then most bicyclists will do so, and traffic approaching from the rear need not wait to pass. For most urban streets, riding right is not practicable, usually for multiple reasons, such as the lane not being wide enough to safely share (defined as less than 17 feet by at least one state DOT), debris near the right edge of the lane, the occasional parked car, etc. On those streets, the bicyclist may, and should, take the lane, and is not impeding traffic by doing so.

wphamilton

Bicycles are generally not governed by the SMV statutes (different from impeding traffic statutes).

kickstart

Thats correct, I was just using it as an example, bicycles have their own qualifying restrictions when operated under the speed of traffic.

dedhed

See Selz vs Trotwood

Bicycle Right to the Road Cases

kickstart

Agreed, but thats also not carte blanche to do so without any obligation or restriction, hence the FRAP/S law.

Jaywalk3r

True, but it acknowledges that, generally, there is justification for the cyclist to be in the lane, and that (s)he is not impeding traffic in the eyes of the law.

In 42 states, impeding traffic laws apply only to motor vehicles. Two others have no impeding laws (Source). Ohio, the state to which my post specifically addressed, is one of the six remaining states, but case law seems to be on the side of bicyclists when it comes to impeding traffic charges (Source1, Source2).

For me personally, it's not practicable to ride right even one percent of the time in a typical week, and I'm far more open to riding right than the law requires me to be. The law in written in a manner that says we have to always ride right unless any one of a non-exhaustive list of excepting conditions is met, but for all practical purposes, riding right is the unusual exception, not the rule, and gives bicyclists the ability to exercise reasonable discretion. As I posted here, the only time I've been pulled over for not riding right, the officer told me that as long as I was aware of my lane position and had a reason for it, it was okay to take the lane.

kickstart

I'm not denying any of that except for perhaps calling it an "unusual exception", my point is that none of it is meant to be used as an excuse to impede traffic when there's legitimate and safe options to minimize it.

FWIW, I'm actually more of a VC cyclist than average, but I always remind myself everybody "owns the road" and are "entitled" to use it.

Jaywalk3r

It's an unusual exception because it's not practicable to ride right on a large majority of urban streets typically travelled by bicyclists.

It's not being used as an excuse to impede traffic. It's being used to explain why a bicycle traveling at a reasonable speed for a bicycle, traveling with an appropriate position in the lane, is not impeding traffic. It is traffic, and the bicyclist is operating lawfully.

Placating motorists who don't understand the rules of the road as they pertain to bicycles does no one any good, least of all bicyclists.

kickstart

It being unusual or the norm is subjective to the location.

If its used as a justification to not share the road when possible its an excuse, not an explanation. Traffic is defined by the aggregate of all users, not the individual.

Its not placating, its treating others as we want to be treated. Everybody needs to bend a little as inflexibility and selfishness is the root of all issues.

cale

I can empathize with both parties. The cyclists are not overly cautious when they use their best judgement and "take the lane". Some of these old roads in places like Md and PA have completely unimproved shoulders. You'd be insane to ride on the shoulder. The cyclists can find themselves in a situation where traffic is coming up from behind and attempting passes where little room exists for car traveling both directions and a cyclist trying to avoid the pot hole filled shoulder. These roads often lead into towns and traffic that passed safely in the outskirts of town are now taking unnecessary risks as they enter more congested areas. When that happens, it is almost better to present a formidable presence on the road, sufficient to discourage passing when oncoming traffic is present. The politically correct option is to just pull over every time traffic comes up from behind you so that it can safely pass before you continue down the road. Most male cyclists I know down take kindly to the suggestion that they unclip to let traffic pass.

On the officer's side there's a town full of motorists that complain about the cyclists that clog their narrow country roads. Of course, the officer wants to appear proactive (Gawd, I hate that word) in front to the towns folks, pulling cyclists aside to offer helpful tips. No officer should lose their cool, (I'm staying away from the "hit by officer's car" story because there's no evidence to support it), it is unbecoming. Still, you try being a cool cop in front of some smart mouthed cyclist jacked-up on adrenaline. It'd probably rub me the wrong way too.

Jaywalk3r

True. I've admittedly only ridden extensively in 8-10 states, but it has been unusual for it to be practicable to ride right nearly everywhere in those locations.

Sharing the road implies that bicyclists get to use it without being treated as second class citizens. In other words, it implies that we get to take the lane, guilt free, whenever riding right is not practicable, i.e., most of the time. Anything short of that is placating motorists at the expense of bicycle safety. Taking the lane is in no way, form, or fashion being selfish or inflexible. It's being safe. When I'm on my bike, I always (there's another rare absolute in my bicycling practice) place my safety of motorists' convenience. It's the smart thing to do, I have a legal right to do it, and I'm not going to let anyone make me feel the least bit bad about it.

kickstart

Well I guess our experiences and observations are vastly different, I have found that as often as not its possible to minimize ones impact on other road users of all modes without compromising ones safety.

Jaywalk3r

In my experience, taking the lane isn't actually much of an inconvenience for other road users. Usually, the worst case is that they arrive at a red light a few seconds later than they would have had no bicyclists been on the road. That lost time is more than made up for by the decreased congestion on the roads.