Can and Should
 

I was thinking that one should be careful if he advocates bikers acting to the extent of their legality, like most here do. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's a good idea, polite, or safe.

In a car:

I can pass a cyclist on a downhill, get 50 feet ahead, and then take a right into a driveway after braking hard. He's behind me; he's not legally my problem. Hope he doesn't crash into me. Hope the road's not sandy oor wet. Oh well.

I can cross the bike lane in my area without stopping. The bikers have a stop sign and it's their problem to stop. If I hit someone who blows off the stop sign, it's not my fault.

I can open my car door on a crowded city street when a biker is 50 feet away. Maybe he'll have to stop. maybe he'll have to get off his bike. He's got enough warning so that my conduct isn't negligent. If he's inconvenienced, it's not my problem; I've got a legal right to do it.

I can block the right side of the road at a stoplight to prevent bikers from filtering past. They've got no right to my lane; I can 'take the lane' so long as I'm ahead of them. I can't go in the shoulder, of course, but i can make their lives miserable.

I can get ahead of a group of riders on traiing who are going 25, slow down to 19, and take the lane. they probably won't want to pass me on the left; they'll just have to wait until it's safe. Silly them for expecting me to go faster. It's a speed LIMIT, remember?

I can ride my horse on the bike path. Horses were around 1000 years before bikes (that 'bikes were here first' argument always cracks me up). Or perhaps my chariot.

I can 'fail to see' bikers who violate traffic laws (though I won't sleep well at night)

I can walk four abreast down any sidewalk when I see a biker coming. I'll either force them into the road by my inattentiveness or move aside only after they unclip and stop.

And so on.

So--are people here REALLY sure that saying "we have a right to do it on a bike" is justification, or equivalent, to saying "we should do it"? Next time you start spouting 'advocacy' that ignores politeness and just focuses on what you think you are entitled to do, be careful. You may start a trend... and you'll lose the war.

hehe...good points! You'll smoke a turd in hell for posting them here though.

Not exercising your rights and freedoms is the first step to losing them.

Rights and freedoms are grreat theories but they dont always work out
in real life. If you excercise your legal right to vehicular cycling on
the farm roads around here you are nothing more than a BigFoot target.
You know who will care about who had the right-of-way and who
was wrong ??? Only you as you are picking yourself and your broken bike
up out of a ditch.

No they're not. He's a troll. He's making a completely straw man arguement. Nobody is advocating that cyclists act "to the extent of their legality."

I'm not a troll, and this isn't a straw man argument, though I don't subscribe blindly to the 'anything cyclists do is great' theory. One common reply to a request for cyclist courtesy here, or for any limit on cyclists' ability to do something, is "there's a legal right to do it, so do it..." While I agree it's a silly point, it's not a straw man that _I_ made up.

in fact, that response often gets applause. And (amusing to me, at least) it often pops up in the same threads where a car driver's actions that gave rise to the complaint were technically legal, albeit idiotic.

The examples are illustrative. My points are simply that 1) a legal right to do something doesn't make it wise; 2) lots of people here advocate cyclists taking the full extent of their legal rights without regard to their effect; and 3) that particular type of advocacy is stupid. Do you really consider that a troll?

You might want to increase those distances. If I was on a jury, I wouldn't consider 50 feet "clear" as in the legal definitions.

The difference between the idealist and the pragmatist.

Laws are not always just or right. They are nothing but limits placed on human activities that either society or more often, the leaders of that society feel need limiting. Laws are suggestions with specific penalties attached should one decide to ignore the suggestion. Break them at your own risk. But never assume they are right just because they are the law.

Today on a road ride, we had to navigate our way through a section of road under construction. Legally, we should have stayed far to the right and allowed cars to pass. That would have been hazardous and unsafe for us and the traffic behind us. Since we were cruising at 25 to 30mph anyway, we took the whole lane until the 200 yards or so had been safely negotiated. I knowingly broke the law, but it made for a safer situation for all, cars included. And what suprised me were the 2 thumbs up a couple of cars gave us when they did pass us.

No you didn't.

Taking the lane to avoid obstacles isn't illegal.
But riding two/three abreast on a winding hilly road, with 10 cars behind you is rude.

You live in a dream world. Motorists do each of the things you mentioned all of the time. That is precisely why we cyclists have to assert our rights. The only way to prevent cyclist injury in the situations you mentioned is for the cyclist to take the lane. I must move to the left to avoid car doors, left hooks right hooks, etc.

Do you do a lot of street riding? Maybe you have some alternatives for us? Some constructive suggestions are always welcome here.

Yeah, I know. But at age 53, it still felt good to play the scofflaw even if it was only in my mind.

ehammarlund

I did not know you lived in Hawaii. At least now I know who the driver is that I see on most daily commutes.

By the way, cutting in front of another vehicle (car or bicycle) and slamming on the brakes is illegal. The insurance industry calls it “swoop and stoop”.
A road rager that did it several years ago caused a death. The road rager went to jail for 20 years. Side note: clearly the road rager did not do this to a cyclist - that would have been a $500 fine.

So when the "other vehicle" is a cyclist on the right side and in the blindspot of the driver, he should feel a rush of last second self rightiousness before his brains splatter across the safety glass rear window of the minivan?

Bikepacker67 - Your post makes no sense.
ehammarlund’s post dealt with the scenario that a driver passes, cuts in front and slams on the brakes. How did you get a blind spot out of that.

I also missed the part where I said anything about “should feel a rush of last second self righteousness before his brains splatter”. Please point it out to me.

All I did was have a little fun with ehammarlund. I also pointed out that one of the scenarios that he states as legal, is in fact illegal. The insurance industry worked very had to make it so, to stop the large number of scams doing exactly that scenario with 5 people in their car and all 5 some how ending up with neck and back problems after the hapless victim rear ends them.

A car that passes you, (assuming your riding to the right) NO LONGER SEES YOU, even in his rear view mirror for a short while after the pass.

That's called a blindspot. Make sense now?

You're making a great point. Combining "common courtesy" with "common sense" makes road cycling a reasonably safe activity.

Just thought that needed repeating.

I didn't intend to suggest illegality in my first post, just to give examples. Though i think you probably knew that... I meant to describe the situation where a car safely passes, and then at some point after the passing is complete (and it has transitioned back to the 'person in back is at fault' general situation) the car stops suddenly. It happens all the time between two cars.

I dunno why it annoys me when people are rude. I guess it's just that there are two ways to easily solve bike/car problems: restrict cars, or restrict bikes. (yeah, i know, even acknowledging the existence of #2 disqualifies me as any type of advocate for this forum). Bikers are already outvoted in many places. If they're outvoted and obnoxious, it doesn't take much to guess which way that scale's going to swing. The 'coexisting with courtesy' thread can turn into the 'single file ticket' thread without much difficulty. I don't want that to happen.

But the truth is that so long as there are few bikers, it frequently makes sense to restrict them. If you have a road that's used by 10,000 cars daily and 100 bikers, most unbiased people would think that---on the face of things--you might want to avoid inconveniencing the cars for the sake of 100 bikers; it's more sensible to slow the bikers down. It's probably an easier example to swallow here if you flip 'cars' with 'bikes'. And once you get past that--and admit the other side has a valid point--you start talking about real world solutions.

Is that how you drive? You see a vehicle ahead of you, you begin to pass them, as soon as they reach the blind spot = they must no longer exist, so it is OK to move right.

No, that kind of thinking does not make sense to me.

So where the hell are we supposed to ride our bikes? Around and around in circles in a parking lot? We sure would hate to inconvenience anybody!

I asked you in an earlier post if you ride on streets or roads. I guess I have my answer--you obviously do not. Your posts seem to show a misunderstanding of even the most basic principles of cycling. Would you like some suggestions on some reading material?

Wow, you sure seem know a lot about me and we haven't even been on a proper date yet... yes, i ride on streets, and roads (though I confess that I don't really know the difference between the two as long as they get me where I'm going). I even ride on (gasp!) bike paths on occasion. As urban as Boston, on down to rural. Both on road and off.

I think I "understand the most basic principles of cycling," though perhaps I missed the "never admit you're wrong" principle. What book is that in? Or maybe you think just because I disagree with you that I must not ride a bike? Now THAT'S arrogance, or stupidity by any other name.

And, of course, if you actually DID try to avoid inconveniencing others (while bemoaning your own inconveniences) your posts would make more sense. But I fear you're just being poorly sarcastic.

Ehammarlund has made some good points which seem to have gone right over the heads of some people. The way he has been attacked only illustrates how posters in this forum "circle the wagons" when someone has the audacity to suggest an idea that doesn't fit neatly in their view of the world.


Neither common sense nor common courtesy are as common as those terms would suggest.


I've encountered horses on the bike path more than once. I can't complain because:

• a. It was the mounted police.
• 2. They don't usually stay on the bike path long.
• 3. They also ride on the street (I love it when they stop cars).
• d. The bike path was once a bridle path (although it was actually a bike path before that, in the 19th century)

Me too. It's what's called ancient history. If I'm not mistaken, the first roads were built for pedestrians.

http://www.nps.gov/natr/
Natchez Trace
Travel the route of the Old Natchez Trace and imagine the experiences of those that have traveled before you. The 444-mile Natchez Trace Parkway commemorates an ancient trail that connected southern portions of the Mississippi River to salt licks in today’s central Tennessee. Over the centuries, the Choctaw, Chickasaw and other American Indians left their marks on the Trace. The Natchez Trace experienced its heaviest use from 1785 to 1820 by the “Kaintuck” boatmen that floated the Ohio and Miss. rivers to markets in Natchez and New Orleans. They sold their cargo and boats and began the trek back north on foot to Nashville and points beyond. Today, visitors can experience this National Scenic Byway and All-American Road through driving, hiking, biking, horseback riding and camping.

d.tipton