Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

What Is Wrong With People?

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

What Is Wrong With People?

Old 10-02-23, 06:02 AM
  #51  
Standard Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brunswick, Maine
Posts: 4,195

Bikes: 1948 P. Barnard & Son, 1962 Rudge Sports, 1963 Freddie Grubb Routier, 1980 Manufrance Hirondelle, 1983 F. Moser Sprint, 1989 Raleigh Technium Pre, 2001 Raleigh M80

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1270 Post(s)
Liked 866 Times in 458 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
Center of my lane. Does 3 lane Airline Highway look like any 20 MPH residential road you have ever seen?
Okay, this guy pulled up to the left of you? That's a little bizarre. I've never had that happen, but when I notice erratic or questionable behavior from a nearby motorist, I bail out. I would have gotten off the bike, walked it to the side of the road and waited for him to leave. We can't be surprised when we see illogical decisions being actuated. You asked him what he was doing. This is good. He replied that he is "taking a right". That is just koo koo. This sounds like he was showing his objection to you in the middle of the road, and wanted to keep you to his right. It's not that that makes any sense to me logically, but it may be a description of his thought process. If you had stayed to the right, he may not have behaved in such an exaggerated manner, but with the extremity of his action, I don't think there would be any guarantees. Again, I am not defending this behavior, but riders who "take the lane" when they do not need to confuses and provokes some drivers. This is just the way things are.
__________________
1989Pre is offline  
Old 10-02-23, 07:54 AM
  #52  
For The Fun of It
Thread Starter
 
Paul Barnard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,831

Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2118 Post(s)
Liked 1,626 Times in 817 Posts
Originally Posted by nomadmax
and a cyclist has no way to effectively protect against it.
I certainly did.
Paul Barnard is online now  
Old 10-02-23, 07:59 AM
  #53  
a1a
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2023
Location: St Johns County, FL
Posts: 26

Bikes: Trek Domane AL3

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by GamblerGORD53
There's NO reason for you to hog the lane for ONE car.
Since I've started riding I decided to look up the local laws. In Florida (it may be different in your state or country), if I understand correctly, as a bicyclist if I am on the road I follow car rules. If I am on the sidewalk I follow pedestrian rules. I do not think a motorcyclist would be expected to make room for someone to go around them without a turn lane. Neither should a bicyclist. It encourages bad behavior.

Just my opinion.
a1a is offline  
Likes For a1a:
Old 10-02-23, 09:21 AM
  #54  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,812
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1590 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,010 Times in 568 Posts
Absolutely correct. There are a small contingent of posters who don't really seem to like the idea of bicycles on the road at all. I do wonder sometimes if they are actually even cyclists. Their "recommendations" would be downright dangerous and seem to revolve around always being wholly subservient to automobiles.
jon c. is offline  
Likes For jon c.:
Old 10-02-23, 09:26 AM
  #55  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked 234 Times in 141 Posts
They went around you successfully (nobody died). What's the problem here? Lanes are for chumps use your brain instead.
DonkeyShow is offline  
Likes For DonkeyShow:
Old 10-02-23, 09:43 AM
  #56  
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,558

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6002 Post(s)
Liked 4,632 Times in 3,194 Posts
Originally Posted by spclark
Should be, yeah. But passing another motor vehicle in such a situation as the OP's described then making a right turn in front of said vehicle is patently illegal pretty much everywhere to my knowledge. Pulling out to pass, taking up the oncoming traffic's lane to do so, is also illegal.

I routinely find myself trying to cross a multi-lane hiway in town. I'm at a stop sign, sometimes far to the right, some other times in the middle of the single lane (I'm a vehicle, right? Not a pedestrian?) in the cross street. Inevitably there are vehicles in the cross-traffic who choose to stop in their respective lanes so as to 'yield right of way' for me to cross!

NOT GONNA HAPPEN. I make it a practice to LOOK AWAY from traffic coming from my LEFT (be first to hit me if I proceed) so I can measure the presence of traffic coming from the RIGHT (that has the right of way at such intersections) yet traffic coming from the LEFT inevitably has a driver or two who take it upon themselves to block traffic so as to make it possible for me to cross.

Even though I'm patiently waiting, at a stop sign, one or both feet planted on the pavement, for traffic to clear the intersection so I can cross when it's safe to do so.

Happens a lot.

Drivers uniformly don't understand the rules of the road. Cyclists must if they're going to survive mixing with motor traffic.

But they're still at a considerable disadvantage in view of their exposure, their lack of protection, the relative speed difference between themselves and motor traffic and the general inattentiveness of a great majority of private motor vehicle drivers who don't acknowledge the rights of cyclists as legitimate vehicular traffic.
Seems we agree. Not sure why you seem to be disputing with me something I think we agree on.

The member my statements were aimed at made a very simple statement that essentially boiled down to we all must look out and adjust for the unexpected. However the way they worded it made it look like they blamed the cyclist for not being able to successfully anticipate the actions of the motorist in time to avoid the crash. Sure, it's great when we do, but we can't rely on that to happen 100% of the time and save us. And the situation that they were referring too wasn't even part of the OP's issue.

We know there are drivers and cyclists that have no clue about the rules of the road. So yes we have to watch out for those people. But again, it doesn't make the cyclist in the described situation that is unrelated to the OP at fault just because they didn't anticipate the potential of the situation at that moment in time.
Iride01 is online now  
Likes For Iride01:
Old 10-02-23, 09:45 AM
  #57  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 2,404
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1096 Post(s)
Liked 1,810 Times in 872 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
I certainly did.
You do you. I hope you never find "the one" who takes offense to some unasked for lip. Everybody is a tough guy until they get punched in the face. I worked a career where I saw people shot dead or run over for running their mouths when there was no need to. And the world is even more dangerous now. Go ahead, have the last word, but it never trumps the last act.
__________________
nomadmax is offline  
Old 10-02-23, 10:10 AM
  #58  
Cantilever believer
 
RCMoeur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,408
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Liked 1,544 Times in 725 Posts
Originally Posted by 1989Pre
​​​​​​​You can wax poetic all you want. A sense of order on the roads is important. Slow traffic stay right.
When I teach cycling skills classes, this is an area we try to spend a lot of time on because it can occasionally be counterintuitive.

At an intersection approach facing a red signal indication, the reasonable & prudent speed for all traffic is 0 mph once deceleration is complete. Since the R&P speed for all users is identical, the "slower traffic keep right" rule drops out both legally and operationally. Once the signal indication is green, traffic proceeds if safe, and after the intersection sorts out into faster and slower vehicles. Note also that the slower traffic rule in most states doesn't apply if there are more than one lane in that direction (not the case here) or if the lane is too narrow for a faster motor vehicle to overtake in that same lane while providing adequate (and typically legally-defined) lateral separation (which may be the case here).

The rule we teach for bicyclists is: "Lateral position by speed between intersections, lateral position by destination at intersections."
__________________
Richard C. Moeur, PE - Phoenix AZ, USA
https://www.richardcmoeur.com/bikestuf.html
RCMoeur is offline  
Old 10-02-23, 10:13 AM
  #59  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked 234 Times in 141 Posts
Why not let the car pass before the braking zone? You typed up all this drama about closing speeds sooo self preservation maybe? Just stop pedaling while you approach intersection.
DonkeyShow is offline  
Likes For DonkeyShow:
Old 10-02-23, 10:36 AM
  #60  
For The Fun of It
Thread Starter
 
Paul Barnard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,831

Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2118 Post(s)
Liked 1,626 Times in 817 Posts
Originally Posted by DonkeyShow
They went around you successfully (nobody died). What's the problem here? Lanes are for chumps use your brain instead.
Nobody died is certainly the bar we want to set for our interactions.
Paul Barnard is online now  
Likes For Paul Barnard:
Old 10-02-23, 10:57 AM
  #61  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked 234 Times in 141 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
Nobody died is certainly the bar we want to set for our interactions.
Aww did your feelings get hurt by the mean car driver who was polite enough to inform you he was trying to turn?
DonkeyShow is offline  
Old 10-02-23, 11:22 AM
  #62  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,217
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4203 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 899 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01
Isn't it the passing vehicles responsibility to ensure they have a safe distance on the vehicle they just passed before moving back over or turning in front of the vehicle they just passed?
Sure, obviously,. But the actual question is what to do when they don't (like in the situation described by the OP). I doubt you put full trust in drivers doing what they are supposed to.

Last edited by njkayaker; 10-02-23 at 11:27 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 10-02-23, 11:25 AM
  #63  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,217
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4203 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 899 Posts
Originally Posted by 1989Pre
Okay, this guy pulled up to the left of you? That's a little bizarre. I've never had that happen, but when I notice erratic or questionable behavior from a nearby motorist, I bail out. I would have gotten off the bike, walked it to the side of the road and waited for him to leave. We can't be surprised when we see illogical decisions being actuated. You asked him what he was doing. This is good. He replied that he is "taking a right". That is just koo koo. This sounds like he was showing his objection to you in the middle of the road, and wanted to keep you to his right. It's not that that makes any sense to me logically, but it may be a description of his thought process. If you had stayed to the right, he may not have behaved in such an exaggerated manner, but with the extremity of his action, I don't think there would be any guarantees. Again, I am not defending this behavior, but riders who "take the lane" when they do not need to confuses and provokes some drivers. This is just the way things are.
It doesn't seem that this driver doing the "koo koo" thing should be relied upon not to do something "koo koo" even with riding the way you think the OP should have.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 10-02-23, 11:31 AM
  #64  
Standard Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brunswick, Maine
Posts: 4,195

Bikes: 1948 P. Barnard & Son, 1962 Rudge Sports, 1963 Freddie Grubb Routier, 1980 Manufrance Hirondelle, 1983 F. Moser Sprint, 1989 Raleigh Technium Pre, 2001 Raleigh M80

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1270 Post(s)
Liked 866 Times in 458 Posts
RCMoeur, I can accept that you believe what you have been taught. Nevertheless, there are good reasons that bicycles ride on the far right, while faster traffic uses the travel (motorist) lane, and those vehicles traveling at an even-greater rate-of-speed use the passing lane(s), if-any. This is the system we have adopted long-ago, and it works well. Cyclists are even taught to defer to pedestrians by shifting left, to allow the opposing runner(s) their lane. This is the system, and changing it causes confusion to motorists, and often, when people feel confused, they feel vulnerable, and when they feel vulnerable, they react with discord. Again, when I made my original comment, I did not know that O.P. meant "opposing lane" when he said "wrong lane". I had imagined the car being on his right-hand side. The motorist's actions were bizarre, and while the cyclist's position reflects his style and approach, I would disagree with it's necessity or even usefulness.
__________________

Last edited by 1989Pre; 10-02-23 at 11:37 AM.
1989Pre is offline  
Likes For 1989Pre:
Old 10-02-23, 11:44 AM
  #65  
Standard Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brunswick, Maine
Posts: 4,195

Bikes: 1948 P. Barnard & Son, 1962 Rudge Sports, 1963 Freddie Grubb Routier, 1980 Manufrance Hirondelle, 1983 F. Moser Sprint, 1989 Raleigh Technium Pre, 2001 Raleigh M80

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1270 Post(s)
Liked 866 Times in 458 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
It doesn't seem that this driver doing the "koo koo" thing should be relied upon not to do something "koo koo" even with riding the way you think the OP should have.
...which is why I said there were no guarantees. The truth is that we are at their mercy, and we can just thank our lucky stars for another day when we wake up. I don't trust them enough to ride in the middle with my shirt in the breeze. They are going to have to come to my section of town and risk going into a ditch or a guard-rail if they want to take me out. The way I look at it is: That's all the protection I've got.
__________________
1989Pre is offline  
Likes For 1989Pre:
Old 10-02-23, 11:52 AM
  #66  
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,558

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6002 Post(s)
Liked 4,632 Times in 3,194 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
Sure, obviously,. But the actual question is what to do when they don't (like in the situation described by the OP). I doubt you put full trust in drivers doing what they are supposed to.
The OP did what was needed. To me the OP was just relating a story describing how bizarre some people behave. I don't think there is anything that the OP can be faulted for, nor should they have done anything different.

As I've said in all or most all my posts in this thread that are related to the one you quoted me on, we should expect the unexpected. I'd think that'd let you know that I don't put my trust in others whether they are a driver, cyclist, walker or anyone.

You seem to not realize the post you quoted wasn't even addressed for the situation the OP described. It was a reply to another member that was offering opinion on another situation described in this thread by another member.
Iride01 is online now  
Old 10-02-23, 12:00 PM
  #67  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,217
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4203 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 899 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01
You seem to not realize the post you quoted wasn't even addressed for the situation the OP described. It was a reply to another member that was offering opinion on another situation described in this thread by another member.
No. The person you replied to was talking about what the cyclist should be doing. You seemed to think he was talking about legal responsibility.

Originally Posted by Iride01
Originally Posted by wolfchild
You mean the cyclist was going straight through intersection and driver made a right turn and right hooked the cyclist ??..Right hooks are totally preventable and it's mostly a cyclists responsibility to avoid being right hooked.
Isn't it the passing vehicles responsibility to ensure they have a safe distance on the vehicle they just passed before moving back over or turning in front of the vehicle they just passed?
Again, this isn't the question.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 10-02-23, 12:05 PM
  #68  
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,558

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6002 Post(s)
Liked 4,632 Times in 3,194 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
No. The person you replied to was talking about what the cyclist should be doing. You seemed to think he was talking about legal responsibility.
So essentially you are saying the victim is at fault because they failed to properly realize the potential for a mishap. Geesh, I think that's a ludicrous position to take.

You seem to advocate survival of the fittest.
Iride01 is online now  
Old 10-02-23, 12:08 PM
  #69  
Cantilever believer
 
RCMoeur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,408
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Liked 1,544 Times in 725 Posts
Originally Posted by 1989Pre
RCMoeur, I can accept that you believe what you have been taught. Nevertheless, there are good reasons that bicycles ride on the far right, while faster traffic uses the travel (motorist) lane, and those vehicles traveling at an even-greater rate-of-speed use the passing lane(s), if-any. This is the system we have adopted long-ago, and it works well. Cyclists are even taught to defer to pedestrians by shifting left, to allow the opposing runner(s) their lane. This is the system, and changing it causes confusion to motorists, and often, when people feel confused, they feel vulnerable, and when they feel vulnerable, they react with discord. Again, when I made my original comment, I did not know that O.P. meant "opposing lane" when he said "wrong lane". I had imagined the car being on his right-hand side. The motorist's actions were bizarre, and while the cyclist's position reflects his style and approach, I would disagree with it's necessity or even usefulness.
You can certainly disagree, but if I'm in a position where I am called upon to testify or defend this, based on my knowledge, experience, and training I am comfortable in doing so.

I may be speculating here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but from your description it seems your primary concern is overtaking motor traffic. This is understandable, as it's the most common bicyclist-motor vehicle interaction and for thousands of years of human evolutionary behavior large loud objects approaching from behind have generally not been friendly. The problem is that actions taken to reduce perceived from-behind risk can increase risk of other severe and much more common crashes, including turn-across-path and angle collisions. In the classes, we understand some riders prioritize reducing from-behind risk, as such a crash can be severe or fatal, but it's not a good trade-off if the rider is at greater risk of a crash that's considerably more likely to happen in an urban or suburban environment. So we try to persuade and not scare riders and explain the trade-offs of lane positioning at intersections and how it influences actual exposure and not the perception of "feeling safe" - which can be at odds with one another.
__________________
Richard C. Moeur, PE - Phoenix AZ, USA
https://www.richardcmoeur.com/bikestuf.html
RCMoeur is offline  
Likes For RCMoeur:
Old 10-02-23, 12:09 PM
  #70  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,023

Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1270 Post(s)
Liked 1,381 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by jon c.
Absolutely correct. There are a small contingent of posters who don't really seem to like the idea of bicycles on the road at all. I do wonder sometimes if they are actually even cyclists. Their "recommendations" would be downright dangerous and seem to revolve around always being wholly subservient to automobiles.
there is a weird (self-loathing?) subset of this forum who seem threatened by anything which impinges on the near complete domination of american transport and urban planning by the private automobile. just ignore them...
__________________
mschwett is offline  
Old 10-02-23, 12:10 PM
  #71  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked 234 Times in 141 Posts
Take care of your own safety first verses expecting people to act how you think they should. Survival of the least butthurt I guess.
DonkeyShow is offline  
Old 10-02-23, 12:11 PM
  #72  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,217
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4203 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 899 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01
So essentially you are saying the victim is at fault because they failed to properly realize the potential for a mishap. Geesh, I think that's a ludicrous position to take.

You seem to advocate survival of the fittest.
No, you are being silly.

That the cyclist should take care of themselves doesn't mean drivers shouldn't do what they are supposed to do.

Originally Posted by Iride01
The OP did what was needed.
@wolfchild pretty much said the OP did what he should have.

Last edited by njkayaker; 10-02-23 at 12:24 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Likes For njkayaker:
Old 10-02-23, 12:18 PM
  #73  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,023

Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1270 Post(s)
Liked 1,381 Times in 706 Posts
the only possible argument i can see here from a legal standpoint is the FRAP law in louisiana - the exceptions to which are paraphrased here "Bike Law Louisiana said bike riders may need to move from the edge of the road because of edge hazards, door risks, narrow lanes where a car and bike cannot safely fit side by side, and other reasons." i'm pretty sure a road that narrow would qualify as "where a car and bike cannot safely fit side by side." if he was further right, and a less-self-righteous but inattentive motorist tried to go around him to make a right turn, they'd almost certainly be over the center line, at which point a car turning right from airline (who would have a green!) would possibly hit them.

i had a similar incident in my neighborhood, a block or two from home on a 25mph, stop light/sign every block street, where a guy pulled completely into the opposite lane honking and yelling at us (me and two kids) to "ride further over where it's safe," to which i said, at the next light (he was fully next to us at this point, as with OPs experience) that the safest place was center right of the lane since it was not a safe place to pass, at which point he went on a tirade about being an off duty officer in another jurisdiction and he wanted to keep my kids and i safe on the streets. ironically a car DID approach in the oncoming lane, but we were already moving on and not involved in the honking and maneuvering that followed.
__________________
mschwett is offline  
Likes For mschwett:
Old 10-02-23, 12:38 PM
  #74  
Cantilever believer
 
RCMoeur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,408
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Liked 1,544 Times in 725 Posts
Originally Posted by mschwett
the only possible argument i can see here from a legal standpoint is the FRAP law in louisiana - the exceptions to which are paraphrased here "Bike Law Louisiana said bike riders may need to move from the edge of the road because of edge hazards, door risks, narrow lanes where a car and bike cannot safely fit side by side, and other reasons." i'm pretty sure a road that narrow would qualify as "where a car and bike cannot safely fit side by side." if he was further right, and a less-self-righteous but inattentive motorist tried to go around him to make a right turn, they'd almost certainly be over the center line, at which point a car turning right from airline (who would have a green!) would possibly hit them.

i had a similar incident in my neighborhood, a block or two from home on a 25mph, stop light/sign every block street, where a guy pulled completely into the opposite lane honking and yelling at us (me and two kids) to "ride further over where it's safe," to which i said, at the next light (he was fully next to us at this point, as with OPs experience) that the safest place was center right of the lane since it was not a safe place to pass, at which point he went on a tirade about being an off duty officer in another jurisdiction and he wanted to keep my kids and i safe on the streets. ironically a car DID approach in the oncoming lane, but we were already moving on and not involved in the honking and maneuvering that followed.
In Arizona, the applicable statutes are ARS 28-815 (bicycles to right) and ARS 28-735 (3 ft passing).

Several years ago, a Phoenix police officer pulled me over for using the center of a travel lane. He said that a sign (on a different street several miles away) "proved" I needed to stay right at all times, and that I was disobeying a traffic control device in riding where I was.
Picture of the sign legend:



I was polite in my response. We got out ARS (easy to do now it's electronic), and I showed where the location I was riding had a 10.5' lane and was not wide enough for same-lane overtaking with anything resembling 3 ft clearance. I then discussed the sign, which was an older (late 1990s) design before we had data on just how widely the term "share" was interpreted by road users, and also noted it conflicted with the letter of the law at our location and even at the installed location (at the time of the encounter, I was chairing the technical committee advising FHWA on bicycle signing nationwide). We parted amicably, and in future encounters he would smile and wave when changing lanes to pass.

A few years later, I was stopped by a different officer who would not review the statutes, insisted I had to stay on the sidewalk regardless of circumstances, and threatened me with being detained should I question his authority on the issue. Complaints to upper management were... unresponded.
__________________
Richard C. Moeur, PE - Phoenix AZ, USA
https://www.richardcmoeur.com/bikestuf.html
RCMoeur is offline  
Likes For RCMoeur:
Old 10-02-23, 12:41 PM
  #75  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,307
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 567 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 351 Times in 241 Posts
It appears we have the bicyclists and the submissives. The bicyclists ride according to the law and appropriately handle themselves at intersections. When a bicyclist such as the OP posts about a maniacal psychopath acting out toward a bicyclists. The submissives start posting about how wrong he is based upon the actions of the maniacal psychopath. The submissives then explain to the bicyclists, their method of riding at an intersection. They practice hood ornament bicycle theory. They believe if they retreat in fear at every turn they will be safer.

The actions of the motorist that is referred to in this posting are not the norm by far unless you live in Florida.
Rick is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.