moskva

Todays Guardian(Two Wheels column www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1997841,00.html ) cited an offence of "careless or inconsiderate cycling" in response to the following query:

Cycling home from work, my journey takes me down some narrow streets with parked cars on the left. One evening recently, a police car was behind me and at the end of the street, put its flashing blue light on and asked me to stop.The officer advised me that it was frustrating for drivers to be unable to pass me without mounting the pavement or hitting me. I replied that I did not think I was obliged to pull over and let cars pass me when there was no room to overtake; their frustration was their problem to deal with. We agreed to disagree.

Sure enough there is such an offence:

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 (C. 52) - SECT 29

29. If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or
without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is
guilty of an offence. In this section "road" includes a bridleway.

How does this square with VC and is there anything similar in the US.

P.S. Remember they drive and cycle on the left in the UK

Shiznaz

Thats so open to interpretation... The way I see this case, the cyclist is "exercising reasonable consideration for the other persons using the road", because he is not inviting the motorists to pass unsafely. Maybe on a very wide road with no parking it would not be "reasonable consideration", but in this case, what other option does the cyclist have? It seems like this is a catch all law to punish cyclists if a law officer feels like it.

Helmet Head

The police officer's interpretation does not square with VC. I don't know of any similar laws on this side of the pond.

markf

How wide is the street, is it two way traffic or one way, what's the fastest safe speed on the street in question, how fast is the cyclist going, how fast are the cars going and how long are these streets?

There are states in the western US where slower moving vehicles are required to pull over as soon as it is safe to do so if 5 or more vehicles are backed up behind said slow moving vehicle. Regardless of what the law says, this strikes me as a courteous thing to do. I am not suggesting that the OP risk a dooring fom a parked car, or ride so close to the edge of the road that he/she is in danger of hitting the curb and subsequently falling in the path of a moving car. I am suggesting that, if the opportunity arises, the operator of a slow moving vehicle should be alert for opportunities to move out of the center of the lane and slow down or stop long enough to let faster vehicles go by. If there's no safe place to do this then yes, the people in faster vehicles are going to have to learn a little patience.

CrosseyedCrickt

Judge: you are being charged with inconciderate cycling
Me: Yeah but I wasn't inconsiderate, I considered every other user on the road "in my way"
Judge: dismissed

DCCommuter

Here is how the US courts have generally ruled: The legislature has the right to prohibit any vehicle from any road. If the legislature has not banned a certain class of vehicle from a given road, then it is legal to take that vehicle on that road, even if doing so unavoidably inconveniences other users of the road.

The key is "unavoidably." Almost everywhere has laws that say that unnecessarily inconveniencing others is disorderly conduct.

I think the constable in this case is under the misconception that is common to motorists who have never really thought much about cyclists, that there must be "somewhere else" for them to ride.

kf5nd

There is similar language in Texas. If there is a line of cars behind me, I pull over periodically.

sggoodri

I consider the level of delay I would incur trying to get out of other drivers' way, by stopping and leaving the roadway, and compare it to the level of delay they incur with me in the roadway. If their delay significantly exceeds mine, I pull off the road if it is practical. However, this is rare, and only happens on narrow two-lane roads with heavy oncoming traffic.

I believe that by doing the above, I am being considerate by following the Golden Rule. I personally would not expect a cyclist to leave the roadway unless they saved me a substantially more time than it cost them, just as would not expect a stranger ahead of me at the door to expend as much time and effort holding a door open for me as it would take me to open it for myself if they left it alone.

On the other hand, if some people have different value systems than myself, and become frustrated because they believe cyclists have an inferior right to the roadway, then that indeed is their problem. Being considerate does not require catering to others' prejudice.

AndrewP

You exercise due consideration by maintaining speed. It is notyou causing the delay to motor traffic, but the parked cars are.

Helmet Head

genec

To be honest, on this side of the pond, any law I have ever seen, specifies a number of vehicles, before a state of "inconvenienced" is considered... Generally 5.

Da Tinker

And in Louisiana. The law here actually says something along the lines of 'impeed six or more vehicles'. But it is not enforced. When it is applied to the precious sugar cane tractors, I'll consider pulling over on my bike.

dobber

I usually give farmers the benefit of the doubt, they've got a tough enough time trying to move some of those behemoths about.

flipped4bikes

Well said!

closetbiker

If the law allows a bicycle to ride on the road, the law has to accept the speed a bicycle is reasonably expected to travel.

Velonews had a column on it once. Legally speaking with Bob Mionske: You gotta fight for your right to slooooow down

https://www.velonews.com/news/fea/5496.0.html

Daily Commute

I agree with Steve. the law demands "reasonable consideration," it does not require you to automatically yield to cars behind you. A delay of thirty seconds or a minute is a reasonable and normal part of driving in traffic, but a cop, judge or jury (of non-cyclists, of course) might think otherwise.

I often ride on a three-lane, 35 mph road, and I generally eat up a whole lane. Sometimes a car gets stuck behind me for a few seconds, but then they find a gap in the next lane and pass. I think that's perfectly reasonable, but some drivers think they have the right never to be slowed down by cyclist.

This reminds me of what I call the Two Golden Myths of Cycling in Traffic:

1. No cyclist shall slow down a car;
2. No car shall slow down a cyclist.

BIG-E

Here in Vermont the law says we need to ride as far to the right as safely possible. So I take the lane when next to parked cars.

I don't take the lane on curves like some do. Most cars wouldn't understand what I was doing, and it's usually on higher speed roads.

Gee3

More than a law it's a consideration thing. If you are doddling around slowing people behind you than out of consideration it would be nice to move to the side and let faster people/cars/riders by. Regardless of what the law states wouldn't it cast a better light on both riders and drivers if they are just considerate to others?

If I'm blocking I either try to speed up or move out of the way. By speeding up at you are at least showing others that you are making an effort to get through there faster. And by moving over you are just plain being a nice person. They'll probably thank you for it and think that maybe not all cyclists are just there to block them. Then next time they come up on a cyclist they, too, will be considerate.

It can be beneficial for both sides.

Helmet Head

The more I think about this, DC, the more I like it.

If you read the posts of guys like Bek, they are infused with expectations/assumptions of myth #2 being true.

I think your "Two Golden Myths of Cycling in Traffic" succinctly captures what many motorists (#1) and probably most cyclists (#2) wrongly believe or expect about cycling in traffic, and are the root cause of a lot of unnecessary frustation and conflict out there.

You might consider starting a thread on this, expand on what they mean and their implications, and ask for comments/reactions. I, for one, would be happy to participate in such a discussion.

Eli_Damon

As others have pointed out, the key word here is "reasonable". I would say that it is beyond reasonable to pull entirely off of the road. There are situations in which I do pull off of the road to let a car or (especially a) truck pass me. For example, there is a road in my town that is very narrow and the asphault is in very bad condition and its also hilly and curvy as well. However, I would not pull over if there were many cars behind me because I would never get anywhere. It is what computer scientists would call "starvation". I could be standing on the side of the indefinitely waiting for the road to clear.

Furthermore, an important principle underlying traffic laws is you are not responsible for what happens behind you, only what happens in front of you (unless you are turning or changing lanes). For example, if someone in front of you hits the brakes and you ram them from behind, it is considered your fault because you are responsible for staying far enough behind them to keep from ramming them. Similarly, you should not be expected to constantly look behind you and count cars, which sounds very dangerous to me since if you looking behind you, you are not looking in front of you and your inattention could cause a collision.

Helmet Head

What if there is no parking, but the curb lane is too narrow to be safely shared. Do you still "ride as far to the right as safely possible", or do you choose a more "centerish" position where you control the full lane?

jcm

One responder mentioned The Golden Rule. In light of this, I find all other contigent exigencies moot...

CommuterRun

The regulation in the OP sounds very ambiguous.

Here the pertinent regulation is:
(italics mine)

There is another obstructing traffic regulation that covers pedestrians, particularly in regards to soliciting, but nothing that covers bicycles. Their being defined as vehicles, but not motor vehicles.

joejack951

Who said anything about doddling (or whatever term you like for riding slower along a road than a pace that's comfortable)? I can be busting my butt up a hill at 5mph which would be "doddling" speed on another road. I'm not trying to slow anyone down but I am incapable of physically going any faster. I'm moving at a "reasonable" speed, like the law says I should. It's not the "normal" speed of traffic on that road so I will pull off if there is a safe spot to do so and if I am significantly slowing down traffic. The "significantly slowing" part will vary from time to time and especially from person to person but no one should feel the need to get out of the way by any means possible all the time just because they are causing others to slow down for a while. If that was not the intent of your post, then please clarify.

It's possible from your wording that you are saying to move over on roads where the width allows you to do so safely, in which case I wholeheartedly agree. I'm referring to roads where there is not space to move over and no matter where you positioned yourself you'd be compromising your safety unless the following vehicles left the lane to pass.

bike2math

Some seem to even think they shouldn't have to change lanes regardless of whether the one to the left is clear.