Pulled over (and ticketed!) for using the center of a narrow lane
12-05-07, 07:05 AM
#526
Senior Member
Thread Starter
If that was the case, I'd have no problems riding to the far right in the lane on this road. I'd be causing the same delay as I caused the morning I was pulled over though.
The reality of my experience riding this road though has been that motorist will try to squeeze into an 8 foot opening at full speed. On the flip side, many motorists will not and the result is the same or an increased delay as if I had been riding centerish in the lane, a position that in no way tempts motorists to try and share the lane with me.
The reality of my experience riding this road though has been that motorist will try to squeeze into an 8 foot opening at full speed. On the flip side, many motorists will not and the result is the same or an increased delay as if I had been riding centerish in the lane, a position that in no way tempts motorists to try and share the lane with me.
12-05-07, 07:09 AM
#527
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Amidst all this pontification, argument and debate I think that most people on here have missed the real crux of the matter.
The real crux of the matter is that JoeJack was was quite plainly and simply "BEING A SMART ARSE".
He was riding down the centre of the lane with a tailback of traffic queing up behind him whistling dixie and saying to himself: "up yours car drivers".
Unfortunately the Law was in the que behind him and was obviously pi$$ed of with the smart arses behaviour so he gave him his come uppance.
JoeJack, IF YOU CAN'T PAY THE FINE, DON'T DO THE CRIME and stop behaving like a smart arse because, 1) you're giving us sensible cyclists a bad name and 2) you're taking up far too much bandwith (as well as lane width).
The real crux of the matter is that JoeJack was was quite plainly and simply "BEING A SMART ARSE".
He was riding down the centre of the lane with a tailback of traffic queing up behind him whistling dixie and saying to himself: "up yours car drivers".
Unfortunately the Law was in the que behind him and was obviously pi$$ed of with the smart arses behaviour so he gave him his come uppance.
JoeJack, IF YOU CAN'T PAY THE FINE, DON'T DO THE CRIME and stop behaving like a smart arse because, 1) you're giving us sensible cyclists a bad name and 2) you're taking up far too much bandwith (as well as lane width).
If you haven't realized either, this thread has nothing to do with not being able to pay a fine.
12-05-07, 09:26 AM
#528
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Originally Posted by joe
So Bek, how does the savvy [Portland] vehicular cyclist make a left hand turn on a multilane road?
were you getting ready to make a left turn, joe?
haven't figured out what the 18 feet of pavement to your right could be used for on that road yet, eh, joe? here's a hint: if you can ride a road as if the bike lane stripe is not there, you should also be able to ride a road as if the rest of the stripes are not there either.
on this road, joe, why DON'T you do like a lot of other vehicular bicyclists would do, and ride a line just to the right of the edge of the rightmost thru lane, as if you were sharing a high speed road with a wide, very wide shoulder?
oh, that's right, you're new at this and read all about taking the lane in bike forums and have become a dogmatically addled newbie VC bicyclist.
12-05-07, 10:11 AM
#529
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I don't live in Portland, dude. but all cyclists, savvy or not, on a road with a bike lane or not, making left turns on multi laned roads will execute either a merge turn, a pedestrian turn, a cut corner, an agressive multilaned move perhaps. it's up to the bicyclist reading the conditions at the time.
were you getting ready to make a left turn, joe?
were you getting ready to make a left turn, joe?
haven't figured out what the 18 feet of pavement to your right could be used for on that road yet, eh, joe? here's a hint: if you can ride a road as if the bike lane stripe is not there, you should also be able to ride a road as if the rest of the stripes are not there either.
on this road, joe, why DON'T you do like a lot of other vehicular bicyclists would do, and ride a line just to the right of the edge of the rightmost thru lane, as if you were sharing a high speed road with a wide, very wide shoulder?
oh, that's right, you're new at this and read all about taking the lane in bike forums and have become a dogmatically addled newbie VC bicyclist.
oh, that's right, you're new at this and read all about taking the lane in bike forums and have become a dogmatically addled newbie VC bicyclist.
12-05-07, 10:40 AM
#530
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
joe, on this road, why DON'T you do like a lot of other vehicular bicyclists would do, and ride a line just to the right of the edge of the rightmost thru lane, as if you were sharing a high speed road with a wide, very wide shoulder?
i bet even jhon forestoir would do it!
i bet even jhon forestoir would do it!
12-05-07, 11:12 AM
#531
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Are you even allowed to appeal? Was your case heard in a Justice of the Peace Court or an Alderman's Court? If your case was heard in a Justice of the Peace Court, you may not be eligible to appeal if your fine is less than $100 (I'm not sure if court cost assessment is considered part of the fine).
https://courts.delaware.gov/How%20To/...?JPTraffic.htm
https://courts.delaware.gov/How%20To/...?JPTraffic.htm
12-05-07, 11:17 AM
#532
Senior Member
Thread Starter
If the officer says you were not cooperating, he probably interpreted your behavior as argumentative. It sounds like you had a chance to get out of receiving a ticket, but chose to argue your case with the police officer instead. If that is what you wanted to do, fine.
For me, even if I know the law inside out and sideways, it is never my objective at a traffic stop to teach a police officer about the law or make a point. There are more appropriate, more effective, and cheaper ways to do that. My objective is to 1) not get a ticket, and if that fails 2) do everything possible to help my case in court (which consists of not admitting guilt and trying to make the stop as uneventful and unmemorable as possible).
Attorney fees, even for a $45 ticket, are likely to run around $300.
For me, even if I know the law inside out and sideways, it is never my objective at a traffic stop to teach a police officer about the law or make a point. There are more appropriate, more effective, and cheaper ways to do that. My objective is to 1) not get a ticket, and if that fails 2) do everything possible to help my case in court (which consists of not admitting guilt and trying to make the stop as uneventful and unmemorable as possible).
Attorney fees, even for a $45 ticket, are likely to run around $300.
1. Cyclists should ride on the bike path (referring to the right turn lane where he pulled me over).
2. Cyclists should ride "as far right as practicable on the shoulder" (he acted as though he was reading this from his book).
3. Cyclists should ride as far right as practicable on the roadway (ignoring the exception that if the lane is too narrow to be safely shared that this law does not apply).
If I had agreed to any of the above, he would have let me go. If I had not had almost the same discussion with another cop about a week before this incident I might have just let it go. Getting pulled over is not something I enjoy so in order to be able to continue to use this road in a manner that I feel is the best, I stood my ground. It got me a ticket so now I'm going about dealing with it.
12-05-07, 12:09 PM
#533
Part-time epistemologist
Funny that you ask. My original fine was $25 (the minimum for this offense). After my first court case, which was held in a JOP Court, the officer requested that my fine be raised to the maximum of $115. In doing so, he actually gave me the oppurtunity to appeal which I otherwise would not have had with only a $25 fine.
How long before your appeal is heard?
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
A narrative on bicycle driving.
12-05-07, 12:44 PM
#534
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Again, the position you describe as not compromised, centered between the tire tracks, is far from the least compromised position in the lane. And even the least compromised position (from which, again, you are quite far) would still leave us somewhat compromised. ¿Comprende?
So not only are you compromised, but may not realize you are. This is far worse than simply being compromised. Compromise is inevitable, but we need to recognize when and how we compromise and are compromised so we can deal with it appropriately.
It's a bit nutty when people who ride bikes in traffic proclaim they will not allow their safety to be compromised any more than necessary. If that were true, they wouldn't go out on the streets without encasing themselves in something beefy, like a Hummer or Expedition. They certainly wouldn't ride around out there for relatively frivolous purposes like recreation or training. Let's get real. It's too late -- you compromised yourself already.
Robert
So not only are you compromised, but may not realize you are. This is far worse than simply being compromised. Compromise is inevitable, but we need to recognize when and how we compromise and are compromised so we can deal with it appropriately.
It's a bit nutty when people who ride bikes in traffic proclaim they will not allow their safety to be compromised any more than necessary. If that were true, they wouldn't go out on the streets without encasing themselves in something beefy, like a Hummer or Expedition. They certainly wouldn't ride around out there for relatively frivolous purposes like recreation or training. Let's get real. It's too late -- you compromised yourself already.
Robert
Yes, of course my safety is compromised, as compared to staying home on the couch, no matter where I ride.
But your original statement using "compromise" was this:
Originally Posted by Robert Hurst
Cycling in traffic is also cycling with traffic and is best accomplished with a healthy dose of compromise and cooperation.
You're already compromising your safety just by being out there, but you still don't have a "healthy dose" of compromise. That's not enough. Cycling with traffic is best accomplished with even more compromise in your safety, a "healthy dose", so go ahead and ride in that door zone, hug that curb, share lanes that are too narrow to be safely shared, use right turn only lanes when you're going straight, go straight across intersections from curbside lateral positions, leave the helmet and lights at home, run those stop signs and red traffic lights, ride on the wrong side of the street.... After all, cycling in traffic is best accomplished with a healthy dose of compromise of your safety.
Obviously, I exaggerate. But it would be helpful if you would differentiate what you're actually saying from the hyperbole interpretation above.
12-05-07, 01:35 PM
#535
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
12 Posts
Well, here you are using such a broad and extreme definition for "compromise" and what it takes to be "compromised" that it essentially becomes useless.
Yes, of course my safety is compromised, as compared to staying home on the couch, no matter where I ride.
But your original statement using "compromise" was this:
This is a different usage, where you are actually advocating more compromise (a "healthy dose") than at least some cyclists are willing to give. What you seem to be saying is:
Yes, of course my safety is compromised, as compared to staying home on the couch, no matter where I ride.
But your original statement using "compromise" was this:
This is a different usage, where you are actually advocating more compromise (a "healthy dose") than at least some cyclists are willing to give. What you seem to be saying is:
You're already compromising your safety just by being out there, but you still don't have a "healthy dose" of compromise. That's not enough. Cycling with traffic is best accomplished with even more compromise in your safety, a "healthy dose", so go ahead and ride in that door zone, hug that curb, share lanes that are too narrow to be safely shared, use right turn only lanes when you're going straight, go straight across intersections from curbside lateral positions, leave the helmet and lights at home, run those stop signs and red traffic lights, ride on the wrong side of the street.... After all, cycling in traffic is best accomplished with a healthy dose of compromise of your safety.
Obviously, I exaggerate. But it would be helpful if you would differentiate what you're actually saying from the hyperbole interpretation above.To be clear: don't ride fast in the door zone. There may be times when using the door zone space will be helpful, but you have to ride slow and paranoid to use that space. And keep in mind that moving toward the DZ, but not into it, is perceived by drivers to be helpful and cooperative in most situations. You can move to a space 6 feet from parked cars and it still looks to the following driver like you are essentially next to the parked cars -- because 6 feet looks a lot smaller than many people realize.
People who think to themselves 'I am not going to compromise my safety' before they go out riding around in traffic should, in all seriousness, stay home, because that is the only place where such a thing would be possible. Traffic is compromise. It can function no other way. And this is compromise in any sense of the word you want to use. Traffic is also human beings, it is not some machine or algorithm into which we can plug our desired variables (eg lane position) and achieve a set of logical, predictable results.
When you're driving down the highway at 80 mph in a stream of cars and trucks, do you feel that your safety is not compromised simply because you are in a lane? I would hope that you realize that you are compromised in that situation, dependent on the faculties, abilities and awareness of others to a significant degree despite your best efforts. Just going out there is compromise in the ugliest sense, and it is true to some degree with cycling in traffic as well.
Robert
Last edited by RobertHurst; 12-05-07 at 01:41 PM.
12-05-07, 01:40 PM
#536
Part-time epistemologist
The level of aggressiveness changes with conditions. I agree that the median driver under "normal" conditions will wait when 8 feet of clearance presents itself. However, I think strategies that work for the median driver--in this case, on the scale of aggressiveness--will often fail for those in the tails. If you change driving conditions to make them more stressful, then the likelihood of an aggressive maneuver increases.
I agree with the statement above regarding a cyclist's bias towards overestimating narrow widths in this case. It does take a bit of practice and measurement to get a sense of what "X" feet looks like. Anecdotally, I think that the same idea applies to the perception of how close cars pass to cyclists. That is, on several occasions, buds have complained about the horizontal distance between them and a car that passed. When I told them that it looked like 3 feet, they were pretty surprised.
The problem with your analogy of the parked cars is that parked cars represent a bigger risk to the driver than a cyclist. Hence, they would behave differently.
Most people think 8 feet is a lot bigger than it really is. On the street, laid out, it shrinks. Folks should take a tape measure and see for themselves. I think if I asked a group of people to go out and show me what 8 feet looks like, most would show me something in the ten-foot range. And people think six feet is four point five, etc. In actuality eight feet represents a space that is clearly and obviously way too small for a driver to fit his car into, unless he's going ultra slow, maybe with a spotter. An addled driver might try to squeeze a car into ten feet. I doubt it. The streets in the neighborhood I lived in for years had twenty-plus feet between the parked cars on either side -- that's two ten- or eleven-foot lanes side by side. And cars still couldn't pass each other on these streets without the drivers slowing down considerably and cringing at each other. Also, consider that the width of the typical modern bike path is eleven feet. Imagine a driver coming up behind you on the bike path and driving past without slowing down or leaving the bike path. I have experienced such close passes at speed, but then I have also felt obligated to chase these drivers down and commence incidents. The only people who have done that to me have done it on purpose, to be *******s. You may ask, how can you tell, but intention has been blatant and obvious each time. After decades and a few hundred thousand miles of riding I can count these experiences on a single hand, thankfully.
In related news, it turns out that the Longest Yard is actually just three feet -- same as the Shortest Yard, goshdarnit.
In related news, it turns out that the Longest Yard is actually just three feet -- same as the Shortest Yard, goshdarnit.
I agree with the statement above regarding a cyclist's bias towards overestimating narrow widths in this case. It does take a bit of practice and measurement to get a sense of what "X" feet looks like. Anecdotally, I think that the same idea applies to the perception of how close cars pass to cyclists. That is, on several occasions, buds have complained about the horizontal distance between them and a car that passed. When I told them that it looked like 3 feet, they were pretty surprised.
The problem with your analogy of the parked cars is that parked cars represent a bigger risk to the driver than a cyclist. Hence, they would behave differently.
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
A narrative on bicycle driving.
12-05-07, 01:44 PM
#537
Part-time epistemologist
When you're driving down the highway at 80 mph in a stream of cars and trucks, do you feel that your safety is not compromised simply because you are in a lane? I would hope that you realize that you are compromised in that situation, dependent on the faculties, abilities and awareness of others to a significant degree despite your best efforts. Just going out there is compromise in the ugliest sense, and it is true to some degree with cycling in traffic as well.
Robert
Robert
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
A narrative on bicycle driving.
12-05-07, 01:49 PM
#538
Senior Member
Thread Starter
So far, all that is scheduled is an initial hearing in early January 2008.
12-05-07, 01:57 PM
#539
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The semantic abyss is calling once again.
To be clear: don't ride fast in the door zone. There may be times when using the door zone space will be helpful, but you have to ride slow and paranoid to use that space. And keep in mind that moving toward the DZ, but not into it, is perceived by drivers to be helpful and cooperative in most situations. You can move to a space 6 feet from parked cars and it still looks to the following driver like you are essentially next to the parked cars -- because 6 feet looks a lot smaller than many people realize.
People who think to themselves 'I am not going to compromise my safety' before they go out riding around in traffic should, in all seriousness, stay home, because that is the only place where such a thing would be possible. Traffic is compromise. It can function no other way. And this is compromise in any sense of the word you want to use. Traffic is also human beings, it is not some machine or algorithm into which we can plug our desired variables (eg lane position) and achieve a set of logical, predictable results.
When you're driving down the highway at 80 mph in a stream of cars and trucks, do you feel that your safety is not compromised simply because you are in a lane? I would hope that you realize that you are compromised in that situation, dependent on the faculties, abilities and awareness of others to a significant degree despite your best efforts. Just going out there is compromise in the ugliest sense, and it is true to some degree with cycling in traffic as well.
Robert
To be clear: don't ride fast in the door zone. There may be times when using the door zone space will be helpful, but you have to ride slow and paranoid to use that space. And keep in mind that moving toward the DZ, but not into it, is perceived by drivers to be helpful and cooperative in most situations. You can move to a space 6 feet from parked cars and it still looks to the following driver like you are essentially next to the parked cars -- because 6 feet looks a lot smaller than many people realize.
People who think to themselves 'I am not going to compromise my safety' before they go out riding around in traffic should, in all seriousness, stay home, because that is the only place where such a thing would be possible. Traffic is compromise. It can function no other way. And this is compromise in any sense of the word you want to use. Traffic is also human beings, it is not some machine or algorithm into which we can plug our desired variables (eg lane position) and achieve a set of logical, predictable results.
When you're driving down the highway at 80 mph in a stream of cars and trucks, do you feel that your safety is not compromised simply because you are in a lane? I would hope that you realize that you are compromised in that situation, dependent on the faculties, abilities and awareness of others to a significant degree despite your best efforts. Just going out there is compromise in the ugliest sense, and it is true to some degree with cycling in traffic as well.
Robert
What I don't get is why you seem to encourage cyclists to compromise their safety more than they already are. At least that's what it seems like you're doing when you write (paraphrasing), cycling in traffic is best accomplished with a healthy dose of compromise of your safety. The implication is that cycling in traffic is not accomplished quite as well with a less than healthy dose of compromise.
What do you consider to be cycling in traffic with a healthy dose of compromise, and how does that compare to cycling in traffic with something less than a healthy dose of compromise? And how is cycling in traffic "best accomplished" with the former rather than the latter?
12-05-07, 05:20 PM
#540
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Yorkshire, Gods own country
Posts: 113
Bikes: Boardman MTB PRO, Carrera Hellcat.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you are going to be such a prick, maybe you should read the whole thread first. The road I was on has two lanes in both directions, meaning that even if I'm using a whole lane for myself, motorists have a free lane in which they can pass me at whatever speed they want.
I don't suppose the outside lane was full of traffic too was it? Maybe you'r mate was cycling down the centre of that one?
12-05-07, 05:26 PM
#541
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Right, Now everyone be a good little cyclist and show blatant disregard for traffic control devices such as right hand turn lanes and stop lights like your supposed to and avoid getting a ticket. 
12-05-07, 05:29 PM
#542
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Yorkshire, Gods own country
Posts: 113
Bikes: Boardman MTB PRO, Carrera Hellcat.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Remind me to keep of the roads if I ever bother to visit the good old U.S. of A.
12-05-07, 05:40 PM
#543
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Yorkshire, Gods own country
Posts: 113
Bikes: Boardman MTB PRO, Carrera Hellcat.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Lesson no 2 for JoeJack ( I'll make it a quick one)
Whilst riding as far to the right of the lane, take a look behind you whilst approaching the LH turn. When there is a safe space clearly indicate your intention to turn left by holding your left arm out horizontally. When it is safe move quickly over as near to the LH side of the lane as possible thus allowing the vehicles that are not turning left to carry straight on on the inside of you. Any other vehicles turning left will line up behind you. Whe you approach the junction ensure there is a safe space and proceed quickly accross and proceed AS CLOSE TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE LANE AS POSSIBLE!!
Hey Joe (I hear a song coming on) it's not rocket science is it? Well it isn't to some of us!
12-05-07, 05:45 PM
#544
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Yorkshire, Gods own country
Posts: 113
Bikes: Boardman MTB PRO, Carrera Hellcat.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If I had agreed to any of the above, he would have let me go. If I had not had almost the same discussion with another cop about a week before this incident I might have just let it go. Getting pulled over is not something I enjoy so in order to be able to continue to use this road in a manner that I feel is the best, I stood my ground.it.
Surprise, surprise Joe.............you've got history. You really do surprise me! LOL>
A serial lane abuser eh?
12-05-07, 05:49 PM
#545
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Yorkshire, Gods own country
Posts: 113
Bikes: Boardman MTB PRO, Carrera Hellcat.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
01-15-08, 06:39 PM
#546
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Brief update: court case scheduled for July 2008. Nothing like taking 11 months to hear whether or not the court wants to actually back up what they've written into law.
01-15-08, 07:30 PM
#547
Fred E Fenders
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Again! Philippines & S. California
Posts: 1,453
Bikes: Jamis Aurora Elite
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Nothing like a right to a speedy trial! July / 2008?
Sorry to hear that JoeJack951. I know it doesn't help, but that will allow the issue to be rode into the ground via bikeforums.net.
Ride Safe!
Sorry to hear that JoeJack951. I know it doesn't help, but that will allow the issue to be rode into the ground via bikeforums.net.
Ride Safe!
__________________
F Thomas
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
F Thomas
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
01-15-08, 08:38 PM
#548
Banned.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
11 months to hear an appeal is not unusual.
p.s. You might also want to do some research and determine who actually writes the laws (hint: it's not the courts as you have claimed sunshine).
01-15-08, 09:50 PM
#549
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Of course, if you're used to disciplined pacelines and intelligent decision-making in the peloton, you're out of luck here, as that sort of thing went out with the Lance boom.
