jester69

Hehehehehhahahaha. You do't understand the law a lick do you. 2 years of criminal justice training, and you haven't a clue. Yep, a bicycle is a motor vehicle and the law applys the same. As you may have noticed, it says in 28-812 you have all the rights and responsibilities of a vehicle, period. If you don't understand the significant difference between a vehicle and motor vehicle, there is no point discussing this further.

My guess is that:
a) you have never driven a bicycle on a roadway for any ammount of miles, your complete lack of understanding of lane position makes that VERY obvious.

b) you are an officer of the law or pencil pusher at a police station with a prejudice against bicyclists slowing people down, and harass law abiding bicylists due to your irrational views. I only hope you are not a peace officer and don't actually get to interact with people under the color of authority.

c) You have just enough knowledge of the law to twist what it says to support your position, but not enough to really understand it or know what it means. I suggest you go speak with a competent attorney, and see what they say. A hint, they probably won't see it your way.

Since you obvioulsly aren't a cyclist, please go elsewhere to troll.

Good luck,

Jester

Richard D

Jester - he might just ride mainly on bike paths or off-road.

jester69

True, you might have a point there. I stand by my statement, though that he has little or no road miles under his belt.

One would think if he were an avid off road cyclist he would have more sympathy for his on road bretheren and have at least a slight understanding of how a bicycle might be used on a roadway.

So, it appears to me that he cycles not, and has come here solely to try to convince us "sinners" that holding up cars is evil and we should all ride in the gutters where the freaks belong.

I could be wrong though, how about you tell us your mileage this year, and post a picture of you on a bicycle Lamajo25. Let's explore what we have in common, a love of cycling.

take care,

Jester

Richard D

In the UK you can't be charged with speeding but can be charged under an archaic law of 'Pedalling Furiously'. I'd love to challenge on grouns of a low cadence but high gearing

Bobatin

Reporter?

randya

Motorists were at fault in approximately 60% of the reported bicycle-motor vehicle crashes in Portand between 1998 and 2001.

Of all reported bicycle-motor vehicle crashes in Portland in those four years of record (98-01), less than 10% involve a rear-end collision between two vehicles traveling in the same direction. Therefore, taking the lane is not an inherently unsafe practice.

The highest percentage of bicycle-motor vehicle crashes in Portland in those four years have involved a motor vehicle failing to yield by turning left or right across the path of a cyclist or pulling out in front of a cyclist. Hugging the curb or riding in the gutter reduces a cyclist's visibility and therefore increases the chances of this type of high-probability crash. Taking the lane would therefore probably reduce the incidence of these types of crashes.

The other high-probability type of crash involves failure to stop at a red light or stop sign, with motorists and cyclists at fault in approximately equal proportions. Taking the lane (or not) is probably irrelevant to these crashes.

FXjohn

Are you saying cars are driving around in the gutters, or do you mean it's dangerous because you could get clipped by a mirror?

When i hear a car approaching I get the heck out of the way

Richard D

I think he's saying that by riding in the gutter you are cycling in an area outside of the drivers main area of focus. Hence when the driver needs to turn right (or left in some countries) they will have had less chance of having seen you and are more likely to plow into your side.

If you're riding in the gutter you don't always have anywhere to go. If you ride two feet from the curb/parked cars then you've got a bicycle width of relatively safe space to pull into.


I can't comment on government published advice in other countries but in the UK the HMSO published book 'CycleCraft' stresses these points quite effectively. I'd recommend you look for something similar, it might improve your riding safety.

FXjohn

Actually I've never wrecked, If a car was behind me and turning, I would be aware believe me. Thanks for thinking of me though.
I'm lucky I guess I don't have to ride between moving traffic and parked cars, yikes. I always assume people in cars don't see me.

FXjohn

uciflylow

I'm with you jester69, I don't think this troll rides enough to know what he is talking about! Maby he needs to just stick to the plastic models, or take up fishing.

lamajo25

Exactly. Motorists are for the most part to blame. I forget what is the main topic of this part of bike forums. Advocacy & Safety. Everyone is saying that by taking the lane it's actually safer.

As you can tell your sarcasim is just about the stuff that will get you hurt. Vehicle is all inclusive to include motor vehicles and human powered. To exclude as you can see only human powered vehicles on tracks.

Wrong if by you taking the lane and an accident occurs you are liable for the accident occuring. If it was you that caused the vehicle to move out of your path because you took it without utilizing another route to avoid the hazard ahead.

Once again. If there is a hazard in the path the laws obviously state that you are allowed to pass it on the left and if taking the lane to do so is available do so. I'm not telling you not to. It just doesn't make sense as to you reasoning of the right hand side isn't sufficient.

I'm pretty much guessing none of you have actaully looked at the 1995 statistics. Most of the accidents that occurred from side traffic the cyclists that were more seen from the drivers side window were least likely hit. Go over some of the graphics on the document (yes it's a document not a web page). Most of the pictures will actaully surprise you when you actaully figure out where in each scenario actaully occurred with in the bicycles path of travel.

Jester the good thing about where I live, it's not far to ride to work and it is a decent town to ride on the streets pulling my children in a bike cart. On top of the fact that I ride home in the dark most of the time on streets that aren't lit. Talk about riding in unforgiving conditions. Is that a hazard should I have taken the lane. Heck no because most vehicles at night are the ones that are drunk. I'm sticking to the side. Yes I utilize a Xenon head light and a Strob LED tail light to make myself seen. I just have a problem with the fact that you guys are saying that the actual lane of traffic is the best route most of the time.

There is always a route. Normally the fastest way to avoid an incident is to stop. I don't know about you guys but my bike stops on a dime. Has anyone here been in an accident where you get a ticket for rear ending another vehicle (more or less in your car not on your bike). Have you ever read the ticket. The citation is for failure to control a vehicle to avoid an accident. In a rear ending you either were following to closely or you didn't break in time to avoid the accident. So your best defence is to stop. Not take the lane and attempt to know what you guys are talking about.

Yes you can get tagged for any of the other laws because under the laws you as a cyclist are bound by all other laws under your states titles. If you don't feel that I'm giving you proper information call you local police agency and ask to speak with an officer. Preferrably a Sergeant to verify what I'm saying.

Chris L

Actually, I said that taking the lane (or part of it) was safer in certain circumstances (i.e. where there is no room to "just get out of the way"). I'm guessing you've not ridden in those circumstances.

I looked that the graphics - however they don't really tell me a lot. It's a situation of one graphic is supposed to cover 50-odd collisions under a particular category. It doesn't give me specifics of what either the driver or the cyclist was doing at the time. Consequently, I'll utilise what I've learned from my own experience instead.

Again, it depends on the situation. Maybe you're lucky in that every road in your area has nice wide shoulders and so on. Not all of us have that luxury. I suppose we could move, but really, I don't see it as a major problem. I just ride in the lane where appropriate.

As far as drunk drivers go, I get them at 7am around here!

Not unless you're prepared to risk the footpath/sidewalk. I'm not. Personally I believe my survival chances are greater in the lane.

Dude, my bike does mountain descents in torrential rain (at least did before this blasted drought hit). I can stop in plenty of time if necessary. Fact is, it rarely is necessary, and the times when it has been necessary would have ALL been averted by simply claiming the lane.

I've never been in even the remotest danger of rear-ending someone when claiming the lane. The biggest danger is of other vehicles rear-ending me (which has yet to even look like happening). Again, the emphasis is on the following vehicle.

Actually, I'd rather simply carry around a sound knowledge of the laws that apply to me so I can use it if I ever get a clueless Sergeant. If I'm going to call anyone to explain the situation, it will either be a lawyer or a judge, because they're the people I'll be dealing with if I ever have a hassle in that area.

lamajo25

You read it incorrectly. I stated in a vehicle, like a car, truck or similar vehicle. Not on your bicycle.

If you look at some of them they will tell you where each percentage of some of the accidents heappen on each part of the road. Like for instance you are traveling through an intersection, it breaks it down as to which parts of the lane are safest i.e. the sidewalk and the actual lane. Yes, they derived this information from statistics that are from law enforcements, not guestimations on where they think the accidents happened.

If you have gotten yourself into a situation that the main option is claiming the lane, then you aren't thinking fast enough. The fastest and most safe way to avoid any problems even in a car is to slow down or stop. Instead of claiming the lane in front of cars, back off until they clear and move over. It seems to me that you are wanting to be in traffic more than out of the way. I just more or less want people to see the actual safety aspects. Some of the graphics showed me that it's safer on the sidewalk than in the actual road when going through an intersection, or more of the crosswalk than the actual intersection.

I printed the information out so that I could actually go over it page by page and not have to worry about the page having to load and getting ahead of myself. I do admit there are a ton of pages but you can go over the info better than looking at it on a computer screen.

Safety is a first concern not just the laws, and the laws are made to restrict people, they are made to protect you. As for the statement of the clueless Sergeant, the next time you get pulled over by an officer, ask for a Sergeant or supervisor and see if he will help you out of what ever ticket you get. He will be able to explain it the best for you since they have that position for a reason, it's called years of experience. They didn't get there from sitting behind a desk, it's from enforcing the laws.

Allister

lamajo25,

Keep riding little one. Eventually you will learn. And stop looking at statistics - they will teach you nothing about what is going to happen, only give vague hints about what has happened.

Until then, stick to subjects that you actually know something about as this clearly isn't one of them.

SteveE

lamajo25,

In only a few of the scenarios described in the DOT publication is any indication made of whether the cyclist is in the road or on the sidewalk. Also, in only two --- Motorist Overtaking - Misjudged Space and Motorist Overtaking - Other --- was ANY mention made of a bike lane. So I do not understand how you are using these figures to support your argument that taking the lane is more dangerous. What am I missing?

The numbers also do not tell us what percentage of the total number of cyclists are riding in each of the positions mentioned. If 1 in 5 crashes in a described scenario involved cyclists riding in the bike lane but fewer than 20% of all cyclists actually used the bike lane then I would have to reason that it would be less safe to ride in the bike lane than elsewhere.

It is interesting to note that "Drive Out at Midblock" accounts for nearly 7% of all crashes. In this scenario, 75% of the cyclists involved are either riding on a sidewalk or riding the wrong way on the street. Only 13% of cyclists involved were in the roadway traveling in the direction of traffic. I would guess that most cyclists (80-90%?) are traveling in the direction of traffic. So, at least in this particular scenario, riding in the street like a motor vehicle is by far the safest place to be.

Bobatin

It is the following drivers responsibility to pass in a safe manner ie they are at fault if they pass me and get into an accident. We just had a kid killed here driving a Camaro. He passed annother car on a curve with a double yellow line and ran head on into another car. He was at fault no question, but according to your logic the driver being passed was at fault. Sorry, but I think you are either crazy or just trying to rile people up.

Chris L

Agreed. As I said before, statistics rarely paint the whole picture, and this case isn't one of them. If lane-claiming is "so dangerous", how have I survived over 100,000km doing so, without so much as breaking a fingernail, never mind being "run over". My post on a previous page somewhere shows how I read those statistics, and that only about 2% of the crashes they mentioned could have even possibly arisen from lane claiming.

Lamajo, I go back to what I said earlier, you ride by your stats, I'll ride by mine, and we'll see who's still here in 10 years time.

uciflylow

What Allister and Chris L said! Ditto!

Stor Mand

I will say that there are a few places near me that I will NOT ride in the road and choose the sidewalk for a short distance. With my dughter in tow, I will not take her on the main road near me at all at this point since there are no defined lanes and traffic moves along pretty briskly ... maybe when she is a little older (only 5 right now). We do ride on the side streets together AND take the lane and she loves it.

Richard D

lamajo25, before I give up completely with this thread, to go back to the original question of this thread you do accept your regulations clearly legally permit taking the lane for reasons not just of hazzard avoidance but also if you judge the lane too narrow to allow another vehicle to safely travel beside you? As in - "4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane." Note the use of term "safely" not "physically possible". And that your regulations also permit taking the lane if you're travelling at the prevailing speed As in - "A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway". Or are you denying that it is legal to a)take the lane if travelling at the same speed as the rest of the traffic b) take the lane for hazzard avoidance c) take the lane if the lane is too narrow for vehicles to safely overtake?

Richard

jester69

This is the one that he seems to ignore completely, once claiming that such roads didn't exist. Farm roads here in MO that I ride on have no shoulder and are just barely wide enough for a car, much less a car and bike together. So, wether you ride at the very edge, or in the middle you have still taken the lane.

I have given up on this thread, or at least LaMajo25. I still don't buy that this person rides much if at all. It is a bicycle trailer not a bicycle cart for goodness sake, if you had bought one you'd see that on the box it came in.

In any event, I will take your statements at face value and say: good luck with your riding, I hope you are right and your way is safer, especially since you bike with a child.

I'll keep claiming the lane when I think it is safest for all involved that I do so, and take my chances with the law, fate, etc.

take care,

Jester

P.S. In spanish "La Majo" means "The Smart one." Just thought I'd throw that out there.

lamajo25

As I stated before, we had a court ruling here in Arizona stating that if you are found to be "involved" you can be liable for your actions. If anyone knows how to look them up here. State of Arizona v. Korovkin. The suspect was racing with a seocnd vehicle which ended up colliding with a thrid vehicle that was not involved and ended up in an injury accident. The suspect left feeling he was not involved due no contact with his vehicle. He was later charged with leaving the scene of an accident and it was upheld for the fact that he was involved. This directly applies to the laws of unsafe lane change, and speeding. If you take the lane and a vehicle that has come up behind you ends up having to change lanes and collides with another vehicle you can be charged with unsafe lane change. Yes it appears that the vehicle that changed lanes would be at fault. But like I said you can be charged if he says that a bicycle ended up coming into the lane and I had to move over for him.

Obvious Bobatin you are looking at a completely different scenario. The kid driving the Camaro was in blatant disregard for the law and chose his own route of traffic. First of all it was unsafe to pass, second of all if it's on a curve it's more than likely that it was in a no passing zone. Thirdly that is a perfect example of a Darwin.

I have one of these roads. Yes I do understand this and I don't dispute it. This would be a two lane no passing lane with no shoulder or curb and probably not paved very well. It runs directly North and South in front of my house. I still stay to the right and I do feel that it isn't sufficient as a road not as a road for both traffic and bicycles.

There is no denying that there are reasons for taking the lane. I dispute the fact that some here have the idea that if the lane is just a bit too narrow, or the small rock ahead, or a car ahead is good enough for them to take the lane (granted I'm sure everyone looks behind them to check on traffic approaching *I hope*) at any time and hold it until they feel safe to go back over to the right, which in somes mind it could be a mile or two down the road.

Like some, I'm one that will take the sidewalk or backing off to a very, very slow crawl until traffic is clear *Not just less traffic pretty much clear*.

I'll mail you the box. It is a cart if it has the conversion to stroller. It's just a hole on the front trailer arm that you place a small foam wheel in.

If you look at the preceeding depiction of all scenarios they depict how the scenario is to be described. They at intersections they break it down as to where each percentage of cyclists were hit in which zones they were riding in by percentages. Obviously you didn't pay attention in Algebra in highschool because you would know that You have the amount of accidents that occured in a specific scenario and a percentage of that said amount of accidents in each scenario. So you can figure out "On Certain Scenarios" how many people were in which position on the road or sidewalk.

The reason I brought this to everyone's attention is the fact that, per CrisL the likely hood of any of these accidents actually happen.

No they don't tell you what is going to happen, they do tell you what has happened and how to learn from them. Yes I would say also that most of the accidents that were in the document were at the fault of the motorist. Thus the concept of Laws and Safety.

Bobatin

If I am "taking the lane" I am not making a lane change. If the following driver makes an illegal lane change to avoid me rather than slow down and wait for an apropriate place to pass he is at fault. Your drag racing scenario does not even come into play. If you come up behind a bicycle or horse and buggy it is your responsibility to find a safe place to pass not theres.

Were you in some kind of an accident involving passing a cyclist and are using your present logic to try to remove responsibility for yourself?

lamajo25

So when you are driving your car you are taking the lane also. You aren't changing? Wow you need to go back to elementary school and figure out what taking and sharing and changing are.

Yes you are Changing lanes. You are going from one lane to another. Even if it isn't marked with a white line and says Bicycle lane. What is the first thing you do when you take the lane. You must signal your intentions with your arm and make it clear that you will be moving into that lane. Correct?

If you don't give that person a large enough area to do so safely this is where the fault lies in your hands.

How not? If he was a third party involved what makes him not just like a cyclist that takes a lane and doesn't leave enough room for the passing cars to make a decision without having to slam on the brakes? Thus impeding traffic and causing a hazard.

Yes it is the responsibility of the driver of the vehicle. But if you aren't paying attention and you force an issue you can get the blame. This is where I keep saying the motorist's are normally to blame for the cyclists accident. Thus how is taking the lane the safest route to take? Granted you can ride your entire life without getting into an accident, that doesn't mean they don't happen. You can drive a car for your entire life and never get a ticket, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You could be an officer and never draw your gun, but that doesn't mean you won't get shot if you retire and start up a new job in a small town (and just so you know that has happened here in Arizona to one of my co-workers, worked at Phoenix Police for 22 years, came up to my small little town and was shot by a fleeing felon at point blank range while tryint to apprehend him.)

You guys are going through trying to tell me that it's safer to take the lane, but you aren't showing me that it's safer. I found the stats with a break down of some intersection accidents and it shows that the person on the sidewalk is actually safer than that of the person in the lane.

Yeah that's it. I'm showing you precedent from a court case, statistics that bicyclists do get into accidents and the fact that motorists don't pay attention for you. So you pay attention, and make sure you use a safe method to avoid obstacles. I don't know about you guys but I grew up in a big city, and for those of you riding on farm roads, you just don't count. I've ridden on those roads before and you may actually come across a car or tractor down the road every 50-75 miles.

I just don't care how many miles you have ridden, you still haven't proven to me that it's the safest route to take. Even if you've ridden a million miles on a bike that doesn't mean that accidents can't happen to you.

Spire

I really do not see what is so hard to understand lamajo25. If I am taking the lane of a road and a car comes up behind me and while passing gets into an accident, it is 100% their fault. There is no disputing that at all. It is the passing motorists responsibility in all situations be it passing a cyclist, horse, farm tractor, or another car to make sure it is safe to pass first. The only difference is that here in Quebec, motorists are permitted to cross solid lines to pass cyclists.

However it is the responsibility of the cyclist not to cut somebody off as they move into the center of the lane.