I-Like-To-Bike

I guess in VA cyclists can't be cited for violating traffic codes since they are considered "pedestrians" by so many luminaries. VA cyclists better look out for the jaywalking tickets, eh? Tickets for jaywalking cyclist shaped pedestrians probably occur as often as any motorist, anywhere, ever was cited for not giving an audible signal when passing a slower vehicle or pedestrian. Perhaps one of the BF legal beagles can cite any case from anywhere where liability was ever assigned to a cyclist for not giving an audible signal when passing anything.

Febs

Why is the phrase "on a sidewalk [or] shared-use path" so difficult for you to understand?

I-Like-To-Bike

Read again the so-called reason given why one bicycle passing another is required to give an audible signal:
https://67.201.16.77/showpost.php?p=9349620&postcount=21 No "on a sidewalk [or] shared-use path" qualifier, Jack.

...unless you want to play the bicyclist is a pedestrian when on "on a sidewalk [or] shared-use path" card.

So make up your legal eagle mind, does a bicyclist vehicle operator "on a sidewalk [or] shared-use path" then become a pedestrian only when being passed and is entitled to a mandatory audible warning from passing bicycle vehicles that are not pedestrians; or what.

Are these bicycle shaped pedestrians "on a sidewalk [or] shared-use path" required to stop at stop signs at intersections with streets and roads? Or are they just like joggers and other pedestrians, free to keep right on going if the road is clear?

All I see are a handful of BF pedants trying to apply bizarre interpretations of obscure and totally unenforced traffic codes to come up with a legal requirement for cyclists to make an audible signal when passing any and everything no matter how unnecessary or counter productive. Call out "On Yer Left" and blast your Air Zounds at everybody in your way, but don't gloat that you are somehow only fulfilling your legal requirements as a Lawful Competent Cyclist™

mikeybikes

Actually, I would like to see if you can find that for me. I've tried looking through the CRS myself, but have had difficulty finding it.

I-Like-To-Bike

It will be particularly interesting to read how this obscure Colorado "law" describes "treated as a pedestrian" and "treated as a pedestrian" by whom -motorists at intersections, other bicyclists, other pedestrians, by the police?

sundaypunch

cc-rider = 1
I like to bike = 0

Febs

That post referred to the Ohio statute. We were discussing the Virginia statute:

San Rensho 

The "rule", and this is not based on laws, or etiquette or anything else, but simply on physics, is that the bike in front always has the right of way.

If your front wheel overlaps any part of the bike in front of you, that bike controls your path. If it moves into your front wheel, YOU WILL FALL, not the cyclist in front. So you have to move over if the bike in front moves over or face the consequences. Until you are completely next to the cyclist, the cyclist in front has the right of way.

I-Like-To-Bike

Maybe we were but my comment was a reply to this specific post by ccrider https://67.201.16.77/showpost.php?p=9379811&postcount=50 who implied that bicyclists are considered "pedestrians" by a long list of VA bicycling authorities with no qualifier about applying only to sidewalks or trails.

Febs

Wrong again, ILTB. That post by cc_rider referred at least three times to trails, and it is unmistakeably clear from the context of the question of yours to which he was responding that he was referring to sidewalks and trails: