This will be interesting to watch (ticketed for following the rules)
09-02-09, 07:23 AM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This will be interesting to watch (ticketed for following the rules)
From the Duluth News Tribune
The volunteer bike-riders who pull a trailer load of donated food to the Damiano Center each week are willing to deal with bad weather, Duluth hills and dangerous brushes with cars.
But they draw the line at traffic tickets.
“We take it as an issue of discrimination,” said Alex Strachota, 22, who graduated from the College of St. Scholastica last year with a degree in biology.
To the Duluth police, it’s an issue of public safety.
Police officers have ticketed Strachota, Greg Schultz and Sadie Sigford twice for impeding traffic.
Every Friday and Saturday for the past two years, Strachota, Schultz and Sigford have ridden bikes up from their home at the Dorothy Day House in the Endion neighborhood to the Whole Foods Co-op on Fourth Street, picked up about 100 pounds of food that otherwise would be thrown away, and taken it to the Damiano soup kitchen to donate.
Even if the thermometer reads 20 below zero, they’ve never had problems on the route, the three say. That is until July 31, when they were riding back from the Damiano Center and were given a traffic ticket.
Two weeks later they again were stopped and ticketed. They say they plan to fight the tickets, alleging their civil rights were violated.
But the police say the bicyclists were riding in the regular lane of traffic and that their slow speed was a safety hazard.
“They were impeding traffic,” police spokesman Brad Wick said. “In both instances there was an opportunity to move to the right, and they did not.”
The volunteers don’t deny riding in the traffic lane, but they say they have the legal right to do so.
The problem stems in part from the route they take to deliver the food, Fourth Street, which, though it’s designated as a bike route and directly connects the Co-op to the Damiano, is a difficult ride because it’s a single-lane traffic and filled with parked cars along the streets.
Compounding the problem for the three riders is that their rig to tow the food takes up almost two bike-widths. To keep that rider safe from being rammed from behind, the other two follow behind two abreast.
Though they say they ride 10 to 15 mph, cars still back up behind them.
“It would be illegal for any car to pass us,” Sigford acknowledges.
So why not take another mode of transportation?
For starters, the three have no cars and use bikes as their way to get around, including to school and work. And they say they’re following bike statutes, which includes riding 3 feet away from parked cars. On Fourth Street, that means riding into the traffic lane.
“It may seem like hyperbole and we’re being over the top comparing what’s happened to us to the civil rights movement,” Strachota said. “But we feel very much marginalized when we ride on our bikes.”
Adds Schultz: “It’s not a stretch to consider ourselves as second-class citizens in regards to transportation.”
Ironically, when they got their tickets on July 31, a friend visiting from out of town, Erin Cartwright, was riding illegally — too close to a parked car — when she got “doored” — someone opened their car door and she was sent flying.
She wasn’t injured, but a block after the accident she was pulled over by a Duluth police officer, who later called for two additional squads as backup. Not to check on Cartwright, but to give Schultz and Sigford tickets.
According to the report filed by Officer S.R. Peterson, he gave the tickets because he believed the bicyclists weren’t following state statutes and they needed to follow the right side of the road and weave into empty parking spaces when possible to let cars pass.
“My intent was to educate the riders keep them from impeding traffic in the future,” Peterson wrote.
But the three insist that what Peterson recommended is unsafe — and illegal.
Which is why two weeks later, the three were riding home again from the Damiano Center in the traffic lane of Fourth Street when they were stopped by an officer who had been called for backup on the first incident. In his report, Officer Scott Williams noted that 12 cars were backed up behind the riders.
So who’s right? State statute has some gray area on this, saying that bike riders should ride as close to the right-hand curb as possible, except when it’s “reasonably necessary” to avoid cars or other conditions that “make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.”
Generally, said James Gittemeier, a planner for the Arrowhead Regional Development Council who has designed bike routes, said bike riders have the same rules of the road as a car and can ride in a traffic lane — and riders shouldn’t weave in and out of parked cars.
But if they’re backing up traffic, should they move out of the way?
“Common courtesy says they should, but they don’t have to,” he said.
The volunteer bike-riders who pull a trailer load of donated food to the Damiano Center each week are willing to deal with bad weather, Duluth hills and dangerous brushes with cars.
But they draw the line at traffic tickets.
“We take it as an issue of discrimination,” said Alex Strachota, 22, who graduated from the College of St. Scholastica last year with a degree in biology.
To the Duluth police, it’s an issue of public safety.
Police officers have ticketed Strachota, Greg Schultz and Sadie Sigford twice for impeding traffic.
Every Friday and Saturday for the past two years, Strachota, Schultz and Sigford have ridden bikes up from their home at the Dorothy Day House in the Endion neighborhood to the Whole Foods Co-op on Fourth Street, picked up about 100 pounds of food that otherwise would be thrown away, and taken it to the Damiano soup kitchen to donate.
Even if the thermometer reads 20 below zero, they’ve never had problems on the route, the three say. That is until July 31, when they were riding back from the Damiano Center and were given a traffic ticket.
Two weeks later they again were stopped and ticketed. They say they plan to fight the tickets, alleging their civil rights were violated.
But the police say the bicyclists were riding in the regular lane of traffic and that their slow speed was a safety hazard.
“They were impeding traffic,” police spokesman Brad Wick said. “In both instances there was an opportunity to move to the right, and they did not.”
The volunteers don’t deny riding in the traffic lane, but they say they have the legal right to do so.
The problem stems in part from the route they take to deliver the food, Fourth Street, which, though it’s designated as a bike route and directly connects the Co-op to the Damiano, is a difficult ride because it’s a single-lane traffic and filled with parked cars along the streets.
Compounding the problem for the three riders is that their rig to tow the food takes up almost two bike-widths. To keep that rider safe from being rammed from behind, the other two follow behind two abreast.
Though they say they ride 10 to 15 mph, cars still back up behind them.
“It would be illegal for any car to pass us,” Sigford acknowledges.
So why not take another mode of transportation?
For starters, the three have no cars and use bikes as their way to get around, including to school and work. And they say they’re following bike statutes, which includes riding 3 feet away from parked cars. On Fourth Street, that means riding into the traffic lane.
“It may seem like hyperbole and we’re being over the top comparing what’s happened to us to the civil rights movement,” Strachota said. “But we feel very much marginalized when we ride on our bikes.”
Adds Schultz: “It’s not a stretch to consider ourselves as second-class citizens in regards to transportation.”
Ironically, when they got their tickets on July 31, a friend visiting from out of town, Erin Cartwright, was riding illegally — too close to a parked car — when she got “doored” — someone opened their car door and she was sent flying.
She wasn’t injured, but a block after the accident she was pulled over by a Duluth police officer, who later called for two additional squads as backup. Not to check on Cartwright, but to give Schultz and Sigford tickets.
According to the report filed by Officer S.R. Peterson, he gave the tickets because he believed the bicyclists weren’t following state statutes and they needed to follow the right side of the road and weave into empty parking spaces when possible to let cars pass.
“My intent was to educate the riders keep them from impeding traffic in the future,” Peterson wrote.
But the three insist that what Peterson recommended is unsafe — and illegal.
Which is why two weeks later, the three were riding home again from the Damiano Center in the traffic lane of Fourth Street when they were stopped by an officer who had been called for backup on the first incident. In his report, Officer Scott Williams noted that 12 cars were backed up behind the riders.
So who’s right? State statute has some gray area on this, saying that bike riders should ride as close to the right-hand curb as possible, except when it’s “reasonably necessary” to avoid cars or other conditions that “make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.”
Generally, said James Gittemeier, a planner for the Arrowhead Regional Development Council who has designed bike routes, said bike riders have the same rules of the road as a car and can ride in a traffic lane — and riders shouldn’t weave in and out of parked cars.
But if they’re backing up traffic, should they move out of the way?
“Common courtesy says they should, but they don’t have to,” he said.
09-02-09, 07:32 AM
#2
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Let's see... how does that old tome go... cyclists fare best... when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
I wonder how the cops would have treated a driver of a cement truck that was moving at 10-15MPH...
I wonder if the "offended" motorists could have taken an alternate route...
I wonder how the cops would have treated a driver of a cement truck that was moving at 10-15MPH...
I wonder if the "offended" motorists could have taken an alternate route...
09-02-09, 07:48 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Green Valley AZ
Posts: 3,770
Bikes: Trice Q; Volae Century; TT 3.4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
The bit about keeping the cargo rider safe from being rammed from behind by following behind two abreast sets off my detector as does the attempt for make this into a civil rights issue. In my experience Dorothy Day house works tend to be great people who do great work helping those in need and enjoy finding discrimination issues. I hope they climb down from their high horse for long enough to beat the ticket and continue.
Though the DD cyclists might choose to pull off to the side so often to set drivers free on a main through street it looks to me as if their ride of less than a half mile on 4th already avoids main streets.
Maybe 4th Street in Duluth would benefit from some traffic calming.
Though the DD cyclists might choose to pull off to the side so often to set drivers free on a main through street it looks to me as if their ride of less than a half mile on 4th already avoids main streets.
Maybe 4th Street in Duluth would benefit from some traffic calming.
09-02-09, 07:48 AM
#4
Full Member
12 cars backed up behind the cyclists is ridiculous and is inviting problems. If they could have pulled over to allow the traffic to pass, they should have done so. Whether they are REQUIRED to do so is a secondary issue.
09-02-09, 07:49 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Yet another case showing that misguided enforcement of the bicycle FRAP law is unfair and discriminatory to cyclists. Just as inevitable will be the same old, worn-out, feeble arguments attempting to justify it.
09-02-09, 08:02 AM
#6
cyclocommuter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brunswick, ME
Posts: 195
Bikes: L.L. Bean Evolution hybrid, Jazz Voltage rigid mtb
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
169.15 IMPEDING TRAFFIC.
No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law or except when the vehicle is temporarily unable to maintain a greater speed due to a combination of the weight of the vehicle and the grade of the highway.
09-02-09, 08:15 AM
#7
Señior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 13,749
Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
The parking areas are not part of the roadway. Cyclists are never required to ride there, and should not. Reentering traffic from the parking area can be extremely hazardous and anyone who says they should be doing that clearly doesn't have the best interest of the cyclists in mind.
I assume they know about the Trotwood v Selz ruling?
I assume they know about the Trotwood v Selz ruling?
__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
09-02-09, 08:16 AM
#8
cyclocommuter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brunswick, ME
Posts: 195
Bikes: L.L. Bean Evolution hybrid, Jazz Voltage rigid mtb
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Hmm, I just noticed that Minnesota's "operation of bicycle" law has a clause about impeding traffic:
169.222 OPERATION OF BICYCLE.
...
Subd. 4.Riding on roadway or shoulder.
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(2) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
(3) when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.
...
(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder shall not ride more than two abreast and shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
...
It looks like they could be charged under 169.222, but I would argue that the law contradicts itself. It cautions cyclists to avoid "...vehicles...or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge" while also instructing them to "not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic". It seems to me that on this particular road both requirements cannot be satisfied at the same time.
169.222 OPERATION OF BICYCLE.
...
Subd. 4.Riding on roadway or shoulder.
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(2) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
(3) when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.
...
(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder shall not ride more than two abreast and shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
...
It looks like they could be charged under 169.222, but I would argue that the law contradicts itself. It cautions cyclists to avoid "...vehicles...or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge" while also instructing them to "not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic". It seems to me that on this particular road both requirements cannot be satisfied at the same time.
09-02-09, 08:32 AM
#9
My Duty to Ride
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 273
Bikes: Giant Iguana 650 utility bike, Surly LHT, Trek TopFuel 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's the PRIMARY issue. The ticket and whether it's legal is paramount. Whether the cyclists should inconvenience themselves for the benefit of people sitting in climate controlled, comfortable seats while enjoying music is the secondary issue.
09-02-09, 08:36 AM
#10
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
bikes are traffic and set the reasonable movement of traffic at the time they use the roadway.
09-02-09, 08:42 AM
#11
Bike ≠ Car ≠ Ped.
What if every block or two they pulled aside and let traffic pass?
09-02-09, 08:54 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Hmm, I just noticed that Minnesota's "operation of bicycle" law has a clause about impeding traffic:
169.222 OPERATION OF BICYCLE.
...
Subd. 4.Riding on roadway or shoulder.
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(2) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
(3) when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.
...
(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder shall not ride more than two abreast and shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
...
It looks like they could be charged under 169.222, but I would argue that the law contradicts itself. It cautions cyclists to avoid "...vehicles...or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge" while also instructing them to "not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic". It seems to me that on this particular road both requirements cannot be satisfied at the same time.
169.222 OPERATION OF BICYCLE.
...
Subd. 4.Riding on roadway or shoulder.
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(2) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
(3) when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.
...
(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder shall not ride more than two abreast and shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
...
It looks like they could be charged under 169.222, but I would argue that the law contradicts itself. It cautions cyclists to avoid "...vehicles...or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge" while also instructing them to "not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic". It seems to me that on this particular road both requirements cannot be satisfied at the same time.
09-02-09, 08:56 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
09-02-09, 08:57 AM
#14
Bike ≠ Car ≠ Ped.
Not that a recent Bio grad has much spare money anyway..
09-02-09, 08:58 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
09-02-09, 09:28 AM
#17
Bike ≠ Car ≠ Ped.
They wanted to be given the same rights as motor vehicles...
... but didn't want to take on the same responsibilities.
Sound accurate? Everyone's supposed to "share the road", right?
09-02-09, 11:06 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,273
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4257 Post(s)
Liked 1,358 Times
in
942 Posts
Hmm, I just noticed that Minnesota's "operation of bicycle" law has a clause about impeding traffic:
169.222 OPERATION OF BICYCLE.
...
Subd. 4.Riding on roadway or shoulder.
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(2) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
(3) when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.
...
(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder shall not ride more than two abreast and shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
...
It looks like they could be charged under 169.222, but I would argue that the law contradicts itself. It cautions cyclists to avoid "...vehicles...or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge" while also instructing them to "not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic". It seems to me that on this particular road both requirements cannot be satisfied at the same time.
169.222 OPERATION OF BICYCLE.
...
Subd. 4.Riding on roadway or shoulder.
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(2) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
(3) when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.
...
(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder shall not ride more than two abreast and shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
...
It looks like they could be charged under 169.222, but I would argue that the law contradicts itself. It cautions cyclists to avoid "...vehicles...or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge" while also instructing them to "not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic". It seems to me that on this particular road both requirements cannot be satisfied at the same time.
=====================
It's also misinterpreted by cyclists.
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-02-09 at 11:15 AM.
09-02-09, 12:06 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Naptown
Posts: 1,133
Bikes: NWT 24sp DD; Brompton M6R
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
There is no contradiction if there is a place to pull out of the lane (and stop) to let the traffic pass. This is how motor vehicles avoid impeding traffic.
This is silly. The MN law (see above) says that bicycles can't impede traffic, which could include bicycles. This requirement is also present for motor vehicles.
=====================
It's also misinterpreted by cyclists.
This is silly. The MN law (see above) says that bicycles can't impede traffic, which could include bicycles. This requirement is also present for motor vehicles.
=====================
It's also misinterpreted by cyclists.
What we really need is to do away with bicycle specific FRAP laws (which is what my state has done), or else have very detailed statutes (which many traffic regs are anyway). But the problem with the detailed approach is that it might not get much legislative support; I suspect that the reason the FRAP laws passed in the first place is because many legislators believed that it would require bikes to ride 6" from the curb in almost every instance.
09-02-09, 01:12 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,273
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4257 Post(s)
Liked 1,358 Times
in
942 Posts
The common misinterpretation that cyclists (among others) have about FRAP is that it requires cyclists to ride in the shoulder. Since (typically), the FRAP law talks about riding in the roadway, that interpretation is incorrect (since the shoulder is not part of the roadway).
But the problem with the detailed approach is that it might not get much legislative support; I suspect that the reason the FRAP laws passed in the first place is because many legislators believed that it would require bikes to ride 6" from the curb in almost every instance.
======================
Note that I'm not saying the cyclists in this case have to do any riding (travelling) in inappropriate places to avoid "impeding" traffic.
Cars are often required to pull of the road to avoid impeding traffic. If that is the case, there's no reason bicyclists can't do the same and it's not a "contradiction" (since "pulling off of the road" does not mean "travelling").
It seems likely that a car driving at 10mph with 12 following cars would be illegally "impeding" traffic. If the cyclists had options to pull off and wait, the MN law requires them not to illegally "impede" traffic. Note that you can't "impede" traffic illegally if you have no options (like speeding up or pulling off) to correct it.
There's nothing that indicates that there was anything that would have made doing this overly "inconvenient" for them. The "impeding" traffic issue here has nothing to do with FRAP!
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-02-09 at 01:43 PM.
09-02-09, 01:27 PM
#21
drive-by poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 212
Bikes: Yes(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
From the Duluth News Tribune
So who’s right? State statute has some gray area on this, saying that bike riders should ride as close to the right-hand curb as possible, except when it’s “reasonably necessary” to avoid cars or other conditions that “make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.”
So who’s right? State statute has some gray area on this, saying that bike riders should ride as close to the right-hand curb as possible, except when it’s “reasonably necessary” to avoid cars or other conditions that “make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.”
I find it amusing that by riding on the city's designated bike route, they received tickets for impeding traffic. I imagine there are probably signs on this road indicating it's such a route? I have no sympathy for someone who drives on a bike route and then gets angry about having to drive slow.
09-02-09, 01:47 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,273
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4257 Post(s)
Liked 1,358 Times
in
942 Posts
I find it amusing that by riding on the city's designated bike route, they received tickets for impeding traffic. I imagine there are probably signs on this road indicating it's such a route? I have no sympathy for someone who drives on a bike route and then gets angry about having to drive slow.
09-02-09, 02:00 PM
#24
drive-by poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 212
Bikes: Yes(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Meh, it's just the hypocrisy of it all. I doubt I would have a knee jerk reaction if it wasn't a bona fide bike route: the city's way of saying "Hey cyclists, ride here". They do realize that those piloting bikes will probably be riding at a slower pace than motor vehicles? What's the point of a "bicycle route" if higher speeds are preferred even in the presence of bicycles?
09-02-09, 02:40 PM
#25
Increasingly Marginalized
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canton, GA
Posts: 216
Bikes: Heckler, Dean Scout
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
<Snip>
It looks like they could be charged under 169.222, but I would argue that the law contradicts itself. It cautions cyclists to avoid "...vehicles...or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge" while also instructing them to "not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic". It seems to me that on this particular road both requirements cannot be satisfied at the same time.
It looks like they could be charged under 169.222, but I would argue that the law contradicts itself. It cautions cyclists to avoid "...vehicles...or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge" while also instructing them to "not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic". It seems to me that on this particular road both requirements cannot be satisfied at the same time.
The "reasonable" part means that allowances should/must be made for school buses, heavily-laden vehicles, road repairs, garbage trucks, traffic jams, traffic accidents, and yes, bicyclists.
We need to re-examine our high-speed, me-first, entitled society, and our expectations, if we think a delay of 30 or 45 seconds is "unreasonable".
Oprah and Jerry will still be there when you get home. The La-Z-Boy will wait for you.
