Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

bikes do not impede traffic, we are traffic

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

bikes do not impede traffic, we are traffic

Old 12-13-09, 04:55 PM
  #276  
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
It shouldn't be surprising especially since the bicyclist could be a child (it's commonly legal for children to ride on sidewalks). Note that a cyclist doesn't become a user of a crosswalk if he is riding across the crosswalk as vehicular traffic.


If a competent cyclist was not able to "master the stationary balance maneuver", they would not choose to stop that way. There is ample evidence that cyclists are able to stop. Cyclists stop all the time without falling over!


My point is that it isn't worth using this argument because it's patently false.
What's 'patently' false? Most of us need to put our foot down to make a complete and full stop for more than a moment. This requires unclipping and a slow restart. Thus the cyclist has a potential argument that since his vehicle is 'by nature' fundamentally different than a car or even a motorcycle, and since there is no case in WA directly on point, it has a reasonable chance of being successfully argued.

Just because some cyclists can come to a full stop without a partial dismount, does not mean it is reasonable to expect most of them to.

BTW, what experience do you have making arguments in court?
danarnold is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 05:08 PM
  #277  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
Originally Posted by danarnold View Post
BTW, what experience do you have making arguments in court?
Why even go there, as it will not add any support to your claim?
CB HI is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 05:15 PM
  #278  
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
Why even go there, as it will not add any support to your claim?
Then ignore that sentence if you wish, and respond to the rest.
danarnold is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 05:26 PM
  #279  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,492
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2837 Post(s)
Liked 528 Times in 366 Posts
Originally Posted by danarnold View Post
most cyclists fall over if they come to a complete stop
This is false and obviously so.

Originally Posted by danarnold View Post
Most of us need to put our foot down to make a complete and full stop for more than a moment. This requires unclipping and a slow restart.
In practice, cyclists show no problem doing this. There's nothing in the nature of a bicycle that keeps this from being practical. Cyclists do this all the time. It takes a long time to "restart" a tractor-trailer too. Therefore, tractor-trailers are allowed to perform a rolling stop?

Originally Posted by danarnold View Post
we are only required to come as close to making a full stop as safety requires.
The legal requirement is the "full stop" (zero speed), nothing more. As safe as they might be performed, "rolling stops" are illegal. There is much less ambiguity in this than the SMV-PO issue!

Originally Posted by danarnold View Post
Just because some cyclists can come to a full stop without a partial dismount, does not mean it is reasonable to expect most of them to.
??? As a percentage of the cycling population, the number of people who can do a track stand for any real length of time is tiny. I'm not requiring anybody to employ trackstanding.

Last edited by njkayaker; 12-13-09 at 05:52 PM.
njkayaker is online now  
Old 12-13-09, 08:47 PM
  #280  
DX-MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by danarnold View Post
I know you are trying to give Bek every benefit of the doubt (or you were ), but he is wrong. The RCW does define a bicycle as a vehicle:

RCW 46.04.670
Vehicle.

""Vehicle" includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles."

Bek is not a lawyer. He misleads and makes misstatements of the law. He is a danger to anyone who wants to know the law as it pertains to bicycles. I have challenged him to find a lawyer who agrees with him. He cannot and has not. This is the problem when biased laymen jump into the field of statutory interpretation.

I repeat, Bek is not a lawyer. Relie on him for legal opinions at your peril.
Just being thorough when I say I checked that reference, and you're right -- missed that one, too. I must be getting rusty....

No, he is no lawyer; even the disagreeable tone of his arguments sounds like one, but he's not. He's just a hosejob. I'll rely on him ONLY for that.
DX-MAN is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 08:56 PM
  #281  
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
This is false and obviously so.


In practice, cyclists show no problem doing this. There's nothing in the nature of a bicycle that keeps this from being practical. Cyclists do this all the time. ....

??? As a percentage of the cycling population, the number of people who can do a track stand for any real length of time is tiny. I'm not requiring anybody to employ trackstanding.
Your last sentence completely refutes your first and the rest of your argument.
danarnold is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 09:05 PM
  #282  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by jputnam View Post
Well, that should make it easy for you: post the RCW that applies specifically to bicycles traveling slower than prevailing traffic, on two lane roads, where passing is unsafe, once they have five or more vehicles delayed behind them.

If the exception exists, post it.

Otherwise, I'll side with BAW and SDOT.
so the exception is clear in 46 61 770.

you disupte this, and think biyclists are instead governed by 46 61 427.

I say, show your assertion.

S DOT********** no, WA DOT would make a mention of this statutory requirement on bicyclists, don't you think, Mr Puntnam?

It's fair to say WA DOT would make some reference to this statutory regulation as it applies to bicyclists in their depictions of our rights and duties.

there is no reference at WA DOT to the applicability of 46 61 427 to bicyclists. The same case at the WA state patrol depictions of bicyclists rights and responsibilities in WA state. Washington state patrol makes no mention of this duty. Official state bike maps and education materials make no mention of this statutory requirment applying to bicyclists.

You state, Mr Putnam, that you would defer to the BAW as well.

BAW makes no mention of this statutory requirment applying to bicyclists. at their website and links to RCW laws as they apply to bicyclists, no mention of 46 61 427.

They mention it later, in a section of laws 'applying to motor vehicles'. not thesection of the RCW laws that apply to bicyclists.

hmm..

if Mr Putnam will side with BAW, he agrees with the truth and my standpoint in this thread.

IF Mr Putnam sides with WA DOT (SDOT???)) then he agrees with my point of law about WA state law as it applies to bicyclists.

simple.


there is no supporting evidence for bicyclists being subject to SMV-I-POR law.

bicyclists are not required to pull of the roadway in WA state for following traffic.

WA DOT, the WA state patrol, the Bicycle Alliance of Washinton, and numerous official bike safety and education materials make NO MENTION of bicyclists having to 'get off the road' under SMV-I-POR law.

Surely, with such a core and fundamental requirement for bicyclists, ONE of these agencies would have mentioned it, even in passing????



come on, gentlemen. the mental exercise has come to an end. you all have no proof for your assertions; reality in this case is so blatantly obvious.



this must be one hell of an oversight!

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-13-09 at 09:11 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 09:13 PM
  #283  
E.A. Webb
Banned.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I call shenanigans. If you always take the lane and refuse to allow traffic to pass we would be reading about how you were tooled up by a cop or cabbie and not about obscure Washington laws.
E.A. Webb is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 09:51 PM
  #284  
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
so the exception is clear in 46 61 770.

you disupte this, and think biyclists are instead governed by 46 61 427.

I say, show your assertion.

S DOT********** no, WA DOT would make a mention of this statutory requirement on bicyclists, don't you think, Mr Puntnam?

It's fair to say WA DOT would make some reference to this statutory regulation as it applies to bicyclists in their depictions of our rights and duties.

there is no reference at WA DOT to the applicability of 46 61 427 to bicyclists. The same case at the WA state patrol depictions of bicyclists rights and responsibilities in WA state. Washington state patrol makes no mention of this duty. Official state bike maps and education materials make no mention of this statutory requirment applying to bicyclists.

You state, Mr Putnam, that you would defer to the BAW as well.

BAW makes no mention of this statutory requirment applying to bicyclists. at their website and links to RCW laws as they apply to bicyclists, no mention of 46 61 427.

They mention it later, in a section of laws 'applying to motor vehicles'. not thesection of the RCW laws that apply to bicyclists.

hmm..

if Mr Putnam will side with BAW, he agrees with the truth and my standpoint in this thread.

IF Mr Putnam sides with WA DOT (SDOT???)) then he agrees with my point of law about WA state law as it applies to bicyclists.

simple.


there is no supporting evidence for bicyclists being subject to SMV-I-POR law.

bicyclists are not required to pull of the roadway in WA state for following traffic.

WA DOT, the WA state patrol, the Bicycle Alliance of Washinton, and numerous official bike safety and education materials make NO MENTION of bicyclists having to 'get off the road' under SMV-I-POR law.

Surely, with such a core and fundamental requirement for bicyclists, ONE of these agencies would have mentioned it, even in passing????



come on, gentlemen. the mental exercise has come to an end. you all have no proof for your assertions; reality in this case is so blatantly obvious.



this must be one hell of an oversight!
Becky, you need a little civics lesson. The legislature passes the laws, the RCW. WA DOT and WSP are executive departments charged with enforcing the law. The RCW tells them what to do, not the other way around. The various departments put out some promotional materials, but do not duplicate the entire RCW. I gave you that site, but you chose to ignore it, and rely on various groups and departments to explain parts of the law, rather than go to the source as a whole.

This has all been explained to you very carefully. No one on this thread agrees with your dopey interpretation. It does not matter how carefully it is explained, you will refuse to get it, because you don't want to. Everyone else here gets it. When your first thread demonstrated no one agreed with you, you started another on the same subject. This is why admin had to come in and merge the threads and point out you are not a lawyer.

If someone else wants to come in and take your side or ask questions, then I'll bother to explain it to them again, or refer them to the previous posts, but you are going in the same circles. Aren't you dizzy yet?
danarnold is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 10:16 PM
  #285  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts


what is in agreement with my position are the official materials and assorted organizations outlining bicyclists duties in our state!


Once again, there is no official mention of bicyclists being required to 'get off the highway' under SMV-I-POR lawsl; nowhere is this duty mentioned as applying to bicyclists in various and sundry materials in WA state.

Not at the WA DOT section detailing bicyclists duties.
There is no mention of bikes required to pull off the highway on any official state bicycling materials.
the WA state patrol makes no mention of bicyclists requirement to do so.
the largest bicycling club in the nation, Cascade cycling club, makes no mention of this duty.

the BAW, the bicycle alliance also, makes no mention of the applicability of SMV-I-POR laws to bicyclists in this state.

There is mention of SMV-I-POR law specifically NOT applying to bicyclists, at the BAW website's section of relevant RCWs.

Somehow, there has been one hell of an oversight if ALL THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES make no mention of this requirement~!!

its hilarious to think somehow this statutory requirement has been overlooked in state educational materials about bicycling laws in our state


I find it much, much more apparent there is no such requirement despite the bike forums blather.

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-13-09 at 10:38 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 10:21 PM
  #286  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
I'm not refusing to allow traffic to pass, ( I allow traffic to pass quite readily while operating FRAP.

I'm just not getting off the road out of some mistaken understanding of our statutory duties as bicyclists to following traffic- I may very well do it as courtesy but i cannot think of a time that i ever have actually pulled off the highway to favor following traffic.

i'm not marginalizing bicyclists rights to the road so as to be misinterpreted we have to get off the highway!

no state, no how.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 10:25 PM
  #287  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
Originally Posted by danarnold View Post
...If someone else wants to come in and take your side or ask questions, then I'll bother to explain it to them again, or refer them to the previous posts, but you are going in the same circles. Aren't you dizzy yet?
Bek never gets dizzy. Check his post history. Bek will keep making the same bad argument until he finally gets to make the last post in the thread. By making the last post, Bek thinks that he has won the argument.
CB HI is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 10:33 PM
  #288  
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
Bek never gets dizzy. Check his post history. Bek will keep making the same bad argument until he finally gets to make the last post in the thread. By making the last post, Bek thinks that he has won the argument.
True enough. Changing the subject (this does drive him crazy) to your 'Cycle Year Round,' Hey! I just saw 'Honolulu' in your wazit. I was going to say I spent $200 today on some winter gear so I can cycle year round, but now I've lost interest.
danarnold is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 10:43 PM
  #289  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
I'm sorry, the evidence is on my side on this one, boys.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 10:59 PM
  #290  
E.A. Webb
Banned.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
I'm not refusing to allow traffic to pass, ( I allow traffic to pass quite readily while operating FRAP.

I'm just not getting off the road out of some mistaken understanding of our statutory duties as bicyclists to following traffic- I may very well do it as courtesy but i cannot think of a time that i ever have actually pulled off the highway to favor following traffic.

i'm not marginalizing bicyclists rights to the road so as to be misinterpreted we have to get off the highway!

no state, no how.
Ok. I missed the point in all the pedantics.
E.A. Webb is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 11:14 PM
  #291  
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
I'm not refusing to allow traffic to pass, ( I allow traffic to pass quite readily while operating FRAP.

I'm just not getting off the road out of some mistaken understanding of our statutory duties as bicyclists to following traffic- I may very well do it as courtesy but i cannot think of a time that i ever have actually pulled off the highway to favor following traffic.

i'm not marginalizing bicyclists rights to the road so as to be misinterpreted we have to get off the highway!

no state, no how.
Hard to say for sure, E.A. Neither English nor logic are Becky's first languages.

I think he's saying that while theoretically he may some day be courteous, he has yet to do so and the fact the law is against him carries little weight compared to his political agenda which is to ride like such an aardvark he makes all motorists angry at all cyclists and persuades the legislature to treat us as operators of 3rd class vehicles.
danarnold is offline  
Old 12-13-09, 11:24 PM
  #292  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
yes, stating laws do not and should not circumscribe bicyclists off the road can be misconstrued to be asking the legislature to treat bicyclists as operators of 3rd class vehicles.



wow what a doozy.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-14-09, 02:58 AM
  #293  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
Originally Posted by danarnold View Post
True enough. Changing the subject (this does drive him crazy) to your 'Cycle Year Round,' Hey! I just saw 'Honolulu' in your wazit. I was going to say I spent $200 today on some winter gear so I can cycle year round, but now I've lost interest.
My cold winter riding gear is in a duffel bag for possible future use. Besides, riding in the snow is fun.
CB HI is offline  
Old 12-14-09, 07:41 AM
  #294  
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 3,073

Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
- I may very well do it as courtesy but i cannot think of a time that i ever have actually pulled off the highway to favor following traffic.

i'm not marginalizing bicyclists rights to the road so as to be misinterpreted we have to get off the highway!
My interpretation of such laws is that leaving the highway is not required; rather, the type of turn-out location that the law would require using would normally be part of the highway, and not private property outside of the highway. Depending on the state, the wording of the statute, and the type of turn-out facility, the turn-out facility may or may not be part of the roadway, e.g. it might be a wide paved shoulder. In NC, specially paved and signed turn-out lanes are the only locations where the law applies. These lanes look to me like part of the actual roadway, much like a right turn lane or bus stop turn-out lane, but longer.

I'm not the least bit threatened by the terms of North Carolina's SMV turn-out law, but I can imagine some states having issues with law enforcement officers ticketing cyclists inappropriately for not moving onto private driveways, unpaved shoulders, or dangerously narrow shoulders as "turn outs." I suspect that the appropriate legal strategy would be to wait for such a citation to be given, and then fight it in court to obtain clarification. It might be a long time waiting, however, because police seem much more likely to ticket based on FRAP laws or bogus impeding traffic citations rather than the 5-vehicles-turn-out requirement.
sggoodri is offline  
Old 12-14-09, 07:59 AM
  #295  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 28,543

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 594 Times in 384 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
Besides, riding in the snow is fun.
Less so amidst moving motor vehicles also riding on snow (and ice.)
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 12-14-09, 08:09 AM
  #296  
gcottay
Senior Member
 
gcottay's Avatar
 
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: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Given the cataclysmic legal problems exposed in this thread, I'm left wondering why State of Washington cycling advocacy groups are not sending an alarm and vigorously lobbying for change. Could it be the problem exists only here in the land of this particular forum?
gcottay is offline  
Old 12-14-09, 08:09 AM
  #297  
Poguemahone
Vello Kombi, baby
 
Poguemahone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Je suis ici
Posts: 5,321

Bikes: 1973 Eisentraut; 1970s Richard Sachs; 1978 Alfio Bonnano; 1967 Peugeot PX10

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
Less so amidst moving motor vehicles also riding on snow (and ice.)
While true, I'd still like to see some snow down here (Richmond, Va.)

A decent storm, the whole town shuts down-- not like Wisconsin, where they'd shrug it off. Then you can go out and have fun.

I've got a set of studded tires lying around just waiting for the worst, but all it ever does here is get to 33 degrees and rain.
__________________
"It's always darkest right before it goes completely black"

Waste your money! Buy my comic book!

Last edited by Poguemahone; 12-14-09 at 08:10 AM. Reason: speeling
Poguemahone is offline  
Old 12-14-09, 08:29 AM
  #298  
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 3,073

Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I would have loved a Surly Pugsley back when I lived in New Hampshire:

sggoodri is offline  
Old 12-14-09, 08:32 AM
  #299  
jputnam
Senior Member
 
jputnam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pacific, WA
Posts: 1,260

Bikes: Custom 531ST touring, Bilenky Viewpoint, Bianchi Milano, vintage Condor racer

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by gcottay View Post
Given the cataclysmic legal problems exposed in this thread, I'm left wondering why State of Washington cycling advocacy groups are not sending an alarm and vigorously lobbying for change. Could it be the problem exists only here in the land of this particular forum?
I'm not aware of anyone at BAW or CBC lobbying to change this law -- it rarely applies to cyclists since it's usually possible for traffic to pass when a cyclist rides to the right, except on roads so congested that a cyclist isn't really causing much delay.

Certainly it didn't seem controversial when the Seattle Times discussed it with BAW and SDOT and came up with:
Q. I thought I heard that a bicyclist has to pull over when backing up motorized vehicles. Could you please clarify this?
A. You're right. This is another driving law that also applies to bicyclists. It says that a slow-moving vehicle, if delaying five or more vehicles behind it, shall turn off the roadway at a safe turnout in order to permit the vehicles to proceed. Of course, it's still a gray area because the decision on whether a safe opportunity to pull out exists is up to the cyclist.

If there's no safe shoulder or turnout, a cyclist doesn't have to stop the bike and drag it into the brush every time five cars pile up, no matter how badly some drivers want to pass. It all comes back to common sense and courtesy on the road.

But that's just BAW, SDOT, and the traffic reporters from the state's largest newspaper.

Last edited by jputnam; 12-14-09 at 08:47 AM.
jputnam is offline  
Old 12-14-09, 08:39 AM
  #300  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 28,543

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 594 Times in 384 Posts
Originally Posted by jputnam View Post
I'm not aware of anyone at BAW or CBC lobbying to change this law -- it rarely applies to cyclists since it's usually possible for traffic to pass when a cyclist rides to the right, except on roads so congested that a cyclist isn't really causing much delay.
True. Post 16 still holds true: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post10116811
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.