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 12-15-09, 12:49 AM
  #326  
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
I don't have a guide to all 50 states handy, but there's an equivalent law in the states I'm familiar with.

California:
On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle … behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.
Arizona:
C. If a person is driving a vehicle at a speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place on a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe, and if five or more vehicles are formed in a line behind the vehicle, the person shall turn the vehicle off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the director or a local authority, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed.
Alaska has such a law, and Colorado, I've seen the signs but don't have the text.

So maybe they aren't universal, but they're certainly not limited to Washington. And the similarity of language suggests there's a standard code being emulated -- anybody have a UVC handy?
I suspect the AZ law does not apply to bicycles as they are not 'driven' but ridden or operated. I believe this is in Mionske's Bicycling and the Law, that type of language in traffic code- doesn't apply to bicyclists.

anyway, there's no requirement of any variety of slow moving vehicle impeding shall pull off two lane highway laws in the UVC. and states that do have them, should clarify, like Michigan does, that they apply only to motor vehicles.

a requirement for bicyclists to pull off of roads for the benefit of motorists is tantamount to a prohibition of practical travel by bicycle on many two lane roadways.

better yet to have laws clearly reflect that bicyclists or vehicles are required to only operate as far right as is safe, or that pull off roadway laws apply only to motor vehicles.

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-15-09 at 09:24 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 07:03 AM
  #327  
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
And I thought my 6-y-o nephew was hardheaded.....
DX-MAN is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 08:26 AM
  #328  
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
better a hard head about bicyclists rights than mush for brains and no huevos in the sack!

DX-MAn, are you familiar with the concept of uniformity of traffic statute between states?

the UVC has no provision requiring vehicles leave the highway for following traffic.

to require bicyclists to pull off the road for the benefit of motorists is an affront to bicyclists rights to the road.


considerations of bicyclists rights to the roads free of onerous restrictions that would, if broadly applied, be a de facto prohibition of bicycling from many busy two lane roads.

laws about 'impeding' or smv pull off highway' need to be clearly written to reflect they are only applicable to motor vehicles.

Rquiring a bicyclist to pull off the roadway for faster vehicles is against our core rights to the road that predate the automobile.

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-15-09 at 09:21 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 09:35 AM
  #329  
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 Bekologist View Post
better a hard head about bicyclists rights than mush for brains and no huevos in the sack!

DX-MAn, are you familiar with the concept of uniformity of traffic statute between states?

the UVC has no provision requiring vehicles leave the highway for following traffic.

to require bicyclists to pull off the road for the benefit of motorists is an affront to bicyclists rights to the road.


considerations of bicyclists rights to the roads free of onerous restrictions that would, if broadly applied, be a de facto prohibition of bicycling from many busy two lane roads.

laws about 'impeding' or smv pull off highway' need to be clearly written to reflect they are only applicable to motor vehicles.

Rquiring a bicyclist to pull off the roadway for faster vehicles is against our core rights to the road that predate the automobile.
No mush in this dome, and the sack is huevo-loaded. TRUST me.

Becky, are YOU familiar with the constitutional concept of states' sovereignty? There's NO requirement to slavishly follow the UVC. Also, there's no prohibition on states AUGMENTING the UVC for their own needs.

If you have a problem with the interpretation of the law as it reads (obvious, from these threads), then work to have it clarified! Your dead-horse-beating HERE won't save you a bit of hassle WHEN, not IF, you get ticketed for not pulling off.

Any and all rights you have are not -- repeat, NOT -- absolute and set-in-stone inviolable.

There is no basis for a 'de facto prohibition' from ANY road. The pullover law is for a specific circumstance ONLY, not a general provision. It's a last resort.

I know I'm wasting my fingerprints posting this, but you, pal, need help. EVERYBODY else, from fellow posters here, to a majority of the sources YOU QUOTE, disagree with you. Yet, you mulishly insist you're correct, on a non-issue.

READING -- so simple, even a caveman can do it.
DX-MAN is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 09:37 AM
  #330  
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 DX-MAN View Post
And I thought my 6-y-o nephew was hardheaded.....


RCW 46.61.427
Slow-moving vehicle to pull off roadway.

On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

For a road bike, I conclude this means clean pavement. O my! I have to ride on clean pavement? I think I can bear up under the strain.
danarnold is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 09:45 AM
  #331  
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
better a hard head about bicyclists rights than mush for brains and no huevos in the sack!
....
Rquiring a bicyclist to pull off the roadway for faster vehicles is against our core rights to the road that predate the automobile.
Bek is who Robert Hurst had in mind when he wrote:

"Ideological bicycling advocacy makes for endless loop internet arguing, and it's useless on the street. Ideological advocacy has become a serious problem for real-world bicyclists: Notice how the future of bicycling in this country has in some ways been hijacked by fantastically clueless ideologues on either side of an ongoing debate .... On the other side is a cadre of pompous, personality-challenged streethogs who offer aggressively insecure and selfishly uncooperative riding in the guise of law-and-order, rights-and-responsibilities cycling. "
https://www.industrializedcyclist.com...r_Cycling.html
To remove all doubt, Beky calls himself 'caveman biker'
danarnold is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 12:26 PM
  #332  
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Posts: 3,165

Bikes: Fuji touring

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
'normal flow of traffic' includes a bicycle travelling normally.
Bek I can't think of a FASTER WAY to get bicycles banned from the roads entiely than for the cockamamie idea that cars must slow down to bicycle speeds, in areas where motor vehicles easily average 35, 40, or more mph.

Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
if you can find some official interpretation of the laws to support your incrredibly marginalizing views on bicyclists in your state, continue your perpetuation of bad advice.
I don't think of it as marginalization at all. I would'nt want to hold up traffic when I was riding in a car or truck (or a bus, though as a passenger I am aware of just how rude and holier than thou most mass transit systems are) and i certainly would not want to do so as a cyclist.


roughstuff
Roughstuff is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 12:31 PM
  #333  
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Posts: 3,165

Bikes: Fuji touring

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DX-MAN View Post
No mush in this dome, and the sack is huevo-loaded. TRUST me.

.....
You and Bec have huevos in the sack?

Huevos Rancheros?

roughstuff
Roughstuff is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 12:41 PM
  #334  
Doohickie 
You gonna eat that?
 
Doohickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Posts: 14,720

Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Liked 50 Times in 32 Posts
I was driving home yesterday (can't ride at the moment) and was on a road with three lanes each way plus a median. First two lanes from the curb seemed to be moving very slow so I jumped into the far left lane. I spotted the culprit- a cyclist taking the lane. I was a little surprised that it wasn't just one lane that was slow because of the cyclist but two. I guess a lot of drivers were pulling into the second lane to get around the cyclist, slowing that lane down to a crawl as well.

From what I could tell, the cyclist was using proper vehicular cycling technique, taking the right lane and all.

Just an observation without judgment.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.


Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."

Last edited by Doohickie; 12-15-09 at 12:52 PM.
Doohickie is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 01:01 PM
  #335  
crazyed27
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 618

Bikes: Schwinn, Mercier Kilo TT, Mercier Galaxy

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I got buzzed by a Ford F350 on the commute this morning!!! He meant to do it too...right after the red light. He floored it and came as close as he could without hitting me....the next stop light. He was sitting there waiting I pulled up and shined my headlamp right in his face for quite awhile...lol. Fat azz!
crazyed27 is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 01:01 PM
  #336  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Doohickie View Post
I was driving home yesterday (can't ride at the moment) and was on a road with three lanes each way plus a median. First two lanes from the curb seemed to be moving very slow so I jumped into the far left lane. I spotted the culprit- a cyclist taking the lane. I was a little surprised that it wasn't just one lane that was slow because of the cyclist but two. I guess a lot of drivers were pulling into the second lane to get around the cyclist, slowing that lane down to a crawl as well.

From what I could tell, the cyclist was using proper vehicular cycling technique, taking the right lane and all.

Just an observation without judgment.
Was the lane wide enough to share without drivers having to cross into the other lane or squeeze the cyclist to pass?
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 02:51 PM
  #337  
AdamDZ
Bike addict, dreamer
 
AdamDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Queens, New York
Posts: 5,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Doohickie View Post
I was driving home yesterday (can't ride at the moment) and was on a road with three lanes each way plus a median. First two lanes from the curb seemed to be moving very slow so I jumped into the far left lane. I spotted the culprit- a cyclist taking the lane. I was a little surprised that it wasn't just one lane that was slow because of the cyclist but two. I guess a lot of drivers were pulling into the second lane to get around the cyclist, slowing that lane down to a crawl as well.

From what I could tell, the cyclist was using proper vehicular cycling technique, taking the right lane and all.

Just an observation without judgment.
Herd psychology, I see it in NYC often. They pile up one after another and follow the first car until one wakes up, "oh, wait, I can change the line and pass!" The first car often is going to turn so it doesn't bother passing the cyclist since it's about to turn anyway.

Adam
AdamDZ is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 07:29 PM
  #338  
mandovoodoo
Violin guitar mandolin
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Friendsville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,171

Bikes: Wilier Thor, Fuji Professional, LeMond Wayzata

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What I find most distressing is that in spite of reliance on inappropriate citations and generally being obnoxious, I seem to agree with Bek a good deal of the time. I notice in TN that a bicycle isn't a vehicle. Need not pull over. I'm unwilling to tease apart 50 states worth of laws, but I imagine there's more wiggle room than one might think for bicycles.
mandovoodoo is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 08:13 PM
  #339  
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 mandovoodoo View Post
What I find most distressing is that in spite of reliance on inappropriate citations and generally being obnoxious, I seem to agree with Bek a good deal of the time.
That would distress me too. Fortunately when I'm in doubt as to right opinion, I just choose the opposite of whatever Beck is saying. I know that way odds are 10 to 1 I'll be right.

On a serious note, I have a genuine concern about militant, or unbalanced, overly aggressive advocacy for bicyclists' rights. On the one hand their positions may actually decrease our freedoms and on the other they may inspire a backlash against cyclists. Those of us who ride on a regular basis, and certainly those who commute are in the vast minority of vehicularists. A touch of diplomacy is not a bad thing.

Except for Beck, I don't know anyone who doesn't mind riding over farther on the right in safe smooth conditions to allow a line of motorists to pass. It's just common courtesy and doesn't hurt or inconvenience me a bit. It's not as if I have to pull over and stop and wait for hours to let people pass.
danarnold is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 10:54 PM
  #340  
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
nice spin danranold. turning 'pull off the roadway' into a FRAP requirement! (ah, the hypocrisy of the vehicularists!) No dananold, thats' what I'VE been saying:

Bicyclists are only required to FRAP it, not pull off the roadway! You know i'm not against wide shoulders or bike lanes out there in eastern washington to make this whole impeding thing even less of an issue. You're against adding roadway width for bicyclists, arent' you?






and, yes, danarnold.

Robert Hurst describes those bicyclists trying to remove bicyclists special provisions as the ones willing to sell out bicyclists rights to the roads.

you abundantly illustrate his case. vehicular 'parity' will reduce cyclists rights.

Rick Bernardi, at Bob Mionske's site blog, also describes the case in CAlifornia where a general vehicle statue is more restrictive than a bicyclist specific one.

so your calling me part of those described by Robert Hurst, a bicyclist willing to give away our road rights in the name of vehicular parity is incorrect. he is calling YOU out, and the rest of the bankrupt 'vehicular cyclists' that are trying to remove bike specificity from traffic statute.

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-15-09 at 11:06 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 11:35 PM
  #341  
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184

Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 2 Posts
I think the phrase is, "You're doing it wrong."

Cycling is not that difficult. You swing a leg over the top tube, push the pedals, and roll.
pacificaslim is offline  
Old 12-15-09, 11:47 PM
  #342  
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
keeping a clear view of bicyclists rights is not so easy for some it seems. there's a whole CREWE of them in SOCAL that want to get bicyclists expected to pull off the roads for the benefit of following traffic.

this anti cyclist bias is so strong it has pervaded even some of the more avid bicyclists and that's shocking. I'm not above courtesy, but circumscription of my road rights? to suggest I bicyclists would ever be required to leave the roadway for faster traffic? no thanks. i find this marginalizing, incorrect point of view in the 'bicycle drivers' advocacy agenda a VERY disturbing one.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 06:49 AM
  #343  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
keeping a clear view of bicyclists rights is not so easy for some it seems. there's a whole CREWE of them in SOCAL that want to get bicyclists expected to pull off the roads for the benefit of following traffic.

this anti cyclist bias is so strong it has pervaded even some of the more avid bicyclists and that's shocking. I'm not above courtesy, but circumscription of my road rights? to suggest I bicyclists would ever be required to leave the roadway for faster traffic? no thanks. i find this marginalizing, incorrect point of view in the 'bicycle drivers' advocacy agenda a VERY disturbing one.
Well Bek, your ardent advocacy of separate cycling facilities often has the side effect of encouraging those who espouse mandatory use laws, effectively running us off the road...so pot-kettle-black, pal.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 07:05 AM
  #344  
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
...

actually, chipper, a bikelane is considered part of the roadway, integrated with motor vehicle traffic on the main, travelled portion of the highway.

a bikelane is part of the road, padre. bicyclists operating frap in a bikelane are still operating on the roadway. any states' variation of the SMV-I-POR law, if it applied to bicyclists, which it does not, has a much more onerous restriction on bicyclists

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-16-09 at 07:08 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 07:10 AM
  #345  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom View Post
Well Bek, your ardent advocacy of separate cycling facilities often has the side effect of encouraging those who espouse mandatory use laws, effectively running us off the road...so pot-kettle-black, pal.
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
...

actually, chipper, a bikelane is actually part of the roadway, integrated with motor vehicle traffic on the travelled portion of the highway.

a bikelane is part of the road, padre. bicyclists operating frap in a bikelane are still operating on the roadway. any states' variation of the SMV-I-POR law, if it applied to bicyclists, which it does not, has a much more onerous restriction on bicyclists
uhh, Bek....where did I say anything about bike lanes?
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 07:10 AM
  #346  
Doohickie 
You gonna eat that?
 
Doohickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Posts: 14,720

Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Liked 50 Times in 32 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom View Post
Was the lane wide enough to share without drivers having to cross into the other lane or squeeze the cyclist to pass?
No shoulder, just a curb, so no wiggle room on the right. Standard traffic lanes intended for one car (I haven't measured, but they are clearly less than the 14 foot width, so AFRAP does not apply in Texas). When I ride through there, I take the lane.

Originally Posted by AdamDZ View Post
Herd psychology, I see it in NYC often. They pile up one after another and follow the first car until one wakes up, "oh, wait, I can change the line and pass!" The first car often is going to turn so it doesn't bother passing the cyclist since it's about to turn anyway.
No, not that at all; it was rush hour traffic and the middle lane was already occupied. I'm guessing it slowed down when someone jumped out around the bike in a gap that was barely big enough and/or the cars were queuing up to pass (i.e., every car in the middle lane was allowing a car from the right lane over to pass the cyclist).
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.


Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
Doohickie is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 07:12 AM
  #347  
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
its a topsy turvy world in american bicycling advocacy, chip,

with the 'vehicular cyclist' crewe telling bicyclists to hug the edge of the roads and get off the highway altogther sometimes when traffic is busy, and the accomodationalists are telling bicyclists don't get off the roadway for the benefit of faster traffic!

hilarious.

colonel pope is likely turning over in his grave about this disturbing, marginalizing attitude about bicyclists rights to the roads.

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-16-09 at 07:16 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 07:19 AM
  #348  
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 see, chip. you think bike paths are, a priori, a bad thing.

accomodations like the 200 plus miles of transportation MUP in Denver, or the cross town, lit and plowed ones in Minneapolis for bicyclists are a bad thing



chip, i didn't say anything about 'seperated facilities' and they really aren't relevant to the discussion of bicyclists obstructing traffic as slow road users.

Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 07:35 AM
  #349  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Doohickie View Post
No shoulder, just a curb, so no wiggle room on the right. Standard traffic lanes intended for one car (I haven't measured, but they are clearly less than the 14 foot width, so AFRAP does not apply in Texas). When I ride through there, I take the lane.
So obviously the cyclist was doing the only thing he could do by taking the lane, the same thing you would have done.
I apologize...I did not take the "Just an observation without judgment." in your post as being sincere. I was incorrect.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 07:41 AM
  #350  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
i see, chip. you think bike paths are, a priori, a bad thing.

accomodations like the 200 plus miles of transportation MUP in Denver, or the cross town, lit and plowed ones in Minneapolis for bicyclists are a bad thing



chip, i didn't say anything about 'seperated facilities' and they really aren't relevant to the discussion of bicyclists obstructing traffic as slow road users.

I didn't make any comment for or against bike paths, bike lanes or anything else, Bek. I merely pointed out that your support of separate facilities (which you do support, no matter what you are discussing in this thread), contributes to forcing us off the roads just as much as any SMV laws or those who advocate for common courtesy and good manners.

You really gotta start reading before replying...I know it's hard with all them voices in your head and all.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom 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.