Bekologist

That's not my contention; I much prefer the states laws that require riding safely to the right only when overtaking is necessary, john.

I am a STRONG proponent of laws that affirm a cyclists right to take the lane.

I recommend and teach assertive, well in the lane use and road sharing techniques to maximize safety and visibility of bicyclists to all other traffic and sharing the road when necessary.


no need to mislead.

John Forester

Then cease publishing proclamations that contradict what you say you believe.

Paul Barnard

Where did he do that?

John Forester

Bek's repeated proclamation "Ride safely right to share the road with with overtaking traffic" states the general rule describing how motorists think cyclists should operate. The general rule so stated both ignores engineering and law, while providing justification for the all too typical belief by motorists that cyclists are second-class roadway users.

Paul Barnard

He described in his last post what he means when he uses the the qualifying word "safely." I knew what he meant when he typed that out the first time Their are a lot of hypersensitive bicyclists out there...picking fights where they don't exist.

SBRDude

What do you consider "sufficiently wide"? Aren't most roads 12' wide? If so, then there is plenty of room to pass a cyclist if the conditions on the right of the lane are safe enough for the cyclist to ride there (i.e., free from debris, pot holes, dead animals, etc.).

Also, expecting a car to pass while using the adjacent lane when that adjacent lane is an oncoming lane is a serious hazard in my experience whenever cars get backed up behind me and the traffic is fast. I would rather ride to the right and have cars stay close to me instead of them going way out of their way by driving in the oncoming lane. It's usually not a problem if it's one car, but I have seen some near collisions when a 2nd or 3rd car doesn't realize an oncoming car is approaching.

SBRDude

And what's this about a "dual track motor vehicle of typical width"? Who talks like that?

Paul Barnard

[QUOTE=SBRDude;13254234]And what's this about a "dual track motor vehicle of typical width"? Who talks like that?[/QUOTE]

Nerds.

zac

SBR, but that is gist of some of this discussion. That can be a mighty big "if." As you know the conditions on the right are often poor in comparison to the travel lane. Couple this with bicyclist's ability to detect how far up the road he can see those hazzards. Now couple this with how far up the road the traffic that is closing behind the bicyclist can also see those same conditions and will assume the bicyclist is going to move leftward to avoid (which we all know almost never happens).

By riding out more into the travel lane, then you are obviating the need to make sudden adjustments for those conditions. This establishes your presence in the lane and is and should be known and visible to approaching traffic. Your line of travel, hopefully, more predictable to the rearward approaching traffic too.

Now couple this with a law that states that the bicyclist has full use of the lane, regardless of what portion they are travelling in. (Hopefully with concurrent drivers education to inform the motoring public, that the bicyclist in front of you has just as much right to be there as you do - As is ongoing in Mass)

The idea is that that rearward approaching traffic will not automatically assume you are going to stay on the right and then squeeze by you. Instead, this necessitates a slow down and pass with care, either partially in the same lane if room, or partially or completely in the adjacent lane if no room. As they would be required to do if they were passing any other road user.

Does not the passing vehicle have the duty of care to pass only when legal, clear and safe to do so? Why should this duty be any less for passing a bicyclist? Indeed, some would argue that the duty should actually be greater, due to the unpredictable manner of operation and vulnerability of bicyclists in general, which are both foreseeable.

I don't think anyone here is arguing a position of taking the lane universally and absolutely regardless of shoulder width, lane width, speed limits, or backing up traffic, all be damned. But there are some who are taking a position that you should be FRAP universally regardless of those very same considerations.

zac

John Forester

Paul, Bek sure suckered you into agreeing with his propaganda claim. Sure, you know, based on a lot of other discussion, that Bek supposedly doesn't mean that safe does not mean as far right as is safe. But try Bek's propaganda on a member of the general public, or a cop, or on a journalist reporting on bicycle affairs, and that person will believe that Bek's command is to ride as far to the right as does not involve the cyclist in the dangers of the edge of the roadway. Thus Bek sucks up to the powers that be and the general public, as exemplifying their superstition, while privately supposedly disagreeing with that superstition.

I consider this as just one more example of the shiftiness typically exhibited by anti-motoring bikeway-promoting bicycle advocates.

Bekologist

what parts of the words "Share" with "overtaking traffic" are unclear to you, john?

I also use the words "overtaking traffic" do i need to dummy it down even more and state, repeatedly, faster traffic present at place and time and under conditions then existing?" or can we step up to an adult level of conversation about what the words 'share with overtaking traffic' actually mean.



i think its great john forester himself indicates riding frap to share the road with faster traffic is his contention as well. That, if the lane is wide enough to share with overtaking traffic, to I LOVE that!!!

Bekologist

what state are you referring to? it isn't massachusetts.

and what's with those insinuations road sharing is sometimes OKAY if lanes, speeds, or traffic dictate sharing???



its the law in massachusetts that bicyclists shall not be alleviated to ride in accordance with the law requiring vehicles to "not unnecessarily obstruct shareable lanes - turn out to the right" in your state traffic code that regulates road sharing between vehicles, zac.

Arkansas is the sole statutory outlier, but even in Arkansas savvy road cyclists will share the road if safe to do so.

John Forester

All this fuss about your pretense that I don't understand the words that you use is absolutely incorrect. I have to presume that you are kicking up this absurd fuss to try to distract us from my claim that your propaganda, "Ride safely right to share the road with overtaking traffic", has been deliberately chosen to mislead the powers that be, the general public, cops, journalists and such, by stating their superstition. That is, you get to advance the cyclist-inferiority superstition while declaring, privately, meaning inside this discussion, that you don't mean that at all.

One more example of shifty mendacity to suit political ends. You should say what you mean so all will understand it.

Bekologist

shifty mendacity?



share the road.

catmandew52

I began riding almost daily again in June of this year. I have increased my average speed from 8mi/hr on an 8mi ride, to 12mi/hr on a 16 to 20mi ride. My knees still scream at me on one steep overpass incline and on sprints that last for more than about 30sec's but I keep improving.
In town, as I have posted before, there is a MUP that runs E&W and the sidewalks along Telegraph(US-24) are used as bike path, still very dangerous, but not as dangerous as riding in Telegraph, anywhere. I won't even ride my motorcycles on certain stretches of Telegraph.
Anyway, this morning, on an alternate north-south rd., I actually took the lane (1st time since the 80's)for maybe about 1 1/2 to 2 miles, was passed by more than a dozen cars w/no problems.
Just before my turnoff, the road narrows to about a lane and a half ,across an old bridge. Just clear of the bridge I heard HORN, closing rapidly and continuous. I was half way thru my turn and visually clear ahead ,so I looked back just as the car came even with the side road, got a finger salute from the female driver, and maybe some verbal abuse that I couldn't hear, because she was still laying on the horn. I was NEVER in her way! I was at least 20ft past the narrow lane before she even started on the horn. Even if I had continued on straight, she could have passed.
I am more angry than fearful of riding that direction again. I came back the same way, but morning rush hour was over.
It's not just cyclists that need educating about FRAP.
Cycling laws should be be made part of MV operating license tests.
But, realistically I don't see that happening if all cyclists can't agree on what an elephant looks like.

She never even slowed down.

SBRDude

The guy I responded to DOES seem to suggest that a cyclist should ride closer to the middle and wants cars to pass him using the left/oncoming lane just a car would do for another car. I'm all for commonsense riding and as a cyclist I feel like it's in my best interest as a cyclist and a human being to do my best not to impede cars behind me. I'll take the lane when I feel it's necessary, but that's not very often and when I do it, I try to ride as quickly as possible all the while (hopefully) demonstrating to the cars behind me that I am aware of their presence and doing the best that I can to get out of the way ASAP.

contango 

If I'm doing 23-25 in a 25 zone and someone behind me is gaining fast enough to realise they are gaining, they must be going over 25. I'm assuming I know my own speed by means of a cycling computer, GPS or similar.

It does seem odd to require people to get out of the way of others who are driving illegally. By the same argument one could say that a vehicle doing 25 in a 25 zone is impeding the progress of the guy behind trying to do 45 and so should get out of the way, and the guy doing 45 should in turn get out of the way of the guy behind him trying to do 85.

Indeed.

njkayaker

Yes, of course, you would be able to tell that on a road with 25 mph or less when traveling at 25 mph. And, of course, most cyclists are not usually going to be travelling as fast as that. And many roads cyclists use have higher speeds.

It's going to be extremely difficult to do that on faster roads.

And it would be odd that a cyclist would move over for a faster car but not a faster car that was speeding.

No, it isn't odd. It's kind of obvious.

You always have to act legally. That requirement is not released if somebody else is acting illegally. That requirement is independent from the acts of other people.

No, the "impeding traffic" and slow-moving vehicle laws apply to a vehicle travelling at less than the posted speed.

On multilane highways in states that have a keep to the right law, it's not legal to squat in the left lane to block speeders.

In that case, two people are breaking two different laws.

jputnam

Not really. The average citizen is not a trained law enforcement officer in a vehicle equipped for stopping speeders. If it's safe to do so, you should allow faster traffic to pass.

Assume for a moment that it is a recklessly fast driver who cares nothing for your safety. Which is safer -- letting the reckless driver speed down the left lane, or having the reckless driver weave in and out of traffic in multiple lanes?

Unless you're equipped to stop a speeder, you should get out of their way if it is safe to do so.

DX-MAN

LOL, DC!! GOOD one!

For these idiots, it doesn't matter if my crankarm is or isn't tall enough to clear a curb; they expect me to do it anyway. It's just like the fool who told the cyclist "That's YOUR problem" when quizzed on how he's supposed to turn left from all the way right. Thankfully, this class of motorist seems to be shrinking.

So far these past few months, I haven't even been in proximity to some fool like that; everyone has been pretty generous about giving me space.

Chris516

That is a very big IF. A faster vehicle will always be behind a cyclist(unless it is another cyclist), but, if it is a four-lane road, a cyclist should not be forced to ride in the gutter.

I wouldn't even think of keeping a reckless driver from speeding down the left lane, since that is the 'passing' lane.

Again, That is a very big IF. Because what the motorist/LEO thinks is safe, won't be safe for the cyclist.

njkayaker

It isn't legal for non-LEO's to enforce traffic laws.

Digital_Cowboy

Sadly, I've seen too many speeders doing just that, i.e. weaving in and out of traffic to get where they want to go. I also see motorists passing other motorists to get to the red light/stop sign as "quickly" as possible.

Digital_Cowboy

DM,

Thank you. I had a motorist pass me yesterday telling "you need to ride in the bike lane, buddy." The "funny" thing is that there is no bike lane on that road. A fog line, and a shoulder, but no bike lane. Over the weekend I had a gal tell me that as well, but this time there was a bike lane, but it's right in the door zone. I tried to explain to her that if it's too dangerous to do so, that I don't have to, she still insisted that I had to.

Digital_Cowboy

Uh, what about citizens arrest?