Originally Posted by billh

Who is worse, the original "busybody" or those secondary busybodies who have time to call primary busybodies "budybodies"?! Kettle . . . Pot . . . BLACK.

Originally Posted by recursive

That's not what billh asked. It is a debate about the law. But as someone said, this is probably about as serious an offence as jaywalking or speeding 5mph over the speed limit, which apparently the cars were doing anyway.

Edit: So, I guess I actually agree with your point. Anyway...

Originally Posted by scarry

Since the motorist was going to make a right turn, it was better to impede him, in order to prevent him from passing and then cutting off the cyclists when he made the right turn. And going 25 in a 35 zone does not constitute impeding. If they were going 8 mph then I would say they were impeding.

Originally Posted by Da Tinker

One datum is missing: was the lane wide enough for a cyclist to share with a car?

Most states have laws on the books that allow a cyclist to take the entire lane when the lane is too narrow to share. When the lane is too narrow to share, two riders side-by-side are more visible to motorists. Plus a double line of riders can be much shorter than a single line of riders, and thus shorter to pass (in this case, however, the differeince would only be 1/3 shorter).

I hope no one takes this personally, but I regard Missouri laws as rather uncivilized on this point, since I do not see where such behavior is allowed.

Originally Posted by billh

I observed them for only .25 miles. Spread this behavior over a 20, 40 mile ride. Then multiply by the number of "Little Lances" in the region. Then you see why we have a problem with motorists perceiving cyclists as lawbreakers, most likely because this perception is based in fact.

Originally Posted by Serge *******

In CA at least, the "usual slow vehicle laws" only apply on 2 lane highways (this was 4 lane).

CA CVC 21656 On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated ...

Obviously, the CA slow vehicle law recognizes that there is no need need for slow vehicles to pull over to let faster vehicles pass when at least one more same-direction travel lane is available. It even goes further to say that even on a 2-lane highway there is no need to pull over when the faster vehicle can pass safely by moving into the oncoming lane. Finally, it does not require pulling over until there are at least five vehicles that are being impeded.

Assuming the CA law is typical of a "usual slow vehicle law", there would be no reason for them to move over under the "usual slow vehicle laws".

Slow drivers of other vehicles are not required to move over in this situation, not even slow drivers of other narrow vehicles like motor cycles and motor scooters. Putting aside the issue of whether it would have been polite and appropriate for them to move over, the fact that cyclists are singled out to have to move over by law in this situations, reflects the unfair anti-cycling separationist mentality that permeates our culture, including our laws.

The wording of "Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles" speaks volumes. The purpose of these laws has nothing to do with keeping cyclists safe - it's all about keeping cyclists, but not other, "more worthy", slow vehicle drivers, from "impeding" motorists.

Blech! We should fight the unfair anti-cycling separationist mentality that permeates our culture at every opportunity (including opposing bike lanes because they reinforce the evil thinking).

Originally Posted by galen_52657

You asked for a responce and received one. Be carfull what you ask for.....

Originally Posted by noisebeam

I still think I should be allowed to drive below speed limit without arousing suspicion of the law if my lower speed does not impede traffic and it does not create a dangerous situation.

Al

Originally Posted by noisebeam

What about the third cyclist in front of the two? I think this is a missing factor in all the above discussion.

Was the third cyclist going a bit slower than the two cyclists who wanted to pass? Was it unsafe for the two cyclists to pass the third? Should the two cyclists line up side by side behind the third, let a car pass and then pass the third cyclist?

Given the low relative speed difference (10mph) between cars/speed limit and two cyclists, given a third cyclist, given the faster traffic passing on right, given that the car behind the cyclists knew they were going to turn right soon ahead - I think that the situation played out just fine.

In regard to letter of the law, maybe one could say they were impeding, maybe not, but in practical terms the cyclists were not creating a dangerous situation (perhaps they were actually creating a safer one) so that a reasonable officer of the law may not find the cyclists at fault for any driving/cycling infraction.

Al

Originally Posted by billh

... prevent the common complaint that cyclists are lawbreakers and therefore dangerous. I hear it all the time. Everytime cycling comes up on the local talk radio, half the callers mention something to this effect.

Originally Posted by recursive

As was already pointed out, that is the nature of traffic. Not every vehicle naturally moves at the same speed. No matter what type of vehicle is in front of you, the appropriate response to a slower moving vehicle is to slow down or pass. Cars impede cars far more than bicycles do.

Different vehicles have different capabilities. It just so happens bikes tend to be slower than cars. Geo Metros are also slower than Ferraris. The relevant thing is that the bicyclists did not significantly and unnecessarily impede traffic.

Originally Posted by noisebeam

Even if you follow the law you are not going to eliminate that perception. People always like to think they are in the right - especially if the are a car driver and you are a cyclist.
For example on Monday I came up to a 4-way stop, biased myself toward the left center as I was going to make a left turn. Two cars were coming the opposite way spaced a bit apart. The first car stoped at intersection a bit before me. I stopped and put foot down, they went straight thru as they had right of way. As I proceeded to make left turn the 2nd car made a rolling right turn directly into my left turn path (I observed the driver only looked over her left shoulder), to avoid collision I turned tight and ended up eye to eye with the driver and started yelling at her that it was a 4-way stop and stop means stop. She yelled back at me that I shouldn't be blowing the intersection and that she did look (and she pointed where she looked, the direction I wasn't even coming from) and I wasn't there, so obviously I hadn't stopped. The point is she was the one who did not make a full stop, I was the one who was fully stopped with foot down, yet she perceived in her imaginary world that I was the one who didn't stop. She was probably left fuming at cyclists and how they are all lawbreakers - maybe she even called into to a talk radio show to share her fantasy story.

Al

Originally Posted by noisebeam

What a waste hard stops and jackrabit starts are - and with no benefit to reducing commute time. I don't drive likes this because it gets me >20% better mpg. I don't coast it if it will genuinely hold up a car behind me (such as preventing someone getting to right turn or left turn lane sooner)

Al

Originally Posted by Da Tinker

One datum is missing: Most states have laws on the books that allow a cyclist to take the entire lane when the lane is too narrow to share.

Originally Posted by randya

...and once again, the cyclist gets to decide whether the lane is wide enough to share, not the following motorist.

Originally Posted by billh

We can't completely eliminate the perception, but we can lessen and minimize it. I agree part of the perception is based in faulty beliefs on the part of motorists, but still part of it (how much?) is based in fact.

Originally Posted by sbhikes

You assume they were impeding. Perhaps the driver behind, knowing he'd have to turn right soon, did not want to pass them. If he had passed them, then he'd have to worry about them when making the turn. Staying behind is sometimes easier. ...

Originally Posted by randya

...and once again, the cyclist gets to decide whether the lane is wide enough to share, not the following motorist.

Originally Posted by Dchiefransom

billh has ridden that road on a bike, and it's wide enough for cars to pass if the cyclists single up.

Originally Posted by randya

That's bill's opinion, other cyclists might have different opinions. I haven't seen any information on the actual lane widths in question. I don't share lanes 12 feet or less in width with motorists, but I might with another cyclist.

Originally Posted by billh

What about the "slower than the flow of traffic" clause?