So do I. But I do head checks, so motorists know I'm paying attention to them.

It so happens I also have the side of my helmet painted fluorescent orange, so when I turn my head it is like a bright beacon waving at them up ahead.

Ah Jersey, the nation's armpit.

I've never come across that slogan. Is it a left coast thing?

...sorry to ask but for what purpose? If they know you are paying attention to them they will behave differently how?

I do head checks because it's the prudent thing to do, mirror or no mirror...but have no illusions of some subliminal message it might send a driver. ;)

1st i've heard of it too

Well, except for those that are.

Tell you what -- you keep saying that they can't do that, and they'll keep doing it, and the cops will keep generally not ticketing for it.

I was thinking more of light trucks with a big load -- somebody moving with a truck bed full of stuff barely strapped in so they keep their speed down, for example. But the law doesn't say anything about big trucks vs. light trucks on that shoulder, so people will do what they can get away with, whether it damages the road or not. If their big, heavy truck can't go over 40 mph, they'll drive in the shoulder to let people pass them too. And people will flash their lights to thank them!

OK, if you say so, but that's not what the law says. The law says you can't drive on the improved shoulder except under these circumstances ...
Yes, but cops ticket for that. If you're in Texas and driving on the right shoulder and traffic is passing you, you're almost certain to not a get a ticket for that, as the law permits it. And on the off chance that a cop does stop you for it, he's likely to just tell you not to do that.

Well, bicycles are one of *three* exceptions in the law, with the others being authorized emergency vehicles on a call and police patrols. Police patrols (like bicycles) can use the shoulder for regular travel if they see fit -- though hopefully they don't do so on a regular basis.

... and normal motor vehicles can do so if they moving slowly and allowing other vehicles to pass them. It's considered polite, and quite commonly done once you get out of the cities. Drive friendly, the Texas way!

OK, but Texas doesn't consider the shoulder to be part of the roadway.

Ultimately, my point was that your all-encompassing declaration was incorrect, and I've shown that. You can quibble about what you meant, and that's fine, but taken literally as written it was incorrect, at least in Texas. And so, if you're riding your bicycle in the shoulder, you may very well encounter some motor vehicles in that same shoulder, parked and moving, that are there legally as well. And they may not be expecting other (even more slowly moving) traffic there, so they may be somewhat of a danger for you. A mirror might be wise, to help you see traffic coming up behind you. (You may hear them, but you may think they're in the traffic lane, not in the shoulder with you, unless you see them.)

I guess I'm misunderstanding what he's talking about. It sounds like he head checks for the sole purpose of letting cars know that he knows they are there. To me a head check is a prudent, redundant safety move when changing lane position.

FWIW Some states allow passing on the shoulder and some states allow shoulders to be used as accelerator/decelerator lanes. So temporary driving is sometimes allowed.

Yes and yes.
Try this sometime - when you encounter someone and begin speaking to them, look them in the eye. Really look at them. Do this especially to those with whom you don't normally behave this way. See, if it doesn't change the dynamics of the meeting.

We always see the bike-auto encounter as only one sided, even adversarial... us against them. But we share the same road. Nearly all drivers I ask admit that. These drivers are also as concerned with you as you are with them.

Basically, they want to know you aren't going to do anything stupid, either.

If you try talking to drivers about cyclists, you'll hear them comment on two things very often,
1. Cyclists are a bother, taking up the road AND
2. They fear the cyclist will do something stupid (turn in front of them, for example).

So take advantage of that. Looking at them, or at least making them think you are, creates a "communication" between the cyclist and the motorist. In truth it already exists, although neither side sees it that way. So take the lane, and when a car approaches, turn your head and let them know you are aware of them. This places the same onus on them.

I too was hoping this would be a speeding ticket stop :lol:

Unfortunately, every encounter I've had with the local police here while on my bike (aside from them just cruising around) has been a near miss. They're the only ones that almost hit me every time I ride. Kind of ironic...

Aha! A smart remark from a MANIAC! The state where words are jealously hoarded ;as if answering a civil question will cause a shortage of conversation down the pike. " Ayah."

Well ... "almost the same" rules between bikes and cars is an approximation, sort of like how a whale is a fish, in the sense that they both live under water.

When you say "there are really only two basic differences in the law," this is exactly what I'm getting at. You know that isn't true, but ... you're letting the VC slogan fool you, at least momentarily. And that confusion is not a good thing for anybody.

There's FRAP (which, sure, is similar to my state's law about slow vehicles having to pull out when a line builds up behidn them) and an allowance to ride on shoulders. Lane splitting is legal in some places (eg California), but not for cars. My bike is illegal on many public roadways that my car is obviously welcome on. Drivers have to pass each other safely, but don't have to open a three-foot gap when they pass one of those "car" contraptions out on the road. In most states, you can blow through a stop light on your bike, be ticketed by the police, and the law forbids this to affect your driving status: no license points, no change in your "safe driver" pool. My state apparently doesn't recognize drunken bicycling as a crime.

Bike drivers don't need licenses. The law doesn't require liability insurance for cyclists. You don't need working brake lights to drive your bike, or to apply for your license. Nor do you pay taxes and registration fees on it. When was the last time you brought your bike in to have an emissions test?

A 12 year old can operate a bike, but not a car. It's illegal for cars to drive on the sidewalk - although I see this sometimes in pursuit of a good parking spot. A cyclist is not required to signal a turn in most states, if they feel that it would be dangerous to take a hand off the bars ( stability, access to brakes, whatever ), while cars drivers have no trump card. Cyclists can wear headphones, which is illegal for a driver of a car.

Those are the differences that jump to mind, and we're not even talking about Idaho stops. If I did some research, I could grow that list tenfold ... but fish are vertebrates and whales are mammals; bikes and cars share a "living" space, but are vastly different species. "Same rules" is patently false, and isn't much more nuanced than "a whale is a fish."

If you're passing a car with a car at less than 3', it's likely to be unsafe, even if a law doesn't specifically mention that 3' figure.

Also the Austin, TX law 3' passing law does cover motor vehicles -- motorcycles, people exposed riding tractors, etc. California law is likely different in some ways.

Not sure about most, but certainly some. Texas has no laws that say either way, but the local PDs, courts, DPS, etc. seem to waffle back and forth on it.

Mine neither, but public intoxication and reckless driving are always options.

You pay sales tax on it when you buy it, if your state has a sales tax. Some areas require registration.

Electric cars don't have emissions tests done either.

I don't think this is actually codified in law most of the time, being more of a practical matter. It likely applies to cars too, it's just that it applies a whole lot less often, since signaling is usually done with a very easily reached lever. If it's a super bumpy road and an antique car without signals, I'll bet it's pretty easy to argue that doing hand signals would be dangerous ...

Varies from state to state. I can't remember which state it was, but I seem to recall one that made it illegal to bike with headphones, but not drive with headphones. (I may be wrong about that.)

Most of the rules are the same, and when they're not there's generally a good reason for it (emissions tests on a bicycle would be silly, for example. Insurance less so, but it's still not as important as with a car.)

For every rule that you can find that is different between bikes and cars, there's ten that are the same. So "same rules" certainly isn't 100% true -- but it's not patently false either. But it's just a bumper sticker, there's not room to expand on all the exceptions.

I once had an officer tell me to get on the sidewalk. I asked for his name and badge number, and he gave them to me (by law they have to if a citizen asks). I then e-mailed the chief of police, quoting the part of the Municipal Code that forbids bicycles from the sidewalk, and asked why an officer would order a citizen to do something illegal.

I got a very nice reply to the effect that this passage from the Code would be incorporated into the next day's rollcall briefing.

Just a quick :thumb: to OP for handling the situation intelligently and respectfully.

got any other roads to ride besides the highway?

I'm not understanding the purpose or necessity of a fake headcheck or of a headcheck that is not needed - a mirror can give better visual information. Besides, I can't effectively turn my head to look behind me on my recumbents.

It's a well-understood heads-up to all around you that you're going to do something -- turn, change lanes, etc.

I'm not saying that you need to do it, but there is a benefit to doing it that goes beyond merely being able to see behind you.

(And I know what you mean -- I feel naked without my mirror, but doubly so on my 'bents.)

Thank you for calling me intelligent! That may be a first! ;)

You are right - on a recumbent you may have to adapt other strategies. But that's fine - the concept still applies. So, lets try this again.

Motorists have one overriding (no pun intended) fear of you, the cyclist: you are going to do something stupid to place yourself in their path.
Yes, I said "fear." They may get angry that you are in their wa,y on "their" road and may, on rare occasions, slow them down. They may question your sanity that you are even out riding on the open, paved roads in the first place. But they fear you may turn in front of them and they wont be able to react in time. Or that the lane is too narrow to allow sufficient clearance for both of you. Either way, they are socially and culturally conditioned to NOT hit you.

The head check is a way to signal to the driver that you are paying attention and won't do anything stupid... in a very real way, it helps soothe their fear of you.
For a moment, lets take this out of the realm of the esoteric and look at it from my perspective.

I ride solo for fitness, mostly out on open country roads. Out in the boonies, cars are fewer, but they are generally moving fast and there is a long reaction time available. Here's where the head check comes in. You may have missed it earlier, but I have painted the SIDES of my helmet in fluorescent colors. When I turn my head, drivers can can see my head turn as a bright color anomaly on the road ahead. It is something like a warning beacon, you might say.

So, motorists first see me as a "blob" in mid lane, because I ride in the half, to one-third lane position. As they get closer, they see my head turn, as I take notice of them first. I hear them coming and I see them in my mirror. Then they see me wave my hand once I've seen them... they may not know why, but they see it. Next, they see me negotiate the lane in their favor where practical, because I saw THEM coming and have the time to make corrections. They know that I am paying attention - in some case, maybe more than THEY are.

I also DO NOT ride with a personal music player/earplugs blasting in my ear. You need all your senses on the road and your hearing is tres important. I use a mirror, too, and check it every 5-10 seconds for approaching traffic. Meanwhile, as I noted, I take the lane where ever practical and work from that most visible of positions. I am always keeping an eye out in front of me, as well. In congested areas, these same rules apply - magnified in importance.

All right, back to the esoteric. The point in all of this is the head check is one part of a greater sense of road awareness, the realization that you must be seen in advance, so others can adapt to your presence. It works well, because I take advantage of the reaction distances involved. But, this mindset can be adopted anywhere you ride. I also drive a car and I see cycling from the motorists perspective. I talk to fellow motorists about cycling, too, and what they think of it. I don't do this to push a personal "cyclists agenda," but to learn what THEIR perspective is.

We can howl all we want our equal rights to the road under traffic laws, but the fact is you are not alone out there - you are sharing the road. If the laws also see us as vehicle operators with rights to share the road, then we have to act like it.

As for the difficult-to-see recumbent, do you use flags, bright colors, strobes and other high visibility devices?

There is nothing difficult to see about recumbents. Not even the really low trikes.

The LWB 'bents tend to be longer than upright bikes. Sure, your head might be a foot lower, but the bike is a foot or two longer which makes up for it.

SWB 'bents tend to be about the same length as upright bikes. Again, your head might be a foot lower, but you're still plenty visible.

The trikes are often significantly shorter -- my head tends to come up to butt level on cyclists on upright bikes -- but the trike is wider and that's pretty noticeable. Many trike users do like flags, however.

Can you see a pothole? Well, any of these bikes are way taller and way bigger than that.

Also, 'bents tend to stick out. Drivers and other riders don't tune them out -- being unusual, people tend to pay closer attention to them. In my experience, this seems to be a bigger factor than anything involving being slightly shorter.

As for looking behind you, if it's not obvious to many -- you are sitting in a seat that tends to make it difficult to twist your torso, and you often can't twist your neck enough by itself to see behind you. So mirrors and signaling your turns becomes even more important -- the mirror to let you see if it's clear, and the signal to replace the visual cue of you looking back.

A more reliable indicator of an action that is about to happen is an arm signal - I make sure to signal before a lane change or turn. A headcheck communicates nothing in particular.

I stick both arms up and wave them around every once in a while, so that motorists will notice me as I ride my invisible bicycle.

I didn't say it was the most effective form of communication, just that it is a form of communication (in addition to telling you what's going on back there.)

It tells people that you might be about to do something.
It tells people that you're aware of the traffic behind and to the side of you.

dahut covered it pretty well.