|
I think the OP was riding right where he should have been in that lane, and riding in a nice safe predicable straight line.
|
Originally Posted by Booger1
(Post 15891134)
At least in L.A.,most of the cops don't know the traffic laws for bicycles,traffic cops or not.They know so little about traffic laws for bicycles,I carry a copy of it for them to read when they hassle me.
When they want to see my ID,I also show them a copy of the bicycle laws for California. If you saw me riding down the street and didn't know anything about bicycles,I'm guessing you would think I'm the homeless type.Long hair down to my waist,giant beard,greasy hair,dirty clothes( I do machine work for a living),rides a bike.....sounds homeless,even to me....:) The way I look,the cops probably think I'm a homeless drunk and riding a stolen bike down the middle of the street and don't know it......:) |
Originally Posted by kdgrills
(Post 15891573)
A sub-standard width lane & door zone? Center or left of the lane is FRAP, sharrow or not.
|
Originally Posted by paulypro
(Post 15886183)
Thank you for the advice, but respectfully, I still disagree. I'm just saying regardless if some lobbyists decided to paint cryptic bike symbols on roadways 11 feet out or not, that I'd feel like a dick holding up traffic if there's space for me to move aside, such as a long break in parked cars, decent shoulder roadspace etc. I find myself on sharrow marked bike routes daily and almost always end up well to the right of them, aside from the times when it's necessary to take up that lateral space. I plan these maneuvers with the flow of overtaking traffic to minimize disruption to traffic flow & also maximize my own safety. Once and if there's enough space, such as no parked cars to door you, there's hey like 10 feet of space to move the heck over & let some cars by, or at least give them the illusion you're trying to be respectful.
I think that concept of 'share' in sharrow goes both ways, which doesn't entitle one to just own the lane indefinitely until the sharrows are gone. From looking at the video the road looks immaculate but the OP says it's poor, so I can understand getting out there and taking the lane in this situation. Plus in his case he was traveling very close to traffic speed & I do agree with his strategy, though I could see why motorists may not. It's cool.. If you want to roll down the middle of the lane just because there's a sharrow painted on it go for it. I just tend to believe it's asking for road rage or a similar non-incidental talking to from an officer. I feel that the concept of sharrows themselves is a completely foreign concept for non-cyclists (motorists) so I'd be wary of relying on them as an aura of protection, just sayin'. I don't use my rides as an opportunity to politicize or advocate and " take the lane" solely because "it's my right" but I certainly do so when I feel it's the safest place to be on the road. This cyclist appeared to be doing just that and I believe under California law he was justified in so doing. Certainly you have the right to not ride in such a manner under these circumstances (out of politeness or fear or what have you) but to insist that others do the same, especially since the law and the infrastructure allow for this kind of riding seems odd to me. |
my $.02
Originally Posted by ericcc65
(Post 15891132)
Actually, it seems like sharrows do give you the right to travel where the sharrows are. Personally I like sharrows for the very reason that they seem to indicate to a driver that a cyclist could be taking the lane. Compare it to bike lanes, which are solid white lines with the same bike symbol inside, minus the chevron. Bike lanes means motorists forget me and I need to stay in the lines. Which is fine until one of us needs to turn or there is an obstacle in the lane. Sharrows, on the other hand don't have the same line limitations, and I would guess that most people would interpret it as meaning that a bike could be anywhere in this lane, so be on the lookout, not merely the direction of travel of bikes. You put a bike symbol on the street and that indicates to motorists an extra level of expectation of bikes being there, and that they have the right to be there (which most motorists don't know or agree with, unfortunately).
Originally Posted by sonatageek
(Post 15892225)
I think the OP was riding right where he should have been in that lane, and riding in a nice safe predicable straight line.
[MENTION=244461]weshigh[/MENTION] I am really impressed with how you handled the whole situation. Do you think he knew you had a camera on your helmet and that he was being recorded? [MENTION=1797]alan[/MENTION]_s I think he is correct when he said we already have the rights and responsibilities as car drivers do. I do think that they marking on the road or signs remind car drivers that bikes frequent this area. BE ALERT |
I always take the right most lane on a two lane road (two lanes in one direction).
I don't know where people are getting the whole "It's only OK to take the lane when there are not parked cars." Multiple people have posted the actual law and nowhere does it say ANYTHING about the parked cars having an effect on whether or not you have the right to take the lane." The fact is, the OP was on a two lane road where people could EASILY pass him on the left. He was going very close to the speed limit most of the time. If you are going to argue that bikers don't have the "right" to take the lane then you might as well say the same for people that ride slow mopeds, people that ride motorcycles (because there is obviously room for people to pass around them if they move over), and slow grandmas that drive 5 mph below the speed limit. The OP was correct, and has been PROVEN correct by the police's response. Drop the argument with your "I don't feel safe taking the lane" or "I feel like an ass." As stated above, those are YOUR opinions and have no effect on the law. Weaving in and out of parked cars is MUCH more dangerous than taking the lane, even if there was a "stretch where there weren't any parked cars," who knows when someone will want to pull over and park or what is around the next bend or over the next hill. It turns out that most people driving cars don't look for bikers when turning right or pulling into a parking spot. I did not see any "minimum speed" posted on that road so I'll say again, the OP was correct in everything he did. |
Originally Posted by corrado33
(Post 15894315)
Weaving in and out of parked cars is MUCH more dangerous than taking the lane.
|
I think the OP did a very good job of handling the situation, and I liked that the sheriff's department's use of twitter, too.
I am going to kind of cut the deputy some slack, too. Sharrows are relatively new and they weren't enacted - at least not where I live - pursuant to any kind of ordinance. Traffic planners know what they mean, of course, as do cycling advocates. But I'm not surprised that a deputy didn't understand what these new (and, admittedly, cryptic) road signs meant without some additional training. Which it is the department's duty to provide. But I think it's more of a training issue and less of a "this cop is an idiot for not knowing what these new things painted on the road mean". Having said that, shortly after my city installed sharrows, and in response to a bunch of questions, particularly from regular bikers, they put out this helpful document: http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DPW/Su...ikewaysFAQ.pdf WHAT DO THE MARKINGS OF A BIKE WITH TWO ARROWS ABOVE IT ON THE STREETS MEAN? These are Shared Roadway, or “Sharrow,” bicycle markings, which are intended to help bicyclists position themselves away from parked cars, to avoid being struck by suddenly opened car doors and to alert other road users to expect bicyclists to occupy travel lanes. These markings will also be used in situations where it may not be obvious where bicyclists should be riding, such as at intersections with multiple turn lanes. IF I DON’T SEE THESE MARKINGS, IS IT FAIR TO ASSUME THAT THE ROADWAY ISN’T A SHARED LANE AND BICYCLISTS SHOULD NOT BE THERE? No. Bicyclists can ride on any street in Indianapolis except for limited access freeways with signs explicitly prohibiting it. A person riding a bicycle upon a roadway has all the rights and duties that are applicable to a person who drives a vehicle. ON SOME STREETS, BICYCLISTS RIDING OVER THIS MARKING WILL TAKE THE ENTIRE LANE. AREN’T THEY SUPPOSED TO MOVE TO THE RIGHT? Not always. Bicyclists are to stay to the right except to pass other bicyclists or vehicles, to prepare to make a left turn or when necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right, including fixed or moving objects, surface hazards or substandard width lanes too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel side by side. Moving to the left in the lane to avoid car doors, for instance, even if it means taking the entire lane, is permitted. WHY DO I NEED TO LOOK BEHIND ME BEFORE OPENING MY CAR DOOR WHEN PARKED NEAR A BIKE LANE? CAN’T THE BICYCLISTS LOOK INTO PARKED CARS AS THEY RIDE TO SEE IF SOMEONE IS ABOUT TO OPEN THE DOOR? Bicyclists, like all road users, need to constantly scan the entire roadway for safety. Checking every car for a driver is difficult to do while paying attention to the road. Also, it is often impossible to see drivers due to large parked vehicles blocking the view of other parked vehicles, tinted windows, headrests, etc. Motorists should check their side view mirror or look back prior to opening their door. It is the driver’s responsibility should any collision occur. |
In a nutshell, he was a dumb ass. In Portland that would've never happened. As someone stated above "bicyclists are encouraged to take the whole lane. Cars are free to use those lanes but with the understanding that they will be mixed in with slower traffic and often times they will be forced to turn off".
I've been on streets with sharrows out here with a cop right behind me and he has never said any of the sort. It's my understanding that if you want to ride to the far right to let a car pass then you can BUT it's completely up to you, the rider to do so. I get over myself but I also see people that won't get over because they are entitled the lane since it is a "shared" lane. If you get caught up behind someone on a bike, oh well. |
Originally Posted by DTG
(Post 15898981)
In a nutshell, he was a dumb ass. In Portland that would've never happened. As someone stated above "bicyclists are encouraged to take the whole lane. Cars are free to use those lanes but with the understanding that they will be mixed in with slower traffic and often times they will be forced to turn off".
I've been on streets with sharrows out here with a cop right behind me and he has never said any of the sort. It's my understanding that if you want to ride to the far right to let a car pass then you can BUT it's completely up to you, the rider to do so. I get over myself but I also see people that won't get over because they are entitled the lane since it is a "shared" lane. If you get caught up behind someone on a bike, oh well. If the auto drivers don't like it, don't use the slower, shared lane. And no, not going to bob and weave, ducking in and out of parked cars and moving auto traffic, unless someone behind has been noticeably patient and there is a significant opening in parked autos.... Pretty straight forward...... |
Originally Posted by alhedges
(Post 15895487)
But I think it's more of a training issue and less of a "this cop is an idiot for not knowing what these new things painted on the road mean".
|
Originally Posted by RidingMatthew
(Post 15893724)
I like the way this was written. the Sharrows remind motorists that bikes may be riding and taking the lane if they need too. I have a bike lane with the solid white line and there is a part when I come down a hill that I move into the lane of traffic because I am moving as fast as the cars are supposed to be. The city also installed those stand up reflector things across this bridge and they are full of debris now. It would also be a questionable maneuver to stay in the "BIKE Lane" to cross the bridge.
I watched the video and know nothing of riding in California but I thought that the OP was riding safely and the sheriff was just powertripping and it sounds like the LASD has stated that the OP was correct in his riding. @weshigh I am really impressed with how you handled the whole situation. Do you think he knew you had a camera on your helmet and that he was being recorded? @alan_s I think he is correct when he said we already have the rights and responsibilities as car drivers do. I do think that they marking on the road or signs remind car drivers that bikes frequent this area. BE ALERT Thanks! He had the same camera on his helmet that I have, so I don't know how he wouldn't. It sticks up off the top of my bright yellow helmet. |
Traffic Cops priority in CA: Write tickets to generate money, keep traffic flowing.
I can see how the cop saw you taking up an entire lane and how it would "appear" that here is a potentially dangerous situation. -Cop probably thinks: here is a guy on a bike that thinks he is a car, probably going to get himself killed because some cager is going to rage and bump him off, or maybe the cagers will start road raging and want to fight him and/or eachother. I need to do something about this...I'm going to pull him over, yeah, seems like he is impeding traffic. Don't discount the fact that maybe the cop saw a potentially dangerous situation and was actually concerned for your safety, regardless of who was in the right of way. We all know that it doesn't matter if you are in the right of way, in a collision between you and a car...YOU LOSE! That's a tough one, I bet the cagers don't know what the bike laws are nor do they care. You obviously were in the right of way. Question is: Do you trust the cagers to know you are in the right of way? Or do you let them pass so that is one less road raging cager to worry about. |
Originally Posted by jloco
(Post 15904407)
That's a tough one, I bet the cagers don't know what the bike laws are nor do they care. You obviously were in the right of way. Question is: Do you trust the cagers to know you are in the right of way?
Originally Posted by jloco
(Post 15904407)
Or do you let them pass so that is one less road raging cager to worry about.
|
I like how he says that his last name is Teufel, which is German for Lucifer haha. Also that cop is just an asshat considering you were going pretty fast and hardly holding up traffic.
|
What it boils down to is that bikes are required by law (at least here in the USA) to ride on the streets because cyclist are considered vehicle operators... that means that whether you're riding a bike, motorcycle or driving a car, you're entitled to an entire lane... whether there's a sharrow or not (IMHO sharrows and bike lanes are a convenient and meaningless attempt to address a miniscule aspect of traffic problems that ultimately has a negative effect on a small portion of tax paying citizens... that's why they were chosen as a "solution"). The addendum or stipulation of having to move to the right portion of a lane, if holding up traffic to allow others to pass, is strictly on a judgmental basis... basically a consideration. Legally the cop would have to prove that the OP was impeding traffic... not unlike a slow moving dump truck, road construction vehicle or farm tractor is apt to do yet is never (from my experience) cited when failing to comply. In fact in the OP's case the motorcycle cop was breaking the law and endangering the OP's safety by riding in the same lane with him... the cop was creating a dangerous traffic situation by encroaching on the OP's lane and not keeping a +3 ft distance as required by law.
What the OP did is no different than if I decided to drive my car or ride my motorcycle at <15 mph, I am not breaking the law... after all, there is no minimum speed limit on these kinds of roads. weshigh... you handled this situation extremely well... you're a friggin Ghandi. |
Forget that 'policy officer'. I would of sprayed him with a water bottle. :D
|
Originally Posted by BassNotBass
(Post 15922715)
What it boils down to is that bikes are required by law (at least here in the USA) to ride on the streets because cyclist are considered vehicle operators... that means that whether you're riding a bike, motorcycle or driving a car, you're entitled to an entire lane... whether there's a sharrow or not (IMHO sharrows and bike lanes are a convenient and meaningless attempt to address a miniscule aspect of traffic problems that ultimately has a negative effect on a small portion of tax paying citizens... that's why they were chosen as a "solution"). The addendum or stipulation of having to move to the right portion of a lane, if holding up traffic to allow others to pass, is strictly on a judgmental basis... basically a consideration. Legally the cop would have to prove that the OP was impeding traffic... not unlike a slow moving dump truck, road construction vehicle or farm tractor is apt to do yet is never (from my experience) cited when failing to comply. In fact in the OP's case the motorcycle cop was breaking the law and endangering the OP's safety by riding in the same lane with him... the cop was creating a dangerous traffic situation by encroaching on the OP's lane and not keeping a +3 ft distance as required by law.
What the OP did is no different than if I decided to drive my car or ride my motorcycle at <15 mph, I am not breaking the law... after all, there is no minimum speed limit on these kinds of roads. weshigh... you handled this situation extremely well... you're a friggin Ghandi. |
Originally Posted by RaleighSport
(Post 15924814)
Ca has no 3 foot passing law,
Originally Posted by RaleighSport
(Post 15924814)
Ca ... lane splitting is not illegal here...
|
Originally Posted by BassNotBass
(Post 15922715)
What it boils down to is that bikes are required by law (at least here in the USA) to ride on the streets because cyclist are considered vehicle operators... that means that whether you're riding a bike, motorcycle or driving a car, you're entitled to an entire lane... whether there's a sharrow or not (IMHO sharrows and bike lanes are a convenient and meaningless attempt to address a miniscule aspect of traffic problems that ultimately has a negative effect on a small portion of tax paying citizens... that's why they were chosen as a "solution"). The addendum or stipulation of having to move to the right portion of a lane, if holding up traffic to allow others to pass, is strictly on a judgmental basis... basically a consideration. Legally the cop would have to prove that the OP was impeding traffic... not unlike a slow moving dump truck, road construction vehicle or farm tractor is apt to do yet is never (from my experience) cited when failing to comply. In fact in the OP's case the motorcycle cop was breaking the law and endangering the OP's safety by riding in the same lane with him... the cop was creating a dangerous traffic situation by encroaching on the OP's lane and not keeping a +3 ft distance as required by law.
What the OP did is no different than if I decided to drive my car or ride my motorcycle at <15 mph, I am not breaking the law... after all, there is no minimum speed limit on these kinds of roads. weshigh... you handled this situation extremely well... you're a friggin Ghandi. Everywhere I have lived (five different states), a MOTOR vehicle is required to maintain a 25mph MINIMUM speed on the roads. Scooters/mopeds, as well as biks, because they are not required to be licensed/registered, is not. Also, the "REQUIREMENT" to ride on the road is not universal, either; several cities allow sidewalk riding (a source of must controversy here on BF). |
Not reading the diatribe, however, that does look like one boring-as-hell commute :(
|
Originally Posted by CB HI
(Post 15925325)
Debatable. As I understand it, CA as most or all states does not have any law making lane splitting legal. Since one is suppose to maintain ones travel within a lane until one signals and safely/legally makes a lane change. Because of the large number of motorcyclists in CA during hot climate days requiring air flow to keep their engines from overheating; in traffic jams CHP simply ignored the lane splitting by motorcyclists.
http://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/lanesplitguide.html It's not that they turn a blind eye in the slightest bit, it's just that it really isn't illegal here.. though you did get one part correct there's no laws for it technically, but it's not a look the other way thing as you can see by the fact the chp have a guide on doing it. |
The funny thing is that in the video, it appears that traffic is light enough that it's impossible for weshigh to impede traffic. I can't see them slowing down behind him and going around him, but I'm pretty sure I can tell that when and if they did so, their overall progress is not impeded.
"Hold up traffic? I AM traffic!" No, I don't advocate talking back to an officer. That's just my feeling. If I know there is a line of cars waiting to get around me, I will pull over or even OFF the road for a moment. I just am concerned that some people don't count bikes as legitimate traffic. I had one neighbor who expressed resentment at having to deal with bikes while driving her car, because, in her view, bikes are out there for fun, while car drivers are on the road for serious reasons. Anyway, the cop was wrong, but in the end, weshigh did the right thing by thanking the officer. As Aaron said, better to go along with whatever a cop says and appeal if he does something wrong. I once had a cop tell me to ride on the sidewalk around a construction site. I thought it was dumb, but I did as he asked and was out of there quickly enough. I waved and thanked him. Aaron is right: cops have a tough job. Even the smart ones. And they get a lot of guff from citizens. It wouldn't surprise me that most of the guff is nonsense, so that would develop a habit of being closed-minded to whatever people say. Besides, when you're on the scene, the cop is right, by definition. To make him wrong, you have to appeal off the scene. |
Originally Posted by noglider
(Post 15926538)
....better to go along with whatever a cop says and appeal if he does something wrong. I once had a cop tell me to ride on the sidewalk around a construction site. I thought it was dumb, but I did as he asked and was out of there quickly enough. I waved and thanked him.
This only reinforced the LEO's notion that cyclists are not legit traffic. |
Originally Posted by dynodonn
(Post 15926593)
This only reinforced the LEO's notion that cyclists are not legit traffic.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:05 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.