|
Ride as far to the right as practicable...Taking a lane should never become a dogma/ideology. Just because it's legal to take the lane doesn't mean that it's always the right thing to do or smart thing to do. Only take a lane when absolutely necessary and when it's safe to do so. Don't take the lane just be an obnoxious ass.
|
I used to ride that route frequently. It was 30 years ago. I just had trouble using Google Street View. I dragged the yellow man to Rt 9W, and it kept landing me on the Palisades Parkway. So eventually, I dragged the yellow guy onto E Clinton Ave, then I navigated back to Rt 9W. OK, now I see that road has gotten worse. They obliterated the shoulder and they went from two lanes to four lanes (total, in both directions). You don't have any good choices there.
One thing cops don't do often enough is tell people they think they're doing something unsafe that is either legal or on the cusp of legality. Maybe that's what this cop was doing. Cops sometimes care about people. Maybe this was his way of showing it. Maybe not. They seem not to be trained to communicate that way. 30 years ago, I worked at the bike shop in Tenafly, and sometimes I would take E Clinton Ave there. It's a huge, terrifying hill. Back then, I didn't do a lot of lane taking, but I certainly did then, and I was definitely moving at the speed of traffic. |
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 17628210)
OTOH, Colorado seems to be the epicenter of extreme driver/cyclist mutual hatred. (not saying this is true, just that plenty of incidents make the news).....
|
Originally Posted by genec
(Post 17628238)
Bravo... well stated. It is ALWAYS about cooperation.
|
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 17628319)
Except that perceptions of cooperation are often diametrically different. For example, I can be riding in the lane above the speed limit and some motorists will still have high-speed/reckless pass hissy fits.
When dealing with non-rational drivers, when I'm on a bike or in a car, I prefer to let them pass and move away in front of me. I prefer having crazy people where I can watch them than behind me where I can't. But, as a general rule (here), the nuts are a very small minority and days can go by without anything that I'd call an incident. Around here folks simply want to get where they're going, and don't have the patience to engage with strangers over nonsense. |
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 17628183)
I'm very much an agnostic on the "taking the lane concept". I have no objection to taking the land, and will when I fell it's appropriate, but I'm also mindful of the needs, wants, or rights of other road users and try to create passing opportunities whenever I can.
For me, there's a world of difference between taking the lane, and holding the lane. The NJ law is pretty clear on this allowing cyclists to hold the lane when moving with the flow of traffic, but requiring them to keep right otherwise, with room for discretion based on road conditions. In my long cycling career, I've only been stopped by one officer because of my lane placement, which was well out in the lane of a twisty 2 lane road. He was miffed that I made safe passing nearly impossible, and I explained that the right side of the lane was very broken up and I was as far right as possible. Fortunately his superviser happened to pull up before we got very far in the conversation, and asked what the problem was. The officer started to explain, and before he finished, or I could get a word in, the sergeant pointed to the road and asked in classic NY terms "Where the F do you expect him to ride" (pointing to me and the road), and sent me on my way with "stay safe". People here on BF can get very adamant about the law, or rights, but IMO it's not about that at all. It's about courtesy and getting along so everybody wins. To the OP, it seems you had an OK cop. He had a problem, you had an explanation, and you were able to part with mutual pride and respect intact. If I HAVE to take a lane, I will...but I also am going to make every reasonable effort to let people by, including choosing alternate routes that, while not convenient for me, might be more convenient to others. While I'm sure this view will be unpopular, my personal opinion is that if your commute takes you through dangerous areas REQUIRING you to take a lane, and inconveniencing large volumes of faster traffic while doing so, there is some burden on you to live, or work, in an area more conducive towards your choices and less annoying to the 99.9% of traffic your choices impact. It's legal to burn flags...I'm glad it's legal, but I think anyone who does it is a jack ass. If your only basis for your actions are that it's legal, and convenient for you, you're missing the point. |
Originally Posted by alan s
(Post 17628232)
Near my neighborhood, there is a busy, winding 4-lane road with a posted limit of 30 mph, but many cars are driving at 50 mph and above. There is a safe and convenient sidewalk on both sides. If I have to ride down that road, I'm on the sidewalk. It's both safe and legal.
|
My last encounter with a cop was on Bike To Work Day. It was a torrential down poor and I was pulled over for going through a stop sing in my neighborhood where the only car in sight was the cop. He was easily 300 ft. away from the three way intersection. Anyway, he was not very sympathetic with my explanation as he sat in his warm dry cruiser with donuts. I just nodded and agreed until he let me go. A couple of days ago I was wondering where some of his brethren were when I was hit by a car.
|
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 17628319)
Except that perceptions of cooperation are often diametrically different. For example, I can be riding in the lane above the speed limit and some motorists will still have high-speed/reckless pass hissy fits.
|
Originally Posted by KonAaron Snake
(Post 17628366)
.
If your only basis for your actions are that it's legal, and convenient for you, you're missing the point. Do onto others...... |
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 17628319)
Except that perceptions of cooperation are often diametrically different. For example, I can be riding in the lane above the speed limit and some motorists will still have high-speed/reckless pass hissy fits.
|
Originally Posted by cafzali
(Post 17628048)
Your reply completely missed my point. I'm not debating the need to balance what you can do with what is smart and safe. What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, its inexcusable for cops not to know the complete vehicle code, including laws as they pertain to bikes on public roads/streets. And yet it happened in the OP's situation to a degree and happens all the time all across the country.
As I always say, good common sense and a reasonable amount of paranoia when on the street will go far in saving you from serious injury or death. The other issue is that good common sense does not seem to be that common but that discussion may take years. |
Originally Posted by KonAaron Snake
(Post 17628366)
While I'm sure this view will be unpopular, my personal opinion is that if your commute takes you through dangerous areas REQUIRING you to take a lane, and inconveniencing large volumes of faster traffic while doing so, there is some burden on you to live, or work, in an area more conducive towards your choices and less annoying to the 99.9% of traffic your choices impact.
:lol::roflmao2: It's annoying being stuck behind slow moving traffic, especially when it's a very small minority inconveniencing everyone else. I guess since I am the majority inconveniencing the majority I should...um... move to...cuba? If your only basis for your actions are that it's legal, and convenient for you, you're missing the point. |
Yeah, I rode back the same way last night, wondering what the difference was. On the CNBC hill in that seciton, I was on the right, about 2 feet from the curb. A driver breezed me pretty close. It wasn't intentional inasmuch as the driver wasn't trying to harass me. S/he was just trying to get by. It's just not a safe section of road despite the fact that I've ridden it for 4.5 years.
Henry Hudson Drive is slower, poorer, quality, and hillier, but it's a reasonable choice. It's closed in the winter for snow- and rockfalls, but reopened this week. I think I'm just going to start taking that. |
Originally Posted by Mvcrash
(Post 17629665)
I sure did miss your point and I certainly agree with it (I'm not always the sharpest tack in the box, sorry). There is no excuse to not know your job as best as you can, but there are literally hundreds of laws in Title 39, NJ Motor Vehicle code. When you leave the academy, they provided a small pocket size Title 39 book that had the most frequently used laws, Stop signs, red lights, speeding...etc...I'm sure you get it. I never listed laws pertaining specifically to bikes in the book except to say that if your riding on the "public highway" you have the same obligation under Title 39 as any other motorist.
Something else to consider, while the finer points of law pertaining to cycling may be important to us as cyclists, its more than likely very low on the list of priorities of what a cop needs to worry about in most jurisdictions. Cops are also first responders, and that can change ones perspective, rights and feelings can seem a lot less important after having to pick up the pieces of an incident a few times. |
Originally Posted by kickstart
(Post 17628984)
Do onto others......
|
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 17629995)
If motorists followed this rule they would not get annoyed by slower moving traffic.
|
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 17629962)
In summary, someone who bikes for transport and takes the lane should move because they are "inconveniencing" motorists.
For 5 or more on a 2 lane road? the law says move over. Whats the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Personally I'm not going to allow myself to become a significant disruption to a large number of people. |
Originally Posted by kickstart
(Post 17630096)
For a couple now and then? no.
For 5 or more on a 2 lane road? the law says move over. Whats the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Personally I'm not going to allow myself to become a significant disruption to a large number of people. The OP was riding on a 4 lane road. I think the line between reasonable and unreasonable changes depending on how much time you spend sitting on a saddle versus a motorized lazy boy. What I am somewhat obnoxiously saying is that when it comes to transport and the greater good the emotional response of a minority of drivers to a "cyclist in their way" is just not high on my list of problems. |
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 17630123)
The OP was riding on a 4 lane road.
The alert rider would be able to judge the amount of disruption to the traffic around himself or herself. |
Originally Posted by CliffordK
(Post 17630414)
The alert rider would be able to judge the amount of disruption to the traffic around himself or herself.
|
Originally Posted by Mvcrash
(Post 17629665)
I sure did miss your point and I certainly agree with it (I'm not always the sharpest tack in the box, sorry). There is no excuse to not know your job as best as you can, but there are literally hundreds of laws in Title 39, NJ Motor Vehicle code.
But the people who really get harmed by all this are folks like me and most of us that just want to go out for a ride and get along with everybody. We have to deal with pre-conceived notions, etc. That's why I have had beverage cans thrown at me and all sorts of other stuff. It's gotten so bad at times that I wanted to get jerseys printed that said something to the effect of "This ride is being video taped for my protection and to aid law enforcement." |
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 17630446)
A few tens of seconds of delay is not disruption. As far as I can tell, the main problem with that road is that the speed limit is too high. It seems to me to be a great candidate for a road diet (and associated reduction in speed limit).
It appears as if the road is already posted at 40 MPH. It looks like it is business/commercial area. 4 lanes + dedicated turn/merge lane. Limited cross streets. So... what is appropriate? 15 MPH? Bikes aren't the only road users. It seems to me by looking at maps (no personal experience), but 40 MPH would be about right, as long as that doesn't mean 70-ish. And even so, adjust the traffic control based on actual accident patterns. Perhaps put out a few of those radar trailers, just to remind people of the speed limit. I think they are effective even without ticketing. Just don't park them in the bike lane. I do think that would be a good candidate for an off-road bike path generally along the south-east side of the road. But, it is hard to tell without being there, and seeing how much redundancy there is with existing routes, such as Henry Hudson, or other infrastructure already in place, and the through bike traffic (there are residential streets for local traffic). |
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 17630123)
What I am somewhat obnoxiously saying is that when it comes to transport and the greater good the emotional response of a minority of drivers to a "cyclist in their way" is just not high on my list of problems.
Passing judgment on the value of other peoples time, people I know nothing about, isn't something I feel entitled to do simply because of my mode of transportation. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, one can be concerned and accommodating to the wants and needs of others without surrendering all their own wants and needs. Give a little, take a little, lest we become one of "them". |
Originally Posted by CliffordK
(Post 17630582)
What are you suggesting?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:34 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.