Looking at the OP's photos, it's business as usual for me, and 1/8th of a mile is a very short distance, since a stop light can delay the OP far more than cyclist ever did. As long as the OP keeps their actions to taking pictures, asking law enforcement, and venting here on BF, all is good.

I had a motorist make an asinine passing maneuver in a construction zone after we were both just shortly delayed by road construction work, endangering me and oncoming road users. Some motorists' brains pour out of their ears when there's a cyclist in front of them.

You are assuming their brains were ever engaged in the first place.

So the OP made a comment the the pictures would be gold for him... I wonder if he is somehow indirectly deriving revenue when the pics are clicked??

So I decided to check out the website in the OP's sig. The 'blogroll' that lists the links to other blogs is kinda odd to me. There are no other cycling related blogs- no local advocacy groups, no product/sponsors, nada. What there is, however, is a bunch of travel and tourism fluff and links to three other enterprises- photography, video production, and internet marketing- that the OP apparently also has a stake in.

Part of me is now wondering if this thread was never meant to be an honest "pardon my ignorance, but..." thread to a crafty PR one instead.

Hadn't thought of that. We're all (possibly) suckers now :(

EDIT: Just seen the copyright thingies in the bottom right. Looks like we've been trolled.

Oh, well. Ya just can't tell from a few ride reports, I guess.

Me too. I had cop try to tell me I was supposed to ride on the sidewalk not on a street that was designated as a 'Bike Route'. I made her call her supervisor and he was not pleased.

Perhaps if the OP were to spend some more saddle time on the original paved bicycle trails, commonly known as roads, he'd have a better perspective on the matter.

Not pleased? With her for not knowing the law? Or with you for educating the cop?

Mainly with her for not knowing the law and disturbing his afternoon nap.

While discussing this thread with my wife, going over the rant I went into about the whole driving while distracted thing.... I realized that if he took those pics using a smartphone with a touchscreen, he would've had to use both hands to navigate to the camera, possibly even needed both hands to aim and shoot as well.

The OP uses the internet to make a living. One would think he'd be able to do a simple search on the local traffic laws when it came to cyclists. Since the pics are copywrited, I now strongly feel that this is a blatant troll.

funny, funny, funny... :)

Best troll posting I've read in days! On any forum!

But if the OP is serious, he clearly has no comprehension of our rights to travel (for private reasons) on public roadway; and he places himself squarely into the category of "dangerous motorist".

I feel violated.
He has links to lots of his enterprises on the blog.

OP edited his thread starter because of responses from 'angry members'

Some of the galleries on his Facebook page are just creepy.

Weird dude.

Bikes are doing the right thing. I fail to see why the OP got frustrated.

Bikes don't belong on the road, dude.






Him, not me.

??? This line of thought is bizarre.

Gut feeling? How many people bother to copywrite pics that they plan on posting to BF?

At this point I'm going get on my soapbox and preach to the choir.

Cyclists have a right to the road. We don't need the privilege of a license to use the road. In any situation pedestrians rule. They can do whatever they want in the road as illegal or dangerous as it may be and it is incumbent on cyclists and motor vehicle operators to give them right of way. You cannot wantonly run them over.

Bikes have a right to the road that supersedes the privilege given to motor vehicles. There are laws cyclists should obey but regardless a motor vehicle operator must yield right of way to them.

Just like sailboats and oil tankers. The sailboat has right of way. Oil tankers cannot wantonly run sailboats down.

So what this convoluted argument means is the smaller slower guy has the right to be there but takes his well being into jeopardy if it stupidly gets in the way of the bigger faster vehicle.

Pretty sure you have that backwards. More maneuverable vehicle has to yield at sea. Oil tanker yields to no one cause it can't really stop or turn easily.

Go ride in Taiwan ... you'd soon quit crying about this. :lol:

No, as I understand it this is true. I've heard sailors joking about claiming right of way.

But I could be wrong. Just ask my wife.

There are situations where position matters, so the upstream boat has the right of way no matter what size, but generally more maneuverable yields. As in ski boat yields to sail boat yields to ferry, yields to tanker. Just like on the road, everyone has a duty to avoid an accident, but on a huge container ship you mightn't even be able to see a sail boat from the bridge. That said, I am a rec boater and I'm sure someone with a better understanding will soon put me in my place...

Yeah, we are both probably a bit wrong. I did some googling. No one ever actually has right of way because both captains have equal responsibilities to avoid a crash. Ship to the starboard maintains course while the other gives way. The rules I was talking about apply in rivers and other narrow channels. I love the interwebs for it's ability to let us pontificate on matters we know little about...

I've sailed on a few rivers with a 26" sailboat. I'm pretty sure the barges coming downriver have the right of way in the channel. Possibly even the same for barges coming upriver. We always yield to them cuz we just have about 5' draft and they have much more. We don't really need the 28' deep channel water.

On my last cruise I thought for sure our gigantic cruise ship was gonna take out a sailboat in the channel @ San Diego harbor. Cap'n was REALLY laying on the horn.

The way I equate that to vehicular traffic is always yield to trains when you're on the train tracks with your truck, car or bike :)