Guess that could explain why pedestrians sometimes retaliate by throwing heavy objects off an overpass and causing death of motorist.

In reality pedestrians do have right of way in some cases. For instance I'm fairly sure the traffic code in Queensland requires a motorist to give way to pedestrians when turning left at an uncontrolled intersection. The reason for this is obviously that the pedestrians have their back to the car at that time. Nevertheless, this is a rule I would say 99% of motorists are unaware of.

Why do people keep saying this nonsense??

The "right of way" doesn't mean the person with the right of way can run-over people without it.

Drivers are not "allowed" to run over anything! Drivers are required to take action to avoid collisions: with cars, trucks, and pedestrians.

Ain't it grand!

I guess my point is while cyclists have the right to be on the road and motorists have to try to avoid running them down you gotta use common sense.

I still get surprised at how many motorists think that they own the road exclusively. You'd think there should be some kind of education and test before they get the license.

For what's it worth, I'm exclusively a paved trail biker. I know nothing about street riding and the normal procedures for many cyclists. I'm also a former 20 year motorcyclist. I quit riding in 93 because it was too dangerous on the roads. And I wanted to live longer. My misunderstanding with the thread. All the best.

Oh yeah man, I got your point and agreed with it wholeheartedly. Just engaging in the usual internet nitpicking... It's funny, a buddy just got a road bike and I went for a ride with him yesterday. I am about as far from a VC type as you can get, but I was going crazy trying to make him understand how he would be much safer 3 feet or so out from the curb, than riding right in the gutter. I think it is really counter intuitive for a lot of people.

That's okay, as quite a few of the cyclists are aware of rules and choose to ignore them.

That being said...dude, you obviously rely on the web to make a living. Surely you know how to use Google, Bing, or any number of search engines- why didn't you? No matter. You've been provided links to the info you needed to answer your question. I suggest you put a link to the FL laws regarding cyclists on the road on your website- just in case you actually get someone to come to FL to ride your trails that also wants to ride on the street.

This would make a fitting stopping point for the thread. :trainwreck:

So many people seem to think cyclists don't belong in "car" lanes (really, general-purpose lanes open to all legal vehicles), Seattle has started explicitly adding bicycle markings dead-center in left-turn lanes to remind both cyclists and motorists that the legal way for a cyclist to turn left is to merge into the left-turn lane like any other vehicle.

e.g., http://www.flickr.com/photos/jputnam/7470043152/

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment...5&d=1341175378

The whole copyright thing is a red herring -- who copyrights pictures they plan to post on line? EVERYONE -- copyright is automatic the moment the picture is created, whether you choose to add a copyright notice or not.

It could be the OP regularly shoots for commercial purposes and has the notice applied automatically.

These could actually be marketable pictures, they clearly illustrate proper lane usage by a group of cyclists at a left-turn lane -- not just the fact that they're using the left turn lane, but that they're properly spread out to prevent an inattentive or ignorant motorist from attempting to pass them within the lane.

Yes...please!

Here is what I forgot to mention about my photo. My car was moving when these guys came out of nowhere and cut in front of me. I'll repeat, my car was moving. My oversight not to be more specific. So that was why I was so hot about the episode. Also the photos were taken with my left hand out the window and right hand on the steering wheel as I was creeping forward. Creeping. And one shot taken when I was stopped. Also yes I reworded the thread later. It was my mistake to use the initial strong words. Also I have a bicycle website. I work hard on it daily. Yes my website contains links to my blogs. Those blogs were initially done 3-4 years ago. Hundreds maybe thousands of hours were spent doing them. Yes my blogs have ads. Every site and page on the internet has ads. My bicycle website has zero ads. Common sense would dictate that the audience here is not interested in movies or travel destinations that most my blogs pertain to. So spaming I don't do. I contribute here about the proper criteria as everyone else. Also I'm exclusively a paved trail rider. True I don't know every specific bicycle road law because they do not affect me as a rider. I don't ride on the road. I know about the 3 foot rule. I know about being defensive when encountering bicyclists. Heck I rode a motorcycle for 20 years. If you are not a defensive rider or a good rider on a motorcycle you can be dead rather quickly. I gave up motorcycles in 1993. I got tired of the rain and close calls with vehicles. I always said cars don't see other cars and cars definitely don't see motorcycles. Plus every photographer puts his name on his photos. It protects them if and when stolen online. Photos are the sole property of the photograher. Nothing wierd or strange about that. And last, I equate the criticism on this thread about me to a gang initiation in east L.A or Detroit. Actually by page three and four much of it was very humorous. Take care.

well if he is a troll he seems like a darn nice one. cyclist don't come out of no where. just like dogs don't materialize out of thin air. just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they weren't there. it's possible they did a bone headed thing before the camera was out and ready. just like dogs do boneheaded things to cyclist. but were s'pose to look out for the boneheaded, animal or otherwise.

Yeah, I also agree with the notion that people do not appear out of "no where", sounds like a case for better situational awareness. Also, just because one doesn't ride a bike in the roadway, doesn't make it so for other cyclists.

I edited it for you for clarity.

Now, consider your own words and revisit the incident.

Don't get me wrong ... I agree they have done nothing wrong - just that the OP *thinks* they have... They're doing exactly the sort of thing I'd recommend they do, in fact.

I personally try to NEVER be on the pathways or sidewalks, except in very rare instances. Sidewalks are illegal for cycling in Alberta, but it's not really enforced... Pathways are legal for cycling but many cities have ridiculous 20km/h speed limits on them... That's 12mph for you folks that don't speak metric... Try limiting your commute to a max of 12mph on a downhill section of path...

I'm also quite likely to "take the lane" if I'm in an area where I can keep up with traffic - that annoys car drivers too, even though you're not inconveniencing them AT ALL. But I'd personally rather be seen as traffic than be seen as either an obstacle or a target...

One of my regular rides has a 2% grade downhill about 2km from my house, so I use that as my "sprint" to the finish and then cooldown the rest of the way home... it's in a 60km/h zone and depending on wind conditions I'm pretty-much always above 60, but have been as high as 74km/h in that section... and while going 70km/h in a 60 zone have been yelled at to get off the ****ing road... Really... (Yes, it was a guy in a lifted truck... 'nuff said.)

Go ride on the road. Expand your horizons.

Indeed. It is rather nice not having to drive to ride. Very easy to get a workout in just by walking out your front door.

I think I did a simple mental calculation once that the average driver rents each year a one-foot section of road (pick your width based on actual vehicle usage) each year in Australia, and that is all he or she is entitled to drive on -- based on fuel taxes, drivers licence and registration fees, of course.

Doesn't say much for that overpowering ownership claim many motorists have.

I do that all the time. Its the only safe way to get through an intersection. The cars can pass when I'm through just as easily and its not like you can travel fast while turning anyway.

Looks like they were "merging" into your lane, rather than "cutt[ing] in front". I often find you have to be a bit aggressive, and more or less bully your way into an adjacent lane (whether driving or pedalling) as people don't always accomodate mergers. But if you have to turn left, you have no choice but to assert yourself, and push your way into the left turn lane, whether they like it or not. And that's especially true of cyclists, who aren't supposed to cruise for long stretches in the left lane, but are only allowed to move into it when they get close to the intersection where they plan to turn. They have to make the lane change in the space of a few hundred metres, or less.

My guess is that you wouldn't have batted an eye if a motor vehicle had aggressively merged into your left turn lane in front of you, as it would have seemed normal, but it was the unfamiliarity of cyclists doing it, that caught you off guard.

I guess some of you have never seen the PSA (public service announcement) where a guy pulls up to an intersection, looks to the left and it's clear, looks to the right as one car goes by, then it's clear, then as he proceeds a motorcycle to his left comes out of nowhere, I'll repeat, comes out of nowhere, and smashes into the car. The announcer says "when you pull up to an intersection, look left, then right, then left again before proceeding". I tried to find the link to the commercial but couldn't. Anyway many know exactly what happened with the OP and the the bicyclists without even being there? Wow. Thank you.

SUV's don't have the best visibility, I'll grant that.

But still, even in that PSA, the motorcycle didn't actually "come out of nowhere". That PSA isn't saying "vehicles magically appear". Its saying "Pay attention, things change fast". Even at that, cross traffic appearing out of nowhere is a whole lot more believable than traffic moving in the same direction as you coming out of nowhere. If you were paying attention you should have seen them at least pull out of a parking lot or something since they were directly in front of you. How often does a car pull out of a parking lot in front of you that you don't notice it happening?

Which is the simpler answer here: 1) Bikes traveling the same direction as you appeared out of nowhere. 2) you werent paying attention.

And its still a moot point. As has been covered, with legal citations, they merged legally.

So which do you see yourself as analogus to in this scenario - the car driver or the motorbiker?

Looks like there's a pretty long solid line on the right side of that lane. Perhaps they rode in front of you for "1/8 mile" (200 m - not particularily far) because they wanted to merge legally into your lane, back where the lane line was dashed.

the only thing I've seen come out of no where was rain, lightning and a red Nissan Pathfinder, because I didn't see even though I was looking, clearly the Pathfinder was at fault.

It appears that you missed the whole point of that PSA, which is that in reality vehicles and other objects never 'come out of nowhere' - otherwise careful looking still wouldn't be sufficient. When they seem to come out of nowhere it's because we weren't looking in the right direction, hence the need to look back again to the left.

Now maybe the cyclists cut over in front of you without sufficient clearance (although your pictures don't give that impression). But claiming that they "came out of nowhere" sounds like a clear admission that you weren't paying sufficient attention to the traffic around you.

I think this thread has run its course.

Time for it to close before a move to A&S.