spare_wheel

Why do imagine that when I ride to "point B" I am "making a point"? Is a motorist who drives to "point B" also making a point?

spare_wheel

Perfect response. The thread should end here, IMO.

Leebo

Sometimes I have a "nice" driver behind me and will not pass me even if it safe to do so, then the cars tend to back up behind them. 4-8 deep. At that point I sometimes will pull into a driveway and stop to get a drink of water. And let them all get past me.

mconlonx 

Not to mention, MV drivers are more inconvenienced, more impeded, most of the time by other motor vehicles than by cyclists...

kickstart

Its not honest to say that because some have irrational perceptions of minor inconveniences caused by necessity, its OK to knowingly cause avoidable disruptions just because they aren't specifically prohibited.

Cyclosaurus

So...anything you do to inconvenience anyone with a 80,000 lb truck is so minor, so trivial, and so, so necessary only irrational people would have a problem with it. But someone a 20 lb bike is creating Complete Havoc! out there on the road for just the thrill of it.

That's what I like about you. Your perspective would make a Picasso painting dizzy.

B. Carfree

Perhaps Washington has chosen to convert all its bike paths to off-road sidewalks, but the state immediately south of you has a completely different take on that. In OR, bike paths are legally roads. In fact, they are roads without sidewalks. In OR, pedestrians don't have any right of way on roads that lack sidewalks (perverse, isn't it?) and must stay as far to the edge as possible and single file.

However, since most folks who ride bikes are far more civilized than motorists, even when they are the same people, there are very few conflicts between the scofflaw pedestrians who take up almost the entire bike path and cyclists. Once you take the motor out of the situation, there hardly seems to be any need for the laws; folks just deal and do it fairly well. It could have something to do with the fact that in a bike-ped collision, everyone loses but in a car-anything collision, only the anything loses, but I doubt if very many people ever consider that as they gently pass pedestrians on the bike paths.

kickstart

I've said time and again it works the same for all users, do what you must as necessary while remembering the roads are for everyone.

kickstart

It was only an example of why we can't rely solely on the law, or use it as an excuse to behave in an antisocial manner. Don't over complicate it.

Cyclosaurus

Looks like the end of your sentence was accidentally chopped off. I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

wphamilton

In this context, since the discussion has careened off into conflicts of philosophy, I offer three principles which I feel are self-evident in a free society.

Equivalence of rights. For the same general actions, for generally the same reasons, one person's rights are not greater than another's.


No demand to justify. No person should be required to justify his free exercise of his rights.


No abrogation. we cannot coerce someone in abrogation of his rights, unless in conflict with a plenary right.

So, applying these principles, if someone is in the lane and has a right to be there, it's none of my business why. From the second principle, it doesn't matter if he has an alternative available that would be more convenient to me, or even himself. From the first, my right to unimpeded travel is not greater than his, and by the third anything I do to force my way, or to intimidate him into moving, is a wrong action.

No one is to say that I can't be irritated, but if I am it is a failure of character because it arises from ego-centric thinking and not from having been wronged.

kickstart

Well, you've successfully demonstrated the value of your outlook, and why its not worth further consideration.

Cyclosaurus

You'd think they were self-evident. There's plenty of evidence in this thread that many people think that the convenience of the majority trumps equal rights.

PatrickGSR94

You clearly have no clue about what Cycling Savvy/I Am Traffic teaches, which in some aspects is different than the original VC from John Forrester.

In many states, laws relating to impeding traffic apply specifically to MOTOR vehicles only. A bicycle/cyclist by definition cannot impede traffic in the legal sense of the phrase. But as others have stated, it's courteous to pull off at a safe spot if other traffic is stacking up behind you. Problem around here is, on many 2-lane rural roads with no shoulder, places to SAFELY pull off are few and far in between.

I personally try to avoid places where cars get stacked up behind me. It's not always possible, though. One hill on my commute in particular is one case. I am SLOW going up the hill, and I try to time it so that there is no traffic behind me. But sometimes that's not always the case. I *ALWAYS* control my lane, though. Sometimes the traffic can pass after we crest the hill. But other times there is oncoming traffic, and the cars behind me might have to wait 30 more seconds until I reach a side street another couple hundred yards past the crest of the hill, where I pull off for a breather and a drink. I usually pull off there whether traffic is behind me or not.

Lane control is not about convenience or inconvenience, being courteous or discourteous or any of those things. It's about safety, 100%, period. Riding nearest the curb or gutter is almost never safe. In my state it is legal to cross a double-yellow when safe to pass a cyclist, but I would bet that almost no motorist knows that. I didn't know it myself until recently. But due to my lane controlling position, people just do it anyway. No close passes, just easy lane changes to pass. Sometimes idiots do it when traffic is oncoming, but that is exceedingly rare.

kickstart

On my way to work this morning, on a 4 lane arterial with no shoulder or bike lane, in one block I encountered 3 hostile motorists while riding in the right tire track.
First was an old compact pickup that did a slow but very close pass then turned right into the post office even slower basically blocking my way.
As I was creeping along waiting for the first truck to clear the road, a crew cab diesel pickup started to tail gate me, when there was a gap he did a high speed half lane pass as he rolled coal on me, then 100 feet up the road he turned into the hardware store.
Then I picked up a 3rd aggressive tail gater waving his arms trying to shoo me out of his way until he turned into a strip mall.

I use the lane for over half of my commute because there's no option, but have never kidded myself for a moment that I'm in control of others, and has nothing to do with refusing to make use of viable options when they exist. I never have issues when riding a shoulder or bike lane.

PatrickGSR94

Right tire track is not controlling the lane. You never had control of your lane.

I ride 4 and 5 lane roads routinely and I'm centered in the lane or left tire track ALWAYS. Close passes simply do not happen.

kickstart

Oh, I'm sure moving one or two feet left would have made all the difference in the world.

This blind faith in dogmatic gimmicks is why there's no continuity in cycling advocacy, its all about pandering to snake oil cure all's.

benjdm

They're referring to Trotwood v. Selz. Selz was given a traffic ticket for 'impeding traffic', violating a city ordinance in Trotwood, OH.
Selz was convicted and the case was appealed up to an appellate court (Ohio's second), where Selz prevailed.
Selz case, Fred Oswald

I would bet this has been pointed out to you before...yup, it was discussed in a previous thread you participated in. It was brought up in post 28, with you making posts both shortly before and shortly after that (posts 7 and 41).
https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-s...do-i-call.html

RoadTire 

This. Find roads where the traffic has safer passing lanes. Those double yellow lines are there for a reason. We recently had a car trying to pass a semi truck () on Hwy 15, just before a bridge. The whole road is a double yellow line - no passing. The driver misjudged, had to cut in to avoid an oncoming school bus, clipped the semi, hit a tree, and killed her 54 year old passenger friend. I saw the car mushed into the tree and one person on a stretcher as I drove to work that afternoon.

Don't force cars to cross double yellow lines to get past you. They might not do so safely, and worst case oncoming traffic is speeding, then what?

spare_wheel

Saying something over and over again does not make it true...

kickstart

I can't control others with a motorcycle, I can't control others with a semi, if someone is determined to be disagreeable I'm certainly not going to be able to control them with a bicycle.

spare_wheel

Due to the relatively common perception that cycling is not a genuine/real/equal transportation mode many motorists tend to view cyclists as disagreeable for behavior they would not notice from other modes.

spare_wheel

If there is a route that is equally convenient and friendlier to mode cohabitation I will always prefer that route. Nevertheless, I find the suggestion that I go out of my way to find routes that don't annoy motorist-bigots to be kind of insulting.

RoadTire 

It's not so much trying to avoid annoying the motorist, it's about being safe on the bicycle. Flip side, I like to annoy obnoxious, entitled, motorists - when I'm in my Buick.

PatrickGSR94

Maybe not two, but moving 3-4 feet left really DOES work. Please watch this whole video, all the way to the end. First half with lane control, ALL motorists change lanes fully and with plenty of time to spare. Second half in the right tire track, a number of motorists split lanes as they pass, or change lanes much too late, which means the following cars have much less warning when he becomes visible. I started controlling my lane when I saw this video, and was amazed at how well it works.

https://vimeo.com/17300276
Excuse me? I'm not FORCING anyone to do anything. If it's not safe to pass, it's not safe to pass. Doesn't matter if I'm controlling my lane or hugging the edge. If it's not safe to pass, the motorist needs to SLOW THE HELL DOWN momentarily until it's safe to pass. The difference is that when I'm controlling the lane it's crystal clear from hundreds of yards out that the motorist must slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. When hugging the edge line, it's not clear until they're almost on top of you, which is when you get swerving, slamming on brakes, close passes, etc.

It makes perfect sense to me. Why is it so difficult for many people to grasp the concept?

What makes you think it's a common perception? Internet comments? That's a very small slice of the population, actually. If motorists find me disagreeable, I sure as hell don't know it. I just rode 15.5 miles home from work a couple hours ago, on a mix of rural, multi-lane and residential roads. Not a single problem from the hundreds of cars that passed me. They either passed me without incident or waited until it was safe and then passed. Sometimes I would help them along by flagging them by when it was clear ahead, but mostly people just used their own eyes to judge when it was safe to pass, and did so.