The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: Philly on August 25, 2013, 07:59:37 AM
-
Family member posted this link on Facebook this morning:
http://m.now.msn.com/cop-tickets-cycling-club-that-ran-the-same-stop-sign
Rules of the road apply to bikes and cars, but not to protect cars!
-
Where is the cycling hate? The fact that they got tickets or that drivers were happy to see someone enforce the law?
As a walker who gets pushed off the sidewalk on a regular basis by bicyclists, I'm happy to see the enforcement. When I drive, I stay away from cyclists because they don't signal, don't stop when required and generally seem erratic in their knowledge and interpretation of traffic rules.
A few months ago my life partner saw the aftermath of a beautiful 20-something college girl versus a FedEx truck. The girl lost. She wasn't wearing a helmet. They put a white bicycle and lots of flowers out on the corner where she was crushed. I think the tickets are a good thing.
-
I fail to see the hate here. Cops protecting unsafe club from themselves. Sounds like a form of love.
Original unbiased article with the details:
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/08/23/4432346/prairie-village-takes-aim-at-bicycle.html (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/08/23/4432346/prairie-village-takes-aim-at-bicycle.html)
-
I hate it when cyclists blatantly ignore the rules of the road around pedestrians and motor vehicles. So in this case if 26 members of a cycling club all decided that stop signs are meant for everyone else, then perhaps they deserved their $100 reminder. My only question would be was this stop sign in a sleepy neighborhood or in an area with significant traffic. I'm not too proud to admit I ignore a few signs in my own sleepy neighborhood when I am clearly the only person on the road in any direction. But once I get to a main road I become a part of traffic just like everyone else and the rules of the road apply, whether I see any cars or not.
-
Gotta say I agree with everything in the Kansas City article. I'm not a fan of the tone from MSN, but that's how they sell news I guess.
IMO the law is the law. You can make the choice to break the law (as I do occasionally, and I'm sure many others do as well), but you'd better keep in mind the consequences and who's watching. I won't say the cyclists had it coming like the MSN article seemed to, but I don't think they should be surprised either.
-
A few months ago my life partner saw the aftermath of a beautiful 20-something college girl versus a FedEx truck. The girl lost. She wasn't wearing a helmet. They put a white bicycle and lots of flowers out on the corner where she was crushed. I think the tickets are a good thing.
In Fullerton? According to the press coverage it was the truck driver who didn't stop. She had the right of way, apparently. Also, the lack of wearing a helmet seems to be a bit over-stressed. There's no evidence that a helmet would have saved her life. It was a moving truck that hit her, after all. Even cars don't look good after they hit a truck at cruising speed.
-
As a cyclist who rides several thousand miles a year, maybe they deserved it maybe they didn't.
If a car runs a stop sign and hits another car or a person, there is a good likelihood of death or injury to the innocent party. If a bicyclist on an 18 pound bike hits a car because they blew through the stop sign, the car might have a dent, but the cyclist may be dead. If the cyclist hits a pedestrian, then the pedestrian may be seriously injured. Lastly, I don't need the police to "protect me" from myself. I can make an informed decision, based on my own risk assessment and the impact my actions may have on others.
This applies to helmets and traffic laws. I do however, fully respect the police role in protecting others from my actions. Laws are laws, but a little common sense goes a long way.
When I come to a stop sign in the middle of nowhere, I look in all directions. If there is a car anywhere in sight, I stop completely. If there is no car to be seen for miles, I run the stop sign. See above regarding consequences and risk assessment. If I were riding through a major city with tons of traffic and pedestrians, I would act differently due to the potential impact on 3rd parties.
I was actually on a group ride where the leaders were pulled over for rolling a stop sign (I saw the officer and stopped). They somewhat deserved it because a) it wasn't a remote stop sign and b) they didn't slow down nearly enough to assess the situation. Here's the irony to the story however, the officer who pulled them over passed us on an uphill double yellow to set up the "sting."
Midwest
-
A few months ago my life partner saw the aftermath of a beautiful 20-something college girl versus a FedEx truck. The girl lost. She wasn't wearing a helmet. They put a white bicycle and lots of flowers out on the corner where she was crushed. I think the tickets are a good thing.
In Fullerton? According to the press coverage it was the truck driver who didn't stop. She had the right of way, apparently. Also, the lack of wearing a helmet seems to be a bit over-stressed. There's no evidence that a helmet would have saved her life. It was a moving truck that hit her, after all. Even cars don't look good after they hit a truck at cruising speed.
Yes, the accident in Fullerton. I'm not sure if they ruled on the issue yet, but I think she did have the right of way. The point is if you choose to be a cyclist, you need to ride defensively, including wearing a helmet and assuming no one sees you.
I just came back from a walk where a cyclist pushed me off the sidewalk (yet again) so my charity for this group is low at the moment.
-
I have seen bicyclists go through stop signs in my neighborhood three times in the last four days--it was to the point where I wondered if I was incorrect in my understanding that they are supposed to stop. Twice it wasn't immediately dangerous (although I thought it was dumb--people are pulling out of their driveways and may not expect a bike there) but once a guy went flying through a four-way stop with cars lined up in all four directions. It scared the heck out of me. Even if I weren't at fault, I'd be devastated if someone got hurt when I was driving.
Unfortunately bike culture is relatively new to my city and it's sort of the Wild West. Many bicyclists don't know or follow the law, drivers don't know what to expect or how to behave (and a lot don't like bikes, see above behavior), and the police don't consider bike enforcement a high priority.
-
Slightly off topic, but--I don't like it when I am hiking on a mountain trail, see a mountain biker approaching, go out of my way to yield the trail to her/him, and then the biker passes without even acknowledging me. I usually say, out loud and clearly, "You're welcome!"
I say this as a mountain biker myself. (And a road biker.) Whenever anyone (car, pedestrian, biker, horseback rider) yields for me, I show appreciation!
-
Slightly off topic, but--I don't like it when I am hiking on a mountain trail, see a mountain biker approaching, go out of my way to yield the trail to her/him, and then the biker passes without even acknowledging me. I usually say, out loud and clearly, "You're welcome!"
I say this as a mountain biker myself. (And a road biker.) Whenever anyone (car, pedestrian, biker, horseback rider) yields for me, I show appreciation!
This is one of the things I dislike about biking on multi-use paths. I wave, and nobody waves back. Everyone on the road waves
-
The point is if you choose to be a cyclist, you need to ride defensively, including wearing a helmet and assuming no one sees you.
I do agree on riding defensively and always assuming no one sees you. I also agree that cyclist should have the same rights and obligations as other participants which includes getting tickets for not abiding the law. It was confusing, though, to see the Fullerton accident been mentioned in a thread about bad cyclist behavior, but I don't think you wanted to imply that she somehow deserves this, because she wasn't riding defensively enough.
On the helmet... well, that topic doesn't need to be discussed in yet another tread.
-
The point is if you choose to be a cyclist, you need to ride defensively, including wearing a helmet and assuming no one sees you.
I do agree on riding defensively and always assuming no one sees you. I also agree that cyclist should have the same rights and obligations as other participants which includes getting tickets for not abiding the law. It was confusing, though, to see the Fullerton accident been mentioned in a thread about bad cyclist behavior, but I don't think you wanted to imply that she somehow deserves this, because she wasn't riding defensively enough.
On the helmet... well, that topic doesn't need to be discussed in yet another tread.
You're completely right. The Fullerton accident was just a sad, terrible thing that happened and I didn't mean to imply the young lady was at fault or she deserved her fate. I meant it as a prime example of what can happen when motorists and cyclists share space and someone fails to follow the rules.
-
Don't obey the laws and it certainly increases your chances of getting a ticket.
Running stop signs is one of the reasons I quit riding with a local club. The way they do it is perfectly safe, but it's not legal. I try very hard not to invite "the man" into my life, it can only end in sadness and expense. I love cycling and am very careful to obey the laws to the letter, even the ones I don't agree with (some of the laws are counter productive and decrease safety). Around here, we have a process for getting bad laws changed. It may not work all that well, but we do have a process, so we should try it!
-
Rules of the road apply to bikes and cars, but not to protect cars!
"Cycling hate"?!?
I spent years and thousand of miles commuting on my bicycle while obeying the rules, and it really bugs the crap out of me to see a rude cyclist who can't follow the rules or share the road.
When I get the one-finger salute from such a rider, I pull off the road to have a little discussion with the offender... complete with a video recording and, if necessary, a 911 call. I'd rather subject them to a little personal feedback on their behavior than have them get themselves killed or cause some other driver to swerve into traffic to avoid hitting them.
Having said that, the rude riders tend to be a very very small percentage of the riders I encounter. I like to think of it as "survivor bias".
-
When I am riding my bike and come up to a 4 way stop with no other cars in sight, I slow, check for traffic and proceed. If there are cars present I always stop unless they wave me through.
-
It really depends. They could have rolled through the stop sign at 5 mph and it would have been perfectly safe. It's a giant pain in the ass, and far more dangerous, to clip out of pedals, stop, and re-start than it is to roll the stop sign.
Particularly if this was the early morning as many group rides are, it would seem reasonable they would signal to each other that the ones in the front could wave the ones in the back through if there wasn't a car.
-
I have mixed feelings on this issue.
Bikes need to obey the rules of the road. So do cars.
And cops need to apply the law equally. If cops ticket car drivers going 5mph over the speed limit, or who roll stop signs, or roll right turns on red rather than coming to a complete stop, then by all means ticket the cyclists too for minor infractions. If the cops aren't that strict with the cars, then I think it's harrassment if they ticket bikes for the same thing.
As for me on a bike, I roll through stop signs when there are no cars around. I stop for all red lights (But I have one intersection where I'll take off again before the light changes green because the pavement triggers won't register my bike). I also stop for stop signs when there are cars nearby. I don't think rolling stop signs in sight of a car is worth the ill-will that it creates toward cyclists. The driver I piss off could be the one to get all road-ragey on the next cyclist.
-
Riding to work, I approach my stops/give-way signs quite slowly, but don't actually stop if it's clear. I tend to wait too long at intersections if I can see a car coming. Sorry to the cars behind me, but I'm pretty slow.
I'm aware that I can get fines for not obeying all rules - e.g. I don't signal if there's no one around. But I guess I'd never (?) get a ticket - cos if there're cars around (e.g. cop cars) then I'm way more cautious than if I'm all alone on my country roads. Hmmm. Can't be too careful, I guess.
-
I also stop for stop signs when there are cars nearby. I don't think rolling stop signs in sight of a car is worth the ill-will that it creates toward cyclists. The driver I piss off could be the one to get all road-ragey on the next cyclist.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I've had drivers honk at me for obeying the law and stopping completely (so they were stuck behind me an extra second or two), but never for rolling through.
A while back I started observing cars to see what they do at the intersections I frequent. Well over 90% of the cars will roll through the stop sign unless they would hit someone by doing so, and the small fraction that do stop completely are all professional shuttle drivers.
-
One problem that I find is that many stop signs are stupid and unnecessary. I live in a suburban area. We have dozens of 4-way stop signs in places where there's rarely every any traffic, and there's good visibility in all directions for a long distances. These stop signs are typically treated more as yield signs by everyone - cars and bikes. I don't see why I should stop if there's no safety benefit in doing so. I would love the introduction of roundabouts for these places. It's too bad nobody in north america knows what to do in one . . .
-
I would love the introduction of roundabouts for these places. It's too bad nobody in north america knows what to do in one . . .
I have an irrational hatred of car drivers that stop in the middle of the roundabout to let me enter it.
-
I would love the introduction of roundabouts for these places. It's too bad nobody in north america knows what to do in one . . .
I have an irrational hatred of car drivers that stop in the middle of the roundabout to let me enter it.
Indicate left when entering the roundabout and right when exiting (might be reversed if you drive on the left side of the road). There's nothing worse than an idiot indicating right, trying to pass on the left, and they cut over into you.
The other problem in the US is most 'roundabouts' are actually circulatory traffic control systems as they require the user to come to a complete stop prior to entering the so-called roundabout.
Like this (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=st.+louis,+mo&hl=en&ll=38.721966,-90.23982&spn=0.000425,0.00066&sll=39.877612,-75.323582&sspn=0.037808,0.084543&t=h&hnear=St+Louis,+Missouri&z=21&layer=c&cbll=38.721966,-90.23982&panoid=h4kJlig-xPlxk7V6MBtg0A&cbp=12,325.71,,0,13.52)
-
I would love the introduction of roundabouts for these places. It's too bad nobody in north america knows what to do in one . . .
I have an irrational hatred of car drivers that stop in the middle of the roundabout to let me enter it.
That sounds pretty rational actually.
-
This thought occurred to me on the ride home today. I think car drivers might be willing to cut cyclists a little more slack at stop signs if in order for a car to "stop" the driver had to put the car in park and turn off the ignition before restarting the car and driving through the intersection.
-
What if the law was changed such that cyclists could treat stop signs and traffic lights with no cars present as yield signs? I think most cyclists are doing that anyway. I slow down as necessary to assess the situation and stop fully if cars are present.
-
What if the law was changed such that cyclists could treat stop signs and traffic lights with no cars present as yield signs? I think most cyclists are doing that anyway. I slow down as necessary to assess the situation and stop fully if cars are present.
As discussed earlier, what if everything was just a yield sign with big circles in the middle of the intersection?
-
Amazingly, Today I saw.
....I saw two cars turn right on red without stopping.
....I saw a car run a red light.
....I saw a pedestrian Jay Walking.
....I saw a car do a cali-stop on a stop sign.
....I saw someone cut me off on a right turn.
....I saw a guy almost clip me cutting a left turn.
Actually, not amazing!...
A typical day on my bike commute...except for Friday when it's look out for your life because every driver, it seems, is breaking the law--or more like in a hurry and not looking while they break the law.
No, what is really incredible, being on a bike riding daily to work, is how I see this every single day and I see it over and over. But when A cyclist (or a pack of them) does it, it's suddenly a crime and the outrage explodes--mostly from the motorist folks.
The outrage is diluted in normal driving because everyone is used to it in a car that another car will run that light or cut them off or whatever. It's expected that other cars do it so much that it's not even noticed.
The fact is, there are umpteen times more motorists breaking laws that cyclists just by sheer numbers. Laws are about safety and maybe that part should be reinforced not whether someone rolled through a stop sign when nobody was there. I, as a cyclist, will not roll trough a stop sign normally but if nobody is around except a cop parked down the road waiting in prey? Hells Ya!
-
What if the law was changed such that cyclists could treat stop signs and traffic lights with no cars present as yield signs? I think most cyclists are doing that anyway. I slow down as necessary to assess the situation and stop fully if cars are present.
As discussed earlier, what if everything was just a yield sign with big circles in the middle of the intersection?
Would work. Realistically, don't think Americans are going to add roundabouts to every intersection to appease cyclists. Personally, I prefer stops signs for cars.
In the US, stops signs are used to control intersections and to control traffic speed. Don't think bikes are contributing too much to the traffic speed problem.
-
A few months ago my life partner saw the aftermath of a beautiful 20-something college girl versus a FedEx truck. The girl lost. She wasn't wearing a helmet. They put a white bicycle and lots of flowers out on the corner where she was crushed. I think the tickets are a good thing.
In Fullerton? According to the press coverage it was the truck driver who didn't stop. She had the right of way, apparently. Also, the lack of wearing a helmet seems to be a bit over-stressed. There's no evidence that a helmet would have saved her life. It was a moving truck that hit her, after all. Even cars don't look good after they hit a truck at cruising speed.
Yes, the accident in Fullerton. I'm not sure if they ruled on the issue yet, but I think she did have the right of way. The point is if you choose to be a cyclist, you need to ride defensively, including wearing a helmet and assuming no one sees you.
I just came back from a walk where a cyclist pushed me off the sidewalk (yet again) so my charity for this group is low at the moment.
Cyclists don't ride on sidewalks, people on bicycles do. There is a distinction.
-
What if the law was changed such that cyclists could treat stop signs and traffic lights with no cars present as yield signs? I think most cyclists are doing that anyway. I slow down as necessary to assess the situation and stop fully if cars are present.
As discussed earlier, what if everything was just a yield sign with big circles in the middle of the intersection?
Would work. Realistically, don't think Americans are going to add roundabouts to every intersection to appease cyclists. Personally, I prefer stops signs for cars.
In the US, stops signs are used to control intersections and to control traffic speed. Don't think bikes are contributing too much to the traffic speed problem.
But they ought to add them for more efficient traffic control. Roundabouts provide fewer opportunities for accidents, and all accidents occur in ways that minimize the damage (two cars merging on each other as opposed to head on collisions). They've also been shown to increase mileage.
-
I just came back from a walk where a cyclist pushed me off the sidewalk (yet again) so my charity for this group is low at the moment.
I'm sorry you live among such dumbfuck cyclists that they're riding on the sidewalks.
-
I drove 74 in a 60 mph this morning on the way into work, not one person batted an eye, most everyone else was doing the same. I do still some road riding riding every now and then and I will roll a stop when it is safe. It all depends on what you can see around you. Also when riding in a group and a light changes to yellow it can be much safer to keep going and maybe clip the red than to have everyone stop on the brakes and maybe bang into each other, think large trucks on county roads.
I loved the comment about making drivers stop the engine at each stop sign to prove they are fully stopped as cyclists seem to have to do.
Last week I was crossing the street in a cross walk and a driver did not stop to let me cross-I had to slow down and was delayed. So this week I when I saw a random driver about to pull away I stood in his way and kicked his bumper, as I know that all drivers are a$$ hats and deserve it and I as a pedestrian have universal right to all the road. This is how many drivers look at cyclists.
-
What if the law was changed such that cyclists could treat stop signs and traffic lights with no cars present as yield signs? I think most cyclists are doing that anyway. I slow down as necessary to assess the situation and stop fully if cars are present.
As discussed earlier, what if everything was just a yield sign with big circles in the middle of the intersection?
Would work. Realistically, don't think Americans are going to add roundabouts to every intersection to appease cyclists. Personally, I prefer stops signs for cars.
In the US, stops signs are used to control intersections and to control traffic speed. Don't think bikes are contributing too much to the traffic speed problem.
But they ought to add them for more efficient traffic control. Roundabouts provide fewer opportunities for accidents, and all accidents occur in ways that minimize the damage (two cars merging on each other as opposed to head on collisions). They've also been shown to increase mileage.
Unfortunately, most Americans lack the decision making skills to properly navigate a roundabout.
-
What if the law was changed such that cyclists could treat stop signs and traffic lights with no cars present as yield signs? I think most cyclists are doing that anyway. I slow down as necessary to assess the situation and stop fully if cars are present.
As discussed earlier, what if everything was just a yield sign with big circles in the middle of the intersection?
Would work. Realistically, don't think Americans are going to add roundabouts to every intersection to appease cyclists. Personally, I prefer stops signs for cars.
In the US, stops signs are used to control intersections and to control traffic speed. Don't think bikes are contributing too much to the traffic speed problem.
But they ought to add them for more efficient traffic control. Roundabouts provide fewer opportunities for accidents, and all accidents occur in ways that minimize the damage (two cars merging on each other as opposed to head on collisions). They've also been shown to increase mileage.
I agree that more roundabouts should be installed, but as a fellow cyclist I sure hope they install them properly. Certain designs actually make roundabouts MORE dangerous for cyclists than a typical stop sign, and different roundabout designs make it less dangerous for cyclists than typical stop signs. It all depends on how the roundabout treats a cyclist. If there is a dedicated bike lane along the perimeter of the hub, then cyclist death/injury greatly increases. But if the cyclist is treated just like a car and is allowed to take up the whole lane and (s)he rides in the center of the lane, then safety goes up.
There was a study done by the German Transport Ministry in 1992 here: http://bernd.sluka.de/Radfahren/Vortragsfolien.html
It's in German, so you'll have to translate it.
-
OK, wanted to get some cyclists' perspective
I have a dashcam on my car. (What, you don't? And you call yourselves mustaschian?? ;) )
What would the fault be in this situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eq712UocW0
Notice the GREEN right turn arrow. Cyclist had a RED light.
If I didn't hit the brakes in time, and I only saw him right as I applied the brake pedal - I was looking right at the time he first appears in the camera view.....
Whose fault would it have been?
How about if he died?
Who pays for damages to my car if he's at fault?
His light is red, he blasts through it at full speed across a 6-lane intersection.
(And I hope that answers why I have a dashcam - to prove my light was green)
-
OK, wanted to get some cyclists' perspective
I have a dashcam on my car. (What, you don't? And you call yourselves mustaschian?? ;) )
What would the fault be in this situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eq712UocW0
Notice the GREEN right turn arrow. Cyclist had a RED light.
If I didn't hit the brakes in time, and I only saw him right as I applied the brake pedal - I was looking right at the time he first appears in the camera view.....
Whose fault would it have been?
How about if he died?
Who pays for damages to my car if he's at fault?
His light is red, he blasts through it at full speed across a 6-lane intersection.
(And I hope that answers why I have a dashcam - to prove my light was green)
He's clearly at fault. His health insurance pays for his medical. Life insurance pays for his death. You probably have to fix your own car because he probably doesn't have bicycle insurance, but maybe he'll have to pay you out of pocket?
-
As a cyclist, you shouldn't do anything to disturb the car drivers. You dont do the cycling community any good by being remembered by a driver.
A million times this.
Cyclists have the same rights to the roads as cars, but need to follow the same rules. However until cyclists actually do follow the same rules, cars will not treat us like we have the same rights to the road.
-
As a cyclist, you shouldn't do anything to disturb the car drivers. You dont do the cycling community any good by being remembered by a driver.
I disagree. If a driver does something stupid and illegal and an opportunity presents itself to discuss what happened with the driver, you better make damn well sure he remembers you.
-
If you move up in the line, you deserve to be curbed at the third light.
This is one of my pet-peeves as a cyclist. It really irritates me when I see a cyclists pass at light the handful of cars that JUST passed him, only to be passed again once it turns green. You're not saving yourself that much time, and you're only unnecessarily pissing off the drivers that have to pass you again. The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front.
-
If you move up in the line, you deserve to be curbed at the third light.
This is one of my pet-peeves as a cyclist. It really irritates me when I see a cyclists pass at light the handful of cars that JUST passed him, only to be passed again once it turns green. You're not saving yourself that much time, and you're only unnecessarily pissing off the drivers that have to pass you again. The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front.
I used to think this way. I agree with it mostly if you're in an area where traffic is moving well. Since I've started cycling more in heavy traffic I no longer think it's the best all of the time though.
If there are 10-15 cars waiting at a light, and I want to make a right turn, why shouldn't I be allowed to filter up and make my turn while they're stopped? If traffic is gridlocked and moving at extremely slow speeds, I'll filter through the cars and get to where I'm going. It doesn't make sense to sit behind slow moving traffic for 20 minutes to go six blocks up the street. Telling people to cycle like that on the road is the reason that they will do really stupid things like cycle on the sidewalk.
I drive too. You have to be a tremendously poor driver to be so inconvenienced by a cyclist that passing him or her twice on your trip angers you (although this might depend on how narrow your roads are, and how many lanes there are).
-
What if the law was changed such that cyclists could treat stop signs and traffic lights with no cars present as yield signs? I think most cyclists are doing that anyway. I slow down as necessary to assess the situation and stop fully if cars are present.
As discussed earlier, what if everything was just a yield sign with big circles in the middle of the intersection?
Would work. Realistically, don't think Americans are going to add roundabouts to every intersection to appease cyclists. Personally, I prefer stops signs for cars.
In the US, stops signs are used to control intersections and to control traffic speed. Don't think bikes are contributing too much to the traffic speed problem.
But they ought to add them for more efficient traffic control. Roundabouts provide fewer opportunities for accidents, and all accidents occur in ways that minimize the damage (two cars merging on each other as opposed to head on collisions). They've also been shown to increase mileage.
Unfortunately, most Americans lack the decision making skills to properly navigate a roundabout.
Next year, when you come visit Bellingham, I can give you a tour of all of our new traffic circles. WA DOT has been building them like crazy around here lately. Even when people don't know what they are doing, it still works better than the stopsigns/lights that they replaced. I have 2 traffic circles on my bike commute, and they are WAY better than stopsigns/lights. But, you do have to be extra defensive and make sure that you position your bike where cars approaching the circle won't kill you if they do it wrong. It's pretty easy/safe to claim the center of the lane on the ones I ride since the speed limit in the circles is 15, and they are curvy enough that cars rarely exceed that. The only danger is unaware drivers entering the circle when they should yield.
-
Hamster,
I was only (mostly) kidding about traffic circles. I'd love to get together next year if you have time to show/tell me about Bellingham!
-
If you move up in the line, you deserve to be curbed at the third light.
This is one of my pet-peeves as a cyclist. It really irritates me when I see a cyclists pass at light the handful of cars that JUST passed him, only to be passed again once it turns green. You're not saving yourself that much time, and you're only unnecessarily pissing off the drivers that have to pass you again. The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front.
I used to think this way. I agree with it mostly if you're in an area where traffic is moving well. Since I've started cycling more in heavy traffic I no longer think it's the best all of the time though.
If there are 10-15 cars waiting at a light, and I want to make a right turn, why shouldn't I be allowed to filter up and make my turn while they're stopped? If traffic is gridlocked and moving at extremely slow speeds, I'll filter through the cars and get to where I'm going. It doesn't make sense to sit behind slow moving traffic for 20 minutes to go six blocks up the street. Telling people to cycle like that on the road is the reason that they will do really stupid things like cycle on the sidewalk.
I drive too. You have to be a tremendously poor driver to be so inconvenienced by a cyclist that passing him or her twice on your trip angers you (although this might depend on how narrow your roads are, and how many lanes there are).
I'm curious about why you think this JKaiser, could you explain more?
I am a regular commuter cyclist (~5k miles/yr) but am still trying to fine tune coexistence with cars (until the day they see the light and start biking too!). In most cases I will pass stopped cars on the right at a stoplight and am courteous to cars passing me. I do so at lower speeds and attention to potential right turns. There are several points on my route (urban mix of trails & smaller 25-35mph roads) where cars are often backed up for several cycles of a traffic light, so waiting would be especially painful. Times I would wait behind cars would be if the road is narrow and not enough room due to large vehicles/construction/snow/etc. or if there are just a couple cars who very recently passed me I do stop behind them. In general I find "If you can pass me I can pass you" to be a sort of golden rule for mostly harmonious coexistence.
I'm also curious about cycling through roundabouts (in the US...). There is one on my route that also has a bike trail, except that the bike trail crosses each entering/exiting road on the outskirts of the roundabout instead of threading through the middle of it. To me it seems much safer to be on the road, claim a central position in a lane, and go through as a car rather than trying to cross several crosswalks where drivers already have a lot of other things to pay attention to. Do others encounter similar situations or how is this done in other countries?
-
If you move up in the line, you deserve to be curbed at the third light.
This is one of my pet-peeves as a cyclist. It really irritates me when I see a cyclists pass at light the handful of cars that JUST passed him, only to be passed again once it turns green. You're not saving yourself that much time, and you're only unnecessarily pissing off the drivers that have to pass you again. The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front.
I used to think this way. I agree with it mostly if you're in an area where traffic is moving well. Since I've started cycling more in heavy traffic I no longer think it's the best all of the time though.
If there are 10-15 cars waiting at a light, and I want to make a right turn, why shouldn't I be allowed to filter up and make my turn while they're stopped? If traffic is gridlocked and moving at extremely slow speeds, I'll filter through the cars and get to where I'm going. It doesn't make sense to sit behind slow moving traffic for 20 minutes to go six blocks up the street. Telling people to cycle like that on the road is the reason that they will do really stupid things like cycle on the sidewalk.
I drive too. You have to be a tremendously poor driver to be so inconvenienced by a cyclist that passing him or her twice on your trip angers you (although this might depend on how narrow your roads are, and how many lanes there are).
I'm curious about why you think this JKaiser, could you explain more?
I am a regular commuter cyclist (~5k miles/yr) but am still trying to fine tune coexistence with cars (until the day they see the light and start biking too!). In most cases I will pass stopped cars on the right at a stoplight and am courteous to cars passing me. I do so at lower speeds and attention to potential right turns. There are several points on my route (urban mix of trails & smaller 25-35mph roads) where cars are often backed up for several cycles of a traffic light, so waiting would be especially painful. Times I would wait behind cars would be if the road is narrow and not enough room due to large vehicles/construction/snow/etc. or if there are just a couple cars who very recently passed me I do stop behind them. In general I find "If you can pass me I can pass you" to be a sort of golden rule for mostly harmonious coexistence.
I've never understand the object to this as any sort of absolute, although if it's a situation where the cyclist will actually delay the cars, I get it. But in nearly all my experience, in settings where cars are actually moving significantly faster than I'm moving on my bike, there's room for them to pass me (and for me to pass them) without anyone having to leave their ordinary path of travel, in which case I don't see a problem with it.
-
If you move up in the line, you deserve to be curbed at the third light.
This is one of my pet-peeves as a cyclist. It really irritates me when I see a cyclists pass at light the handful of cars that JUST passed him, only to be passed again once it turns green. You're not saving yourself that much time, and you're only unnecessarily pissing off the drivers that have to pass you again. The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front.
I used to think this way. I agree with it mostly if you're in an area where traffic is moving well. Since I've started cycling more in heavy traffic I no longer think it's the best all of the time though.
If there are 10-15 cars waiting at a light, and I want to make a right turn, why shouldn't I be allowed to filter up and make my turn while they're stopped? If traffic is gridlocked and moving at extremely slow speeds, I'll filter through the cars and get to where I'm going. It doesn't make sense to sit behind slow moving traffic for 20 minutes to go six blocks up the street. Telling people to cycle like that on the road is the reason that they will do really stupid things like cycle on the sidewalk.
I drive too. You have to be a tremendously poor driver to be so inconvenienced by a cyclist that passing him or her twice on your trip angers you (although this might depend on how narrow your roads are, and how many lanes there are).
I'm curious about why you think this JKaiser, could you explain more?
I am a regular commuter cyclist (~5k miles/yr) but am still trying to fine tune coexistence with cars (until the day they see the light and start biking too!). In most cases I will pass stopped cars on the right at a stoplight and am courteous to cars passing me. I do so at lower speeds and attention to potential right turns. There are several points on my route (urban mix of trails & smaller 25-35mph roads) where cars are often backed up for several cycles of a traffic light, so waiting would be especially painful. Times I would wait behind cars would be if the road is narrow and not enough room due to large vehicles/construction/snow/etc. or if there are just a couple cars who very recently passed me I do stop behind them. In general I find "If you can pass me I can pass you" to be a sort of golden rule for mostly harmonious coexistence.
I've never understand the object to this as any sort of absolute, although if it's a situation where the cyclist will actually delay the cars, I get it. But in nearly all my experience, in settings where cars are actually moving significantly faster than I'm moving on my bike, there's room for them to pass me (and for me to pass them) without anyone having to leave their ordinary path of travel, in which case I don't see a problem with it.
I almost always get in line with the cars. My reasons:
1) The right hook (a car in the right lane, not realizing you are to their right, and then turning right and hitting you) is one of the most deadly bike/car interactions.
2) When I'm in line with traffic at a stop light, I think it makes motorists see very visibly that I am following the same rules they are, and I think it improves goodwill/respect toward cyclists.
That said, I have almost no areas where getting in line slows my total commute down by more than a couple of minutes. There is one intersection on my commute where traffic sometimes sits for as many as 3 cycles of the stoplights. When I'm behind a big line there, I will sometimes pass traffic on the right (or even between two lanes going the same direction), but am very careful to make sure that I'm safe at any place where cars could possibly turn into me. If I had more spots like this on my commute I might do more passing stopped traffic.
As for traffic circles, I think taking the whole lane is the only safe way to do it. I don't want to get hit by a car that passes me and then takes a right, so I won't ride to the right of the lane. But, the traffic circles I ride through have speed limit of 15mph (maybe 25mph on the county highway, but I don't ride through that circle much since it's a crappy road for cycling).
-
When cyclists do things like run stop lights and signs (I see it all the time), they create a VERY REAL DANGER not only to themselves but also nearby motorists. More than once I have swerved or slammed on the brakes to avoid a stupid cyclist trying to rush through a red light only to narrowly miss hitting another car. The rules exist to protect motorists just as much as cyclists.
-
Question - if the queue of cars is too big to make it through the light, do you guys sit in line with them through several light cycles? Or head up to toward the front to make it through on the first cycle?
-
Question - if the queue of cars is too big to make it through the light, do you guys sit in line with them through several light cycles? Or head up to toward the front to make it through on the first cycle?
I think there are a variety of responses to this question already across the forum. I will usually slow down but pass cars, though it depends on the street/situation. Others don't because of safety. It is certainly less safe than just waiting at the back of the line, but I've never really had a problem doing with it, though if you do you have to be ready for any car to turn right at any time.
-
Question - if the queue of cars is too big to make it through the light, do you guys sit in line with them through several light cycles? Or head up to toward the front to make it through on the first cycle?
I either wait, or get off my bike and walk past the line of cars on the sidewalk...
-
Question - if the queue of cars is too big to make it through the light, do you guys sit in line with them through several light cycles? Or head up to toward the front to make it through on the first cycle?
I either wait, or get off my bike and walk past the line of cars on the sidewalk...
I filter up the line of traffic into the Advanced Stop Line box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_stop_line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_stop_line)) at the junction that is there specifically to allow bikes to line up in front of the lead car. This gives the bikes a chance to get through the junction ahead of the cars, which is safer all round. ASLs are so common in the UK at big junctions it can be a surprise when you filter passed the stationary traffic and one isn't there. In these cases I just pull forward of the Stop Line in front of the car, and wait for the lights to change, as does nearly every other cyclist I've seen. If a car driver were to object I think they'd just get a vaguely bemused stare from everyone else. As a car driver I prefer the bikes in front where I can see them, rather than lurking in my blindspot.
-
Question - if the queue of cars is too big to make it through the light, do you guys sit in line with them through several light cycles? Or head up to toward the front to make it through on the first cycle?
I either wait, or get off my bike and walk past the line of cars on the sidewalk...
I filter up the line of traffic into the Advanced Stop Line box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_stop_line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_stop_line)) at the junction that is there specifically to allow bikes to line up in front of the lead car. This gives the bikes a chance to get through the junction ahead of the cars, which is safer all round. ASLs are so common in the UK at big junctions it can be a surprise when you filter passed the stationary traffic and one isn't there. In these cases I just pull forward of the Stop Line in front of the car, and wait for the lights to change, as does nearly every other cyclist I've seen. If a car driver were to object I think they'd just get a vaguely bemused stare from everyone else. As a car driver I prefer the bikes in front where I can see them, rather than lurking in my blindspot.
Sure, why should bikes have to line up behind a long line of cars simply because cars take up so much space.
Cars hog up way too much space and resources in general.
"The High Cost of Free Parking" has a good take on this subject.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/193236496X
-
That's not entirely true about cyclist should not be on sidewalks. Maple ridge bc, passed a law a year ago that cyclist can legally ride on the sidewalks. I like it a lot when I'm riding my mountainbike into town. I can't say I'd like it as much of I was on a road bike or went fast.
-
Sure, why should bikes have to line up behind a long line of cars simply because cars take up so much space.
Cars hog up way too much space and resources in general.
"The High Cost of Free Parking" has a good take on this subject.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/193236496X
You can't be serious. In most states this is illegal, and "cars hog up way too much space" is not a valid defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting
-
That's not entirely true about cyclist should not be on sidewalks. Maple ridge bc, passed a law a year ago that cyclist can legally ride on the sidewalks. I like it a lot when I'm riding my mountainbike into town. I can't say I'd like it as much of I was on a road bike or went fast.
Another dangerous thing is that drivers aren't looking at sidewalks for oncoming traffic.. Lots of potential for accidents where a sidewalk crosses a road or an alley and a car is pulling out far enough to be able to see traffic on the road. I had a friend in highschool who destroyed the passenger side door of a van with his bike while riding down a hill on the sidewalks.
I don't remember where I saw it, but IIRC driving going the 'wrong way', aka against traffic on a sidewalk is one of the most dangerous ways to ride, typically by people who are looking left to pull out for a right turn and don't see you coming down the sidewalk ahead of them.
-
You can't be serious. In most states this is illegal, and "cars hog up way too much space" is not a valid defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting
Lane splitting, or filtering as we call it in the UK, is expected from anything two wheeled and able to (safely) get through the gaps. Failure to do so can get you marked down on the motorcycle licence test (it's called failure to make progress).
I find these little differences between countries that are otherwise similar quite weird...
-
Filtering is typically not necessary on my commute. However, I can think of one time I filtered through traffic without even realizing it was illegal, but I feel like given the circumstances, it was totally warranted.
I was on a planned 50 mile ride and had planned on riding between the arch and river in St. Louis. What I found out was the road was closed for Fair St. Louis. The police re-routed me through downtown St. Louis at 4 PM on a Saturday afternoon. The 1:05 Cardinals game just ended. Traffic was literally moving about 3 cars each light cycle, and I filtered through downtown at 10 mph, blowing by the cars.
-
This.
I almost always get in line with the cars. My reasons:
1) The right hook (a car in the right lane, not realizing you are to their right, and then turning right and hitting you) is one of the most deadly bike/car interactions.
2) When I'm in line with traffic at a stop light, I think it makes motorists see very visibly that I am following the same rules they are, and I think it improves goodwill/respect toward cyclists.
Cyclists are out there with a different risk-reward calculation than most drivers. If we make a stupid decision we can easily be crushed by a car. I do agree to earlier comments about how cyclists shouldn't bike on sidewalks.....but there is still one short section of my daily commute when I hop up onto a sidewalk to make it under a highway underpass, where the road is fast and dangerous with poor visibility. There's usually not pedestrians and I ring my bell/stop and get off if necessary when they are there.
Not to defend single cyclists who fly through 4-way stops without slowing, because that's a terrible decision for their own safety, but I typically roll through one 3-way stop on my commute. This is a trial-and-error decision that helps me maintain control of the road at that intersection. Plus, my 'rolling through' is still slower than most cars 'rolling through'. It's a double standard.
-
Sure, why should bikes have to line up behind a long line of cars simply because cars take up so much space.
Cars hog up way too much space and resources in general.
"The High Cost of Free Parking" has a good take on this subject.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/193236496X
You can't be serious. In most states this is illegal, and "cars hog up way too much space" is not a valid defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting
You can't be serious. Although I miss being able to split lanes on my motorcycle, as I could in California, I did that in the lane of motor vehicle traffic, whereas on my bicycle I am generally expected to be outside the lane of motor vehicle traffic. If I'm not outside the lane of traffic, why aren't cars violating the same law when they overtake me?
-
Sure, why should bikes have to line up behind a long line of cars simply because cars take up so much space.
Cars hog up way too much space and resources in general.
"The High Cost of Free Parking" has a good take on this subject.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/193236496X
You can't be serious. In most states this is illegal, and "cars hog up way too much space" is not a valid defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting
You can't be serious. Although I miss being able to split lanes on my motorcycle, as I could in California, I did that in the lane of motor vehicle traffic, whereas on my bicycle I am generally expected to be outside the lane of motor vehicle traffic. If I'm not outside the lane of traffic, why aren't cars violating the same law when they overtake me?
If you're in the same lane as cars, they are violating the law when they overtake you. And that's the conversation we're having – see "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though).
-
Sure, why should bikes have to line up behind a long line of cars simply because cars take up so much space.
Cars hog up way too much space and resources in general.
"The High Cost of Free Parking" has a good take on this subject.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/193236496X
You can't be serious. In most states this is illegal, and "cars hog up way too much space" is not a valid defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting
You can't be serious. Although I miss being able to split lanes on my motorcycle, as I could in California, I did that in the lane of motor vehicle traffic, whereas on my bicycle I am generally expected to be outside the lane of motor vehicle traffic. If I'm not outside the lane of traffic, why aren't cars violating the same law when they overtake me?
If you're in the same lane as cars, they are violating the law when they overtake you. And that's the conversation we're having – see "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though).
Now please explain how "at a light" is relevant under your version of what's right or wrong.
-
Sure, why should bikes have to line up behind a long line of cars simply because cars take up so much space.
Cars hog up way too much space and resources in general.
"The High Cost of Free Parking" has a good take on this subject.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/193236496X
You can't be serious. In most states this is illegal, and "cars hog up way too much space" is not a valid defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting
You can't be serious. Although I miss being able to split lanes on my motorcycle, as I could in California, I did that in the lane of motor vehicle traffic, whereas on my bicycle I am generally expected to be outside the lane of motor vehicle traffic. If I'm not outside the lane of traffic, why aren't cars violating the same law when they overtake me?
If you're in the same lane as cars, they are violating the law when they overtake you. And that's the conversation we're having – see "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though).
Now please explain how "at a light" is relevant under your version of what's right or wrong.
Because we're discussing the appropriateness of bicyclists passing cars in the lane while moving towards a red light.
-
Now please explain how "at a light" is relevant under your version of what's right or wrong.
It doesn't limit whether passing is right or wrong. Beltim said that because that's what the whole thread up to this point has been primarily about.
-
Sure, why should bikes have to line up behind a long line of cars simply because cars take up so much space.
Cars hog up way too much space and resources in general.
"The High Cost of Free Parking" has a good take on this subject.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/193236496X
You can't be serious. In most states this is illegal, and "cars hog up way too much space" is not a valid defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting
You can't be serious. Although I miss being able to split lanes on my motorcycle, as I could in California, I did that in the lane of motor vehicle traffic, whereas on my bicycle I am generally expected to be outside the lane of motor vehicle traffic. If I'm not outside the lane of traffic, why aren't cars violating the same law when they overtake me?
If you're in the same lane as cars, they are violating the law when they overtake you. And that's the conversation we're having – see "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though).
Now please explain how "at a light" is relevant under your version of what's right or wrong.
Because we're discussing the appropriateness of bicyclists passing cars in the lane while moving towards a red light.
If you think it's equally wrong for any car to pass a bike on a similarly laid-out street (primarily one without a shoulder or a bike lane) because it would also be lane splitting, regardless of proximity to a light, then that's a consistent position. But usually, as this general proposition has been expressed to me, car drivers see no issue in passing a bike in the same lane (because they can do so in a reasonably safe manner, I suppose, regardless of whether it's legal), but then may see some issue with cyclists passing cars on the same road. That's never made sense to me. If, on Monday, you drive past me on my bike a quarter of a mile before we reach a light at a particular intersection, but then on Tuesday you are stopped at the same location in a row of cars and I pass you, why would I be wrong on Tuesday if you weren't wrong on Monday? Or are you saying that the car in that scenario should have stayed behind the bike? Good luck with that one, and it seems unnecessary (and if applicable law requires it, it seems a failure of the law).
Incidentally, while California may be unique in the U.S. in expressly permitting lane splitting, it's not necessarily clear that it's prohibited in other states, as you presume. In my state, a right-hand pass is only expressly illegal if it requires leaving the paved surface of the roadway, although drivers may try to bully cyclists into thinking otherwise.
-
If you're in the same lane as cars, they are violating the law when they overtake you. And that's the conversation we're having – see "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though).
If you think it's equally wrong for any car to pass a bike on a similarly laid-out street (primarily one without a shoulder or a bike lane) because it would also be lane splitting, regardless of proximity to a light, then that's a consistent position.
Yes. I don't know why you keep trying to change the subject.
-
If you're in the same lane as cars, they are violating the law when they overtake you. And that's the conversation we're having – see "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though).
[quote author = Undecided]
If you think it's equally wrong for any car to pass a bike on a similarly laid-out street (primarily one without a shoulder or a bike lane) because it would also be lane splitting, regardless of proximity to a light, then that's a consistent position.
Yes. I don't know why you keep trying to change the subject.
[/quote]
Just pointing out the absurdity of your position and its absolute discordance with how people act.
-
If you're in the same lane as cars, they are violating the law when they overtake you. And that's the conversation we're having – see "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though).
[quote author = Undecided]
If you think it's equally wrong for any car to pass a bike on a similarly laid-out street (primarily one without a shoulder or a bike lane) because it would also be lane splitting, regardless of proximity to a light, then that's a consistent position.
Yes. I don't know why you keep trying to change the subject.
Just pointing out the absurdity of your position and its absolute discordance with how people act.
[/quote]
It's absurd to think people should follow the law?
-
If you're in the same lane as cars, they are violating the law when they overtake you. And that's the conversation we're having – see "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though).
[quote author = Undecided]
If you think it's equally wrong for any car to pass a bike on a similarly laid-out street (primarily one without a shoulder or a bike lane) because it would also be lane splitting, regardless of proximity to a light, then that's a consistent position.
Yes. I don't know why you keep trying to change the subject.
Just pointing out the absurdity of your position and its absolute discordance with how people act.
It's absurd to think people should follow the law?
[/quote]
In cases where virtually nobody does (e.g., cars not passing bikes if there is no separate bike lane or shoulder), yes. And if the law is so thoroughly disregarded in one direction (cars passing bikes), I'd say it's equally absurd to expect it to be followed in the other direction (bikes passing cars). It's also possible that your understanding of the law is incorrect. As I said, I've heard your position expressed, but so far as I can tell, the law here just prohibits ride-side passes that require leaving the roadway.
-
Incidentally, this week I was clipped (from behind) by a car trying to pass me in a single lane approaching a red light.
I always wonder why car drivers make such an effort to pass others on the road when approaching a very obvious stop condition.
-
Incidentally, this week I was clipped (from behind) by a car trying to pass me in a single lane approaching a red light.
I always wonder why car drivers make such an effort to pass others on the road when approaching a very obvious stop condition.
Looking back on the incident and how I could have avoided it: I was hugging the right side of the lane and thus encouraged the bone-head move by the car driver.
I should have "taken the lane", especially since it was a narrow urban street lane with no bike lane or shoulder approaching a red light.
-
If you're in the same lane as cars, they are violating the law when they overtake you. And that's the conversation we're having – see "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though).
If you think it's equally wrong for any car to pass a bike on a similarly laid-out street (primarily one without a shoulder or a bike lane) because it would also be lane splitting, regardless of proximity to a light, then that's a consistent position.
Yes. I don't know why you keep trying to change the subject.
Just pointing out the absurdity of your position and its absolute discordance with how people act.
It's absurd to think people should follow the law?
In cases where virtually nobody does (e.g., cars not passing bikes if there is no separate bike lane or shoulder), yes. And if the law is so thoroughly disregarded in one direction (cars passing bikes), I'd say it's equally absurd to expect it to be followed in the other direction (bikes passing cars). It's also possible that your understanding of the law is incorrect. As I said, I've heard your position expressed, but so far as I can tell, the law here just prohibits ride-side passes that require leaving the roadway.
Yeah, I don't think "other people break the law" is any more valid a legal defense than "cars hog up way too much space" was.
-
I didn't say it makes it legal (not that I know what law you've got in mind), but expecting something that is the opposite of what you know to be the overwhelmingly more common behavior still seems absurd. The less danger or inconvenience it presents to others, the more absurd the expectation is.
-
If you are cycling along near the kerb in a fairly narrow street where parking is permitted do you always check behind you when overtaking the parked car? I was in that situation this morning and was nearly clipped by a leaner driver passing me at the same time as I was overtaking.
Maybe he/she didn't actually see me, or if they did, they expected me to come to a standstill behind the parked car before moving out and around it. I'm still not sure if I was in the wrong, but I don't have a handle-bar mirror and I wear glasses, so I have to turn my head a long way round to see clearly behind me.
-
It's also possible that your understanding of the law is incorrect. As I said, I've heard your position expressed, but so far as I can tell, the law here just prohibits ride-side passes that require leaving the roadway.
Traffic laws also vary significantly by state. The law in Ohio is very close to the way beltim describes it and not at all like the rules your picturing, but that's all I can speak to.
-
It's also possible that your understanding of the law is incorrect. As I said, I've heard your position expressed, but so far as I can tell, the law here just prohibits ride-side passes that require leaving the roadway.
Traffic laws also vary significantly by state. The law in Ohio is very close to the way beltim describes it and not at all like the rules your picturing, but that's all I can speak to.
Interestingly, the motorcycle advocacy groups generally say that Ohio law doesn't address lane splitting one way or the other. It's possible that it's specifically addressed for bikes, of course. My state, Oregon, prohibits it for motor cycles and motor scooters only, and prohibits automobiles from depriving motorcycles and motor scooters (but not bicycles) of the full lane.
-
Incidentally, this week I was clipped (from behind) by a car trying to pass me in a single lane approaching a red light.
I always wonder why car drivers make such an effort to pass others on the road when approaching a very obvious stop condition.
This! This happened to me recently, except I was taking the lane. And the stupid car ran out of room and ended up having to stop in the other lane, with on-coming traffic trying to turn into that lane. I laughed and rode on my way. Lucky it was fairly early in the morning and not much traffic. And lucky the car didn't try to squish me out of my lane.
If you are cycling along near the kerb in a fairly narrow street where parking is permitted do you always check behind you when overtaking the parked car? I was in that situation this morning and was nearly clipped by a leaner driver passing me at the same time as I was overtaking.
Maybe he/she didn't actually see me, or if they did, they expected me to come to a standstill behind the parked car before moving out and around it. I'm still not sure if I was in the wrong, but I don't have a handle-bar mirror and I wear glasses, so I have to turn my head a long way round to see clearly behind me.
I probably wouldn't ride that close to the gutter, if I was going to get stuck behind parked cars. Surely you didn't see the car further off and merged into the centre of your lane quicker?
-
I hate it when cyclists blatantly ignore the rules of the road around pedestrians and motor vehicles. So in this case if 26 members of a cycling club all decided that stop signs are meant for everyone else, then perhaps they deserved their $100 reminder. My only question would be was this stop sign in a sleepy neighborhood or in an area with significant traffic. I'm not too proud to admit I ignore a few signs in my own sleepy neighborhood when I am clearly the only person on the road in any direction. But once I get to a main road I become a part of traffic just like everyone else and the rules of the road apply, whether I see any cars or not.
I agree - and I am an avid cyclist. Just think of the message that was received by the cyclists. The cop got through to 26 of them at one time! They really make a bad name for other riders when they do this. If the first part of the group stopped and the others followed behind cautiously, but didn't fully stop I could see letting that go, but my guess is that there wasn't even a hesitation by any in the group. In that case the cop would have to use his discretion.
-
Interestingly, the motorcycle advocacy groups generally say that Ohio law doesn't address lane splitting one way or the other.
ORC 4511.33(A)(1) (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33) seems pretty clear to me ("A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic").
-
Interestingly, the motorcycle advocacy groups generally say that Ohio law doesn't address lane splitting one way or the other.
ORC 4511.33(A)(1) (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33) seems pretty clear to me ("A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic").
That doesn't even remotely say what you're claiming. That just says a vehicle can't straddle two lanes; it says nothing about two vehicles in a single lane. CA has the same requirement (section 21658 of its vehicle code), but there's nothing about it incompatible with lane splitting.
I'm sure there are some places where the bicycle filtering behavior under discussion is illegal, but the presumption that it is illegal in all the states other than California is wrong. Like OR, NY, MA and FL law prohibits "motorcycles" from passing a vehicle in the same lane. So at least a quarter of the country's population lives where lane splitting is permitted or the prohibition applies specifically to "motorcycles."
-
That doesn't even remotely say what you're claiming. That just says a vehicle can't straddle two lanes; it says nothing about two vehicles in a single lane.
It means you can't ride your vehicle in both lanes. Riding down the lane markers is riding in both lanes, and this prohibits it.
I would think that riding in the lane is prohibited by the minimum passing distance rules and the width of the lane. Either way, I've never seen anyone split lanes in six years of driving in Ohio and I'm sure they'd get pulled over in a heartbeat for trying it.
-
That doesn't even remotely say what you're claiming. That just says a vehicle can't straddle two lanes; it says nothing about two vehicles in a single lane.
It means you can't ride your vehicle in both lanes. Riding down the lane markers is riding in both lanes, and this prohibits it.
I would think that riding in the lane is prohibited by the minimum passing distance rules and the width of the lane. Either way, I've never seen anyone split lanes in six years of driving in Ohio and I'm sure they'd get pulled over in a heartbeat for trying it.
I ride a motorcycle, and did when I lived in California, where I split lanes by staying in a single lane, but not riding the line. There would be additional (physical) opportunities to pass by riding the line, but my personal sense of reasonableness and safety (and my instructor in my circa ~2008 Motorcycle Safety Foundation refresher course) discouraged that. As I pointed out, CA has a law similar to the one you cite, but a rider can be in compliance with it (and other laws) and still split lanes. Of course, in some cases it's certainly generally unreasonably dangerous, which is always an offense, but that depends on circumstances, so maybe a cop would ticket on that basis or maybe not. So maybe Ohio is another state where the bicycle filtering actually under discussion isn't illegal.
Just looking at a few states that were easy to check, MD, PA, MI, NV, AZ, CT also prohibit splitting for "motorcycles," so that's another 30 million people living in states where the basis for the presumption that bicycle filtering is illegal doesn't seem to hold.
-
You're changing the topic from lane splitting on a motorcycle in moving traffic to filtering in stopped traffic on a bicycle. Which specifically were you referring to when you said "motorcycle" and "lane splitting" in the same sentence?
-
Interestingly, the motorcycle advocacy groups generally say that Ohio law doesn't address lane splitting one way or the other.
ORC 4511.33(A)(1) (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33) seems pretty clear to me ("A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic").
That doesn't even remotely say what you're claiming. That just says a vehicle can't straddle two lanes; it says nothing about two vehicles in a single lane. CA has the same requirement (section 21658 of its vehicle code), but there's nothing about it incompatible with lane splitting.
I'm sure there are some places where the bicycle filtering behavior under discussion is illegal, but the presumption that it is illegal in all the states other than California is wrong. Like OR, NY, MA and FL law prohibits "motorcycles" from passing a vehicle in the same lane. So at least a quarter of the country's population lives where lane splitting is permitted or the prohibition applies specifically to "motorcycles."
Queue jumping, which is what everyone else is talking about, is illegal in Florida: http://flbikelaw.org/2011/06/queue-jumping-bicyclists/
I don't have the time to look up other counter examples to correct any other possible mistakes you've made regarding other states.
-
Interestingly, the motorcycle advocacy groups generally say that Ohio law doesn't address lane splitting one way or the other.
ORC 4511.33(A)(1) (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33) seems pretty clear to me ("A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic").
That doesn't even remotely say what you're claiming. That just says a vehicle can't straddle two lanes; it says nothing about two vehicles in a single lane. CA has the same requirement (section 21658 of its vehicle code), but there's nothing about it incompatible with lane splitting.
I'm sure there are some places where the bicycle filtering behavior under discussion is illegal, but the presumption that it is illegal in all the states other than California is wrong. Like OR, NY, MA and FL law prohibits "motorcycles" from passing a vehicle in the same lane. So at least a quarter of the country's population lives where lane splitting is permitted or the prohibition applies specifically to "motorcycles."
Queue jumping, which is what everyone else is talking about, is illegal in Florida: http://flbikelaw.org/2011/06/queue-jumping-bicyclists/
I don't have the time to look up other counter examples to correct any other possible mistakes you've made regarding other states.
Yes, you didn't even have time to read the link you found. Like where it says: "Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic."
And grantmeaname, I only introduced the discussion regarding lane-splitting by motorcycles because it the presumed illegality of that act (which includes filtering by motorcycles) had been put forward as the basis for presuming filtering by bicycles to be illegal. My point is that where laws have been adopted to prohibit lane splitting, they have at least sometimes been adopted solely in respect of motorcycles. The site that beltim cited (apparently without reading) discusses distinctions as to when filtering by bicycles may be legal or illegal in FL (which is to say, it discusses it as sometimes legal).
-
And grantmeaname, I only introduced the discussion regarding lane-splitting by motorcycles because it the presumed illegality of that act (which includes filtering by motorcycles) had been put forward as the basis for presuming filtering by bicycles to be illegal. My point is that where laws have been adopted to prohibit lane splitting, they have at least sometimes been adopted solely in respect of motorcycles.
Ah. Somehow I entirely missed that.
-
Interestingly, the motorcycle advocacy groups generally say that Ohio law doesn't address lane splitting one way or the other.
ORC 4511.33(A)(1) (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33) seems pretty clear to me ("A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic").
That doesn't even remotely say what you're claiming. That just says a vehicle can't straddle two lanes; it says nothing about two vehicles in a single lane. CA has the same requirement (section 21658 of its vehicle code), but there's nothing about it incompatible with lane splitting.
I'm sure there are some places where the bicycle filtering behavior under discussion is illegal, but the presumption that it is illegal in all the states other than California is wrong. Like OR, NY, MA and FL law prohibits "motorcycles" from passing a vehicle in the same lane. So at least a quarter of the country's population lives where lane splitting is permitted or the prohibition applies specifically to "motorcycles."
Queue jumping, which is what everyone else is talking about, is illegal in Florida: http://flbikelaw.org/2011/06/queue-jumping-bicyclists/
I don't have the time to look up other counter examples to correct any other possible mistakes you've made regarding other states.
Yes, you didn't even have time to read the link you found. Like where it says: "Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic."
And grantmeaname, I only introduced the discussion regarding lane-splitting by motorcycles because it the presumed illegality of that act (which includes filtering by motorcycles) had been put forward as the basis for presuming filtering by bicycles to be illegal. My point is that where laws have been adopted to prohibit lane splitting, they have at least sometimes been adopted solely in respect of motorcycles. The site that beltim cited (apparently without reading) discusses distinctions as to when filtering by bicycles may be legal or illegal in FL (which is to say, it discusses it as sometimes legal).
If you're going to say I didn't read my link, it would behoove you to read the link. From my link:
"The driver of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle must pass the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle at a safe distance of not less than 3 feet between the vehicle and the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle.
Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic. That is not defined any further, indicating the problems with some of the statutes.
s. 316.084 – When Overtaking on the Right is Permitted
(1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass on the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving traffic in each direction."
I have never argued that lane splitting is always illegal. I have made comments along two main lines: 1) "Cars take up too much space" is not a valid defense for when you illegally pass cars on a bicycle; 2) "Other people breaking the law" is also not a valid legal defense.
You continue arguing against points that I am not making.
-
Interestingly, the motorcycle advocacy groups generally say that Ohio law doesn't address lane splitting one way or the other.
ORC 4511.33(A)(1) (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33) seems pretty clear to me ("A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic").
That doesn't even remotely say what you're claiming. That just says a vehicle can't straddle two lanes; it says nothing about two vehicles in a single lane. CA has the same requirement (section 21658 of its vehicle code), but there's nothing about it incompatible with lane splitting.
I'm sure there are some places where the bicycle filtering behavior under discussion is illegal, but the presumption that it is illegal in all the states other than California is wrong. Like OR, NY, MA and FL law prohibits "motorcycles" from passing a vehicle in the same lane. So at least a quarter of the country's population lives where lane splitting is permitted or the prohibition applies specifically to "motorcycles."
Queue jumping, which is what everyone else is talking about, is illegal in Florida: http://flbikelaw.org/2011/06/queue-jumping-bicyclists/
I don't have the time to look up other counter examples to correct any other possible mistakes you've made regarding other states.
Yes, you didn't even have time to read the link you found. Like where it says: "Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic."
And grantmeaname, I only introduced the discussion regarding lane-splitting by motorcycles because it the presumed illegality of that act (which includes filtering by motorcycles) had been put forward as the basis for presuming filtering by bicycles to be illegal. My point is that where laws have been adopted to prohibit lane splitting, they have at least sometimes been adopted solely in respect of motorcycles. The site that beltim cited (apparently without reading) discusses distinctions as to when filtering by bicycles may be legal or illegal in FL (which is to say, it discusses it as sometimes legal).
Oh, and speaking of not reading, you must have missed the part (in the first paragraph) in my first citation that said "Additionally, the legal restrictions for lane splitting in each US state for motorcycles generally apply to bicycles as well."
-
Interestingly, the motorcycle advocacy groups generally say that Ohio law doesn't address lane splitting one way or the other.
ORC 4511.33(A)(1) (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33) seems pretty clear to me ("A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic").
That doesn't even remotely say what you're claiming. That just says a vehicle can't straddle two lanes; it says nothing about two vehicles in a single lane. CA has the same requirement (section 21658 of its vehicle code), but there's nothing about it incompatible with lane splitting.
I'm sure there are some places where the bicycle filtering behavior under discussion is illegal, but the presumption that it is illegal in all the states other than California is wrong. Like OR, NY, MA and FL law prohibits "motorcycles" from passing a vehicle in the same lane. So at least a quarter of the country's population lives where lane splitting is permitted or the prohibition applies specifically to "motorcycles."
Queue jumping, which is what everyone else is talking about, is illegal in Florida: http://flbikelaw.org/2011/06/queue-jumping-bicyclists/
I don't have the time to look up other counter examples to correct any other possible mistakes you've made regarding other states.
Yes, you didn't even have time to read the link you found. Like where it says: "Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic."
And grantmeaname, I only introduced the discussion regarding lane-splitting by motorcycles because it the presumed illegality of that act (which includes filtering by motorcycles) had been put forward as the basis for presuming filtering by bicycles to be illegal. My point is that where laws have been adopted to prohibit lane splitting, they have at least sometimes been adopted solely in respect of motorcycles. The site that beltim cited (apparently without reading) discusses distinctions as to when filtering by bicycles may be legal or illegal in FL (which is to say, it discusses it as sometimes legal).
If you're going to say I didn't read my link, it would behoove you to read the link. From my link:
"The driver of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle must pass the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle at a safe distance of not less than 3 feet between the vehicle and the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle.
Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic. That is not defined any further, indicating the problems with some of the statutes.
s. 316.084 – When Overtaking on the Right is Permitted
(1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass on the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving traffic in each direction."
I have never argued that lane splitting is always illegal. I have made comments along two main lines: 1) "Cars take up too much space" is not a valid defense for when you illegally pass cars on a bicycle; 2) "Other people breaking the law" is also not a valid legal defense.
You continue arguing against points that I am not making.
Apologies if I misunderstood, but you said "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though)."
Apparently that's not what you meant, and you grant that it's not always illegal (do you see how I thought otherwise from that part in bold text?).
As to your point in your next post, the author's just wrong. Many states say that bicyclists on public roads have all the duties generally applicable to drivers of motor vehicles, that's true, but some states prohibit lane splitting by motor vehicles generally, like Illinois (in which case it would seem to apply equally to bicycles), while others specifically prohibit it only by specific subclasses, primarily either motorcycles or motorcycles and motor scooters.
If someone wants to know whether it's legal to cycle past stopped cars, it depends on the state, but it's not a difference between California and the other 49 states, and it's not necessarily the case that it's illegal even where lane-splitting by motorcycles has been prohibited. Again, apologies if I've misinterpreted what you wrote and I quoted above, but I still don't understand what else you could have meant.
-
Interestingly, the motorcycle advocacy groups generally say that Ohio law doesn't address lane splitting one way or the other.
ORC 4511.33(A)(1) (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33) seems pretty clear to me ("A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic").
That doesn't even remotely say what you're claiming. That just says a vehicle can't straddle two lanes; it says nothing about two vehicles in a single lane. CA has the same requirement (section 21658 of its vehicle code), but there's nothing about it incompatible with lane splitting.
I'm sure there are some places where the bicycle filtering behavior under discussion is illegal, but the presumption that it is illegal in all the states other than California is wrong. Like OR, NY, MA and FL law prohibits "motorcycles" from passing a vehicle in the same lane. So at least a quarter of the country's population lives where lane splitting is permitted or the prohibition applies specifically to "motorcycles."
Queue jumping, which is what everyone else is talking about, is illegal in Florida: http://flbikelaw.org/2011/06/queue-jumping-bicyclists/
I don't have the time to look up other counter examples to correct any other possible mistakes you've made regarding other states.
Yes, you didn't even have time to read the link you found. Like where it says: "Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic."
And grantmeaname, I only introduced the discussion regarding lane-splitting by motorcycles because it the presumed illegality of that act (which includes filtering by motorcycles) had been put forward as the basis for presuming filtering by bicycles to be illegal. My point is that where laws have been adopted to prohibit lane splitting, they have at least sometimes been adopted solely in respect of motorcycles. The site that beltim cited (apparently without reading) discusses distinctions as to when filtering by bicycles may be legal or illegal in FL (which is to say, it discusses it as sometimes legal).
If you're going to say I didn't read my link, it would behoove you to read the link. From my link:
"The driver of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle must pass the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle at a safe distance of not less than 3 feet between the vehicle and the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle.
Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic. That is not defined any further, indicating the problems with some of the statutes.
s. 316.084 – When Overtaking on the Right is Permitted
(1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass on the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving traffic in each direction."
I have never argued that lane splitting is always illegal. I have made comments along two main lines: 1) "Cars take up too much space" is not a valid defense for when you illegally pass cars on a bicycle; 2) "Other people breaking the law" is also not a valid legal defense.
You continue arguing against points that I am not making.
Apologies if I misunderstood, but you said "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though)."
Apparently that's not what you meant, and you grant that it's not always illegal (do you see how I thought otherwise from that part in bold text?).
As to your point in your next post, the author's just wrong. Many states say that bicyclists on public roads have all the duties generally applicable to drivers of motor vehicles, that's true, but some states prohibit lane splitting by motor vehicles generally, like Illinois (in which case it would seem to apply equally to bicycles), while others specifically prohibit it only by specific subclasses, primarily either motorcycles or motorcycles and motor scooters.
The
"The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front.
wasn't me. I was quoting Runge from earlier in the thread. Hence the quotes.
As for the bolded part, I was specifically talking about states where it is illegal. My sources said this was most states, CA excepted, but I'm willing to admit my sources may be wrong.
-
Interestingly, the motorcycle advocacy groups generally say that Ohio law doesn't address lane splitting one way or the other.
ORC 4511.33(A)(1) (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33) seems pretty clear to me ("A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic").
That doesn't even remotely say what you're claiming. That just says a vehicle can't straddle two lanes; it says nothing about two vehicles in a single lane. CA has the same requirement (section 21658 of its vehicle code), but there's nothing about it incompatible with lane splitting.
I'm sure there are some places where the bicycle filtering behavior under discussion is illegal, but the presumption that it is illegal in all the states other than California is wrong. Like OR, NY, MA and FL law prohibits "motorcycles" from passing a vehicle in the same lane. So at least a quarter of the country's population lives where lane splitting is permitted or the prohibition applies specifically to "motorcycles."
Queue jumping, which is what everyone else is talking about, is illegal in Florida: http://flbikelaw.org/2011/06/queue-jumping-bicyclists/
I don't have the time to look up other counter examples to correct any other possible mistakes you've made regarding other states.
Yes, you didn't even have time to read the link you found. Like where it says: "Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic."
And grantmeaname, I only introduced the discussion regarding lane-splitting by motorcycles because it the presumed illegality of that act (which includes filtering by motorcycles) had been put forward as the basis for presuming filtering by bicycles to be illegal. My point is that where laws have been adopted to prohibit lane splitting, they have at least sometimes been adopted solely in respect of motorcycles. The site that beltim cited (apparently without reading) discusses distinctions as to when filtering by bicycles may be legal or illegal in FL (which is to say, it discusses it as sometimes legal).
If you're going to say I didn't read my link, it would behoove you to read the link. From my link:
"The driver of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle must pass the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle at a safe distance of not less than 3 feet between the vehicle and the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle.
Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic. That is not defined any further, indicating the problems with some of the statutes.
s. 316.084 – When Overtaking on the Right is Permitted
(1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass on the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving traffic in each direction."
I have never argued that lane splitting is always illegal. I have made comments along two main lines: 1) "Cars take up too much space" is not a valid defense for when you illegally pass cars on a bicycle; 2) "Other people breaking the law" is also not a valid legal defense.
You continue arguing against points that I am not making.
Apologies if I misunderstood, but you said "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though)."
Apparently that's not what you meant, and you grant that it's not always illegal (do you see how I thought otherwise from that part in bold text?).
As to your point in your next post, the author's just wrong. Many states say that bicyclists on public roads have all the duties generally applicable to drivers of motor vehicles, that's true, but some states prohibit lane splitting by motor vehicles generally, like Illinois (in which case it would seem to apply equally to bicycles), while others specifically prohibit it only by specific subclasses, primarily either motorcycles or motorcycles and motor scooters.
The
"The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front.
wasn't me. I was quoting Runge from earlier in the thread. Hence the quotes.
As for the bolded part, I was specifically talking about states where it is illegal. My sources said this was most states, CA excepted, but I'm willing to admit my sources may be wrong.
I thought you were quoting it as expressing your position, not to try to isolate the topic of the thread, but I get it now.
The reason I've picked on this so much is that in addition to riding a bike about 15,000 miles a year, I've done a reasonable amount of pro bono work for bike advocacy groups, and a significant issue for some of them is motorist (and police) misunderstanding of how the law applies to bicyclists, based on what they just "know" to be true (informed solely by having earned a driver's license at 16, or by a very vague impression of a huge range of laws).
-
Interestingly, the motorcycle advocacy groups generally say that Ohio law doesn't address lane splitting one way or the other.
ORC 4511.33(A)(1) (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33) seems pretty clear to me ("A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic").
That doesn't even remotely say what you're claiming. That just says a vehicle can't straddle two lanes; it says nothing about two vehicles in a single lane. CA has the same requirement (section 21658 of its vehicle code), but there's nothing about it incompatible with lane splitting.
I'm sure there are some places where the bicycle filtering behavior under discussion is illegal, but the presumption that it is illegal in all the states other than California is wrong. Like OR, NY, MA and FL law prohibits "motorcycles" from passing a vehicle in the same lane. So at least a quarter of the country's population lives where lane splitting is permitted or the prohibition applies specifically to "motorcycles."
Queue jumping, which is what everyone else is talking about, is illegal in Florida: http://flbikelaw.org/2011/06/queue-jumping-bicyclists/
I don't have the time to look up other counter examples to correct any other possible mistakes you've made regarding other states.
Yes, you didn't even have time to read the link you found. Like where it says: "Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic."
And grantmeaname, I only introduced the discussion regarding lane-splitting by motorcycles because it the presumed illegality of that act (which includes filtering by motorcycles) had been put forward as the basis for presuming filtering by bicycles to be illegal. My point is that where laws have been adopted to prohibit lane splitting, they have at least sometimes been adopted solely in respect of motorcycles. The site that beltim cited (apparently without reading) discusses distinctions as to when filtering by bicycles may be legal or illegal in FL (which is to say, it discusses it as sometimes legal).
If you're going to say I didn't read my link, it would behoove you to read the link. From my link:
"The driver of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle must pass the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle at a safe distance of not less than 3 feet between the vehicle and the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle.
Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic. That is not defined any further, indicating the problems with some of the statutes.
s. 316.084 – When Overtaking on the Right is Permitted
(1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass on the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving traffic in each direction."
I have never argued that lane splitting is always illegal. I have made comments along two main lines: 1) "Cars take up too much space" is not a valid defense for when you illegally pass cars on a bicycle; 2) "Other people breaking the law" is also not a valid legal defense.
You continue arguing against points that I am not making.
Apologies if I misunderstood, but you said "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though)."
Apparently that's not what you meant, and you grant that it's not always illegal (do you see how I thought otherwise from that part in bold text?).
As to your point in your next post, the author's just wrong. Many states say that bicyclists on public roads have all the duties generally applicable to drivers of motor vehicles, that's true, but some states prohibit lane splitting by motor vehicles generally, like Illinois (in which case it would seem to apply equally to bicycles), while others specifically prohibit it only by specific subclasses, primarily either motorcycles or motorcycles and motor scooters.
The
"The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front.
wasn't me. I was quoting Runge from earlier in the thread. Hence the quotes.
As for the bolded part, I was specifically talking about states where it is illegal. My sources said this was most states, CA excepted, but I'm willing to admit my sources may be wrong.
I thought you were quoting it as expressing your position, not to try to isolate the topic of the thread, but I get it now.
The reason I've picked on this so much is that in addition to riding a bike about 15,000 miles a year, I've done a reasonable amount of pro bono work for bike advocacy groups, and a significant issue for some of them is motorist (and police) misunderstanding of how the law applies to bicyclists, based on what they just "know" to be true (informed solely by having earned a driver's license at 16, or by a very vague impression of a huge range of laws).
I'm all for increased awareness of laws regarding bicyclists. In addition to motorists and police, I'd add bicyclists and pedestrians to the list of people who need to be educated. It's amazing how many bicyclists I see and hear from who are unaware of their rights and/or obligations. And I see plenty of people walking in bike lanes around here, which I actually don't know if it's illegal, though I suspect it is.
Keep up the good work (as long as you're not arguing against points I haven't made ;) !
-
Interestingly, the motorcycle advocacy groups generally say that Ohio law doesn't address lane splitting one way or the other.
ORC 4511.33(A)(1) (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.33) seems pretty clear to me ("A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic").
That doesn't even remotely say what you're claiming. That just says a vehicle can't straddle two lanes; it says nothing about two vehicles in a single lane. CA has the same requirement (section 21658 of its vehicle code), but there's nothing about it incompatible with lane splitting.
I'm sure there are some places where the bicycle filtering behavior under discussion is illegal, but the presumption that it is illegal in all the states other than California is wrong. Like OR, NY, MA and FL law prohibits "motorcycles" from passing a vehicle in the same lane. So at least a quarter of the country's population lives where lane splitting is permitted or the prohibition applies specifically to "motorcycles."
Queue jumping, which is what everyone else is talking about, is illegal in Florida: http://flbikelaw.org/2011/06/queue-jumping-bicyclists/
I don't have the time to look up other counter examples to correct any other possible mistakes you've made regarding other states.
Yes, you didn't even have time to read the link you found. Like where it says: "Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic."
And grantmeaname, I only introduced the discussion regarding lane-splitting by motorcycles because it the presumed illegality of that act (which includes filtering by motorcycles) had been put forward as the basis for presuming filtering by bicycles to be illegal. My point is that where laws have been adopted to prohibit lane splitting, they have at least sometimes been adopted solely in respect of motorcycles. The site that beltim cited (apparently without reading) discusses distinctions as to when filtering by bicycles may be legal or illegal in FL (which is to say, it discusses it as sometimes legal).
If you're going to say I didn't read my link, it would behoove you to read the link. From my link:
"The driver of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle must pass the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle at a safe distance of not less than 3 feet between the vehicle and the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle.
Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic. That is not defined any further, indicating the problems with some of the statutes.
s. 316.084 – When Overtaking on the Right is Permitted
(1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass on the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving traffic in each direction."
I have never argued that lane splitting is always illegal. I have made comments along two main lines: 1) "Cars take up too much space" is not a valid defense for when you illegally pass cars on a bicycle; 2) "Other people breaking the law" is also not a valid legal defense.
You continue arguing against points that I am not making.
Apologies if I misunderstood, but you said "The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front." from earlier in the thread. It's wrong when cars do it, and it's wrong when bicycles do it. (Not in California, though)."
Apparently that's not what you meant, and you grant that it's not always illegal (do you see how I thought otherwise from that part in bold text?).
As to your point in your next post, the author's just wrong. Many states say that bicyclists on public roads have all the duties generally applicable to drivers of motor vehicles, that's true, but some states prohibit lane splitting by motor vehicles generally, like Illinois (in which case it would seem to apply equally to bicycles), while others specifically prohibit it only by specific subclasses, primarily either motorcycles or motorcycles and motor scooters.
The
"The only times passing at a light (to me, and when you DON'T have your own lane) is acceptable is if you're turning right. Otherwise just be patient, pull up behind the car in front of you, chill in the center of the lane so the car behind you doesn't try to pass you while you're in line or in the intersection, and enjoy the noxious fumes coming out of the car in front.
wasn't me. I was quoting Runge from earlier in the thread. Hence the quotes.
As for the bolded part, I was specifically talking about states where it is illegal. My sources said this was most states, CA excepted, but I'm willing to admit my sources may be wrong.
I thought you were quoting it as expressing your position, not to try to isolate the topic of the thread, but I get it now.
The reason I've picked on this so much is that in addition to riding a bike about 15,000 miles a year, I've done a reasonable amount of pro bono work for bike advocacy groups, and a significant issue for some of them is motorist (and police) misunderstanding of how the law applies to bicyclists, based on what they just "know" to be true (informed solely by having earned a driver's license at 16, or by a very vague impression of a huge range of laws).
I'm all for increased awareness of laws regarding bicyclists. In addition to motorists and police, I'd add bicyclists and pedestrians to the list of people who need to be educated. It's amazing how many bicyclists I see and hear from who are unaware of their rights and/or obligations. And I see plenty of people walking in bike lanes around here, which I actually don't know if it's illegal, though I suspect it is.
Keep up the good work (as long as you're not arguing against points I haven't made ;) !
Just wanted to see how ridiculously long you can make a thread by quoting quotes of quotes of quotes of...
-
...
Just wanted to see how ridiculously long you can make a thread by quoting quotes of quotes of quotes of...
You can always judiciously trim things if you want to spare other posters the visual assault.
-
I'm sorry you live among such dumbfuck cyclists that they're riding on the sidewalks.
Careful there, Infogoon. There are a number of places in my area where riding on the sidewalk is the correct (and posted) thing to do. Generally it's where traffic is heavy and there is no room for cars and bicycles to pass safely. You'd be surprised how often I see cyclists riding on the road and not using the posted sidewalk lanes.
-
I'm sorry you live among such dumbfuck cyclists that they're riding on the sidewalks.
Careful there, Infogoon. There are a number of places in my area where riding on the sidewalk is the correct (and posted) thing to do. Generally it's where traffic is heavy and there is no room for cars and bicycles to pass safely. You'd be surprised how often I see cyclists riding on the road and not using the posted sidewalk lanes.
Diane C., your profile says you're in NorCal, and assuming that's where you mean, towns and cities shouldn't be requiring cyclists to use sidewalks (although they might permit it and even encourage it). In California, a cyclist can generally ride on any "highway" (which is effectively all kinds of roads) (under CVC 21200), except that a municipality or the state may ban bicycles from part or all of a freeway or expressway (under CVC 21960). A city or town may ban or restrict cycling on sidewalks (there's a lot of variation, with some banning it completely, some banning it in places and some, most charmingly, banning it except for children), but if the municipality hasn't restricted it, state law doesn't restrict it either (see CVC 21206). A municipality could require cyclists to use a bike lane on local roads (under CVC 21207), but that would be subject to complying with the bike lane standards under the Streets and Highways Code (starting at section 890) and the further safety criteria established by DOT. Because on-street bike lanes are part of a road and not open to pedestrians (except for crossing), it's hard to imagine one being called a "sidewalk."
-
...
Just wanted to see how ridiculously long you can make a thread by quoting quotes of quotes of quotes of...
You can always judiciously trim things if you want to spare other posters the visual assault.
Good to point that out thanks.
Also, I don't know about the rest of you, but the tit for tat type posts are bypassed by me. Maybe they should just PM each other and resolve their spat.