I'm in a car! I have the right of way!

[tooqk4u22]

Shoulders are often filled with a lot more gravel and glass than you would think from looking at it in a car. And, to be clear, the bicycle owns the road the same amount you do.

First - I am familiar with the road and have biked on it, so that is not an issue, it would be different if there was no where to go.  And I call bullshit to bikes owning a road equally with cars, there is a difference, but they both need to be mindful and respectful with one another.  Separately, if cars are not keeping up with the speed limit they are supposed to pull aside and let traffic pass too - so my comment applies to all - its just in this case the ass was on a bike, he wasn't even doing his best to hug the line. 

Being an ass is not justification. 

[grantmeaname]

That's certainly not the law here for bikes OR cars. And legally, a bike is a vehicle, so the only difference I can see is your patience with them.

[tooqk4u22]

That's certainly not the law here for bikes OR cars. And legally, a bike is a vehicle, so the only difference I can see is your patience with them.

I think you may be wrong, most states (including yours) do have laws that require slow moving vehicles to move as far right as possible without jeopardizing safety (this includes the shoulder but does not mean hugging the curb or riding through debris) so that other vehicles may pass safely.

It is also an unwritten rule that falls under common courtesy/sense.

[jp]

Six months ago some lady in a Mercedes laid on her horn at me for a solid 5 seconds. I'm embarrassed to admit it but I flipped her off. That's dumb on so many levels that I've been disappointed and angry at myself every time I think of it. I've actually avoided biking almost entirely since then.

I flip people off all the time on my bike, literally once a week the bird is coming out.  I was not aware that I should feel shame for this. 

Someone does something stupid (and maybe dangerous in your case). Fuck you horn honker!  Someone yells something out the window because I can't catch them?  Fuck you drive away yeller!  Some pedestrian makes a comment as I zip past them on a bike/pedestrian lane?  Fuck you lane hogger, pay attention next time and maybe you'll hear me saying "on your left" 30 times while braking. 

I find that flipping people off is both fulfilling and allows me to correct the asinine behavior of others with very little effort.  It lets me say "hey douchebag, I don't appreciate what you just did, it isn't acceptable in a civilized society... yep, you just got flipped off my a guy on a bike and there is nothing you can do about it."   

[Spork]

Six months ago some lady in a Mercedes laid on her horn at me for a solid 5 seconds. I'm embarrassed to admit it but I flipped her off. That's dumb on so many levels that I've been disappointed and angry at myself every time I think of it. I've actually avoided biking almost entirely since then.

I flip people off all the time on my bike, literally once a week the bird is coming out.  I was not aware that I should feel shame for this. 

Someone does something stupid (and maybe dangerous in your case). Fuck you horn honker!  Someone yells something out the window because I can't catch them?  Fuck you drive away yeller!  Some pedestrian makes a comment as I zip past them on a bike/pedestrian lane?  Fuck you lane hogger, pay attention next time and maybe you'll hear me saying "on your left" 30 times while braking. 

I find that flipping people off is both fulfilling and allows me to correct the asinine behavior of others with very little effort.  It lets me say "hey douchebag, I don't appreciate what you just did, it isn't acceptable in a civilized society... yep, you just got flipped off my a guy on a bike and there is nothing you can do about it."   

Feeling shame is probably the wrong word here.   

[Let me preface this by the fact that I am as guilty of this as you of any of these "offenses".]

So, yeah, there isn't anything anybody can legally do about it.  But the problem here is that there is a small subset of crazy assholes in the world that will go outside the legal system.  Not the majority.  But eventually, you'll meet them.

I've had (full) beer bottles chucked at me.  I've been physically threatened.  I've had cars swerved at me.... and this isn't on a bike.  This is in a car.  The reality here is that you may be able to inscribe "I was in the right of way" on your tombstone.

When it happens to me and I react with the bird (or any other ragey things) ... I don't necessarily feel any better. 

...just sayin'.

[jp]

Feeling shame is probably the wrong word here.   

[Let me preface this by the fact that I am as guilty of this as you of any of these "offenses".]

So, yeah, there isn't anything anybody can legally do about it.  But the problem here is that there is a small subset of crazy assholes in the world that will go outside the legal system.  Not the majority.  But eventually, you'll meet them.

I've had (full) beer bottles chucked at me.  I've been physically threatened.  I've had cars swerved at me.... and this isn't on a bike.  This is in a car.  The reality here is that you may be able to inscribe "I was in the right of way" on your tombstone.

When it happens to me and I react with the bird (or any other ragey things) ... I don't necessarily feel any better. 

...just sayin'.

yeah, I hear that "but people are crazy" line all the time.  I guess I just grew up wrong, or maybe it is because I deal with crazy criminals all the time, but I have very little fear of other people hurting me.  I don't let "but someone might try to kill you if you confront their wrongness" dictate my behavior.  How do they know I am not one of those crazy people when they honk at me?  I don't go out of my way to retaliate, but if someone does something for the sole purpose of being a jerk, they are going to hear about it from me.  If they want to escalate it from there, I will deal with that then... it hasn't happened yet in over 100 middle fingers elevated. 

[Spork]

[ it hasn't happened yet in over 100 middle fingers elevated.

100?  Amateur!  ;)

[grantmeaname]

most states

Weaselly.

(including yours) do have laws that require slow moving vehicles to move as far right as possible without jeopardizing safety (this includes the shoulder but does not mean hugging the curb or riding through debris)

Wrong.

(B)

(1) Upon all roadways any vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding at less than the prevailing and lawful speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, and far enough to the right to allow passing by faster vehicles if such passing is safe and reasonable, except under any of the following circumstances:

(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding in the same direction ;

(b) When preparing for a left turn;

(c) When the driver must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on the driver’s intended route.
(2) Nothing in division (B)(1) of this section requires a driver of a slower vehicle to compromise the driver’s safety to allow overtaking by a faster vehicle.

Or, let's get more explicit. What is required of cyclists?

(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so. Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

And don't get wishy-washy on the definition of the roadway. The code clearly excludes the shoulder:

“Roadway” means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, except the berm or shoulder

It is also an unwritten rule that falls under common courtesy/sense.

Common courtesy yields to both the law and the immediate need of the cyclist for physical safety. Sorry.

[Undecided]

They're not weight sensors, they're induction sensors. Look for one of the longitudinal saw cuts in the pavement and put the bike directly over it. If there are three saw cuts, pick the center one. If it still doesn't work, try lying the bike down parallel to the road.
See this article for more information.

I don't think I should have to get off my bike and lay it down---if the sensor doesn't respond to my presence on a bike, then in my view it's malfunctioning and so I treat it as if it were a flashing red light. I'm pretty good at triggering the sensors, but sometimes it's impossible (whether it's because the pavement's too thick or because you're riding to the start of a time trial on a carbon fiber bike with carbon fiber wheels).

[dragoncar]

(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so. Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Thus, when the "Bicyclist stayed put like they owned the road" they were in fact breaking the law, since there was no safety issue with hugging the right side of the lane.

[grantmeaname]

Thus, when the "Bicyclist stayed put like they owned the road" they were in fact breaking the law, since there was no safety issue with hugging the right side of the lane.

Tooqk's comment makes it clear that there wasn't room to pass within the lane, so if he were in Ohio the bicyclist would be explicitly following the letter of the law by riding wherever the hell he wanted in the lane. That's the whole 4511.05C bit for ya.

[dragoncar]

Thus, when the "Bicyclist stayed put like they owned the road" they were in fact breaking the law, since there was no safety issue with hugging the right side of the lane.

Tooqk's comment makes it clear that there wasn't room to pass within the lane, so if he were in Ohio the bicyclist would be explicitly following the letter of the law by riding wherever the hell he wanted in the lane. That's the whole 4511.05C bit for ya.

It's clear that there wasn't room to pass withing the lane because the cyclist was riding in the center.

[Russ]

It's clear that there wasn't room to pass withing the lane because the cyclist was riding in the center.

There wouldn't be room to pass within the lane anyway. The linked image is for 12-foot wide lanes. I don't know how wide the lane in question was, but it was without doubt the same width as in the above illustration or narrower. At that point, if it is too dangerous to ride on the shoulder (IMO usually the safest, but that's the individual cyclist's call to make), then riding in the center of the lane is the safest option as it discourages people who overestimate the width of the lane from trying to pass too closely.

[dragoncar]

There wouldn't be room to pass within the lane anyway. The linked image is for 12-foot wide lanes. I don't know how wide the lane in question was, but it was without doubt the same width as in the above illustration or narrower. At that point, if it is too dangerous to ride on the shoulder (IMO usually the safest, but that's the individual cyclist's call to make), then riding in the center of the lane is the safest option as it discourages people who overestimate the width of the lane from trying to pass too closely.

Yes, because all of us MMM readers drive giant F-250 trucks (which apparently still leave room for sharing on a 12-foot lane, according to the linked image). 

By the way, I'm all for cyclists rights.  As stated above, I agree they should be accorded the same rights and obligations due other vehicles on the road.  However, the linked image seems to make the point that cyclists are idiots for sharing the road with drivers.  Apparently they do not have a steel cage, no fenders, balancing a single track vehicle, vulnerable to debris, pavement imperfections, and windblast, and are passed with the highest speed differentials.  If that's your argument for giving them the full lane, then that's my argument for why they should not be allowed in high speed traffic lanes at all.

There is no double standard here, by the way.  I would fully expect a car going 10-20 mph in a 35 or higher zone to pull over as a matter of courtesy AND law (as discussed, in certain jurisdictions, but I have no qualms saying that such conventions should be codified everywhere).  Would you let a bicycle on the freeway?  If not, why a 45 mph highway?

[grantmeaname]

It's clear that there wasn't room to pass withing the lane because the cyclist was riding in the center.

No, it's clear that there wasn't room to pass within the lane and it's clear the cyclist was riding either in the center or to the right of the center but not in the shoulder. Any other details are ones you made up based only on biases you brought into the conversation.

Yes, because all of us MMM readers drive giant F-250 trucks

Holy miss the point batman. Even a Town and Country is a little over 90 inches wide, and it's built on a car frame! That doesn't leave room for curb, debris, cyclist, 3 feet, Town and Country, and a margin between the car and the next lane in 12 feet.

(which apparently still leave room for sharing on a 12-foot lane, according to the linked image).

Correction: which clearly don't leave room for sharing, because the cyclist only has 5 inches instead of the statutory 36 inches if the truck is passing within the lane.

However, the linked image seems to make the point that cyclists are idiots for sharing the road with drivers.

i. Two sentences ago the linked image was "apparently" making the point that there was plenty of room. So which is it?
ii. "Sharing the road" and "sharing a lane with other drivers passing within the lane" are not the same.
iii. "Sharing the road" is reciprocal, and depends on the behavior of motorists as well as cyclists. It's not motorists' road to share or not with cyclists, it's everyone's road to share with everyone else.

Apparently they do not have a steel cage

We've been over this already this week.

no fenders, balancing a single track vehicle, vulnerable to debris, pavement imperfections, and windblast, and are passed with the highest speed differentials.  If that's your argument for giving them the full lane, then that's my argument for why they should not be allowed in high speed traffic lanes at all.

Ignoring for a moment that half of your reasons make no sense... your argument that cyclists should not be allowed in high-speed traffic lanes, while nonsensical, at least starts from a basis of concern for cyclists' safety. So how do you then use that as an excuse to drive in an unsafe manner around cyclists? Doesn't that seem a little like psychosis to you?

There is no double standard here, by the way.  I would fully expect a car going 10-20 mph in a 35 or higher zone to pull over as a matter of courtesy

Sure, as would I. Again, there's the whole "compelling interest in immediate physical safety" thing I mentioned? That doesn't apply to the same degree for a sedan as it does for a bike.

AND law

That's not the law. Consult, for example, the only posts anywhere on this forum in which anyone has quoted transportation law. They've all been me, they've all been the Ohio Revised Code, and not a one has supported the 'right' of impatient motorists to be yielded to by people in front of them.

(as discussed, in certain jurisdictions,

No jurisdictions were given but the state of Ohio, which is a counterexample and not a supporting point.

but I have no qualms saying that such conventions should be codified everywhere).

"I think X should be the law" is not equivalent to "the law is X". Democracy, people with opinions other than yours, yadda yadda...

Would you let a bicycle on the freeway?  If not, why a 45 mph highway?

No. Why is a street different than the interstate? Some key differences:
A 45mph street may have consistent, frequent intersections, causing drivers to expect that they will need to yield and pay attention to other activities going on (most near me do). The interstate does not have intersections.
A 45mph street has a legal requirement that it be built in a way that it is conducive to sharing between all users of the road. The interstate explicitly does not, as bicycles, farm vehicles, and pedestrians are prohibited.
A 45mph street accumulates glass and gravel much more slowly than an interstate highway.
A 45mph street typically lacks rumble strips on the side of the road, which can easily bring down a cyclist. Everything else aside, this feature of the highway makes the highway a much more difficult environment to ride in.
A 45mph street has no statutory minimum speed limit, unlike the interstate. That means that it is physically possible to operate a bicycle at a safe and legal speed on a 45mph street, but not on an interstate.
A 45mph street is able to be legally occupied by cyclists, while an interstate highway is not.

[Jack]

There wouldn't be room to pass within the lane anyway. The linked image is for 12-foot wide lanes.

Yes, because all of us MMM readers drive giant F-250 trucks (which apparently still leave room for sharing on a 12-foot lane, according to the linked image). 

Given that that's exactly the opposite of what the image actually conveys, I think we should all just conclude that you're a dumbass and should STFU.

Cyclists have the right, under law [in the state of Georgia -- so that's two counterexamples now], to ride in the road. Motorists have an obligation, under law, to leave a minimum of 3 feet (36 inches) when passing. If they can't safely maintain that distance, then they have to fucking wait!

If you can't deal with that, then I sincerely hope your license gets revoked.

[Khao]

I was under the impression that the Antimustachian wall of shame and comedy was to make fun of consumer slaves, not to rip each other apart over some state laws!

[jp]

I was under the impression that the Antimustachian wall of shame and comedy was to make fun of consumer slaves, not to rip each other apart over some state laws!

Wrong.



j/k.  It is a forum, a place for people to discuss things.  Conversations would be pretty boring if all responses were "yep, I agree."  I am enjoying the debate from the outside here, as I know for a fact that dragoncar is wrong in my State as well (being a lawyer that occasionally handles accident cases) I am enjoying watching him try to defend his position after being purposely rude (apparently he has no time for courtesy or waiting for cyclists, but plenty of time to respond endlessly to his defenseless position). 

[Khao]

It is indeed a place to discuss things, but I feel this conversation is just pointless and done.

"Don't feed the trolls" as they say ;)

Even if dragoncar isn't trolling on purpose, the fact that he's being rude and is holding is position and defending against the guy from the internet! so furiously just makes this whole discussion a dead-end.

[amustache]

A few more cents to throw in. The reason we have paved roads in the first place is because of bicyclists (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-good-roads-movement.htm). Another thing to feel smug and righteous about when riding on a bike.

Okay, not smug and righteous but informed next time someone asks you about your bike-riding habit.

[jp]

It is indeed a place to discuss things, but I feel this conversation is just pointless and done.

"Don't feed the trolls" as they say ;)

Even if dragoncar isn't trolling on purpose, the fact that he's being rude and is holding is position and defending against the guy from the internet! so furiously just makes this whole discussion a dead-end.

You're right of course.  I just enjoy the occasional pointless argument.  I will agree that the name calling is over the line.

[kendallf]

You're right of course.  I just enjoy the occasional pointless argument.  I will agree that the name calling is over the line.

And as the person who got this whole ball rolling, I am going to go get on my bike and ride home.  :-)

[Guitarist]

Yeah, and usually the rules for cars is if there are 5 cars behind you then you have to let them pass.

I agree that assholes are universal.  However, an asshole with a car is far more dangerous (to others) than one on a bike.  In turn, the one on the bike is more dangerous than an asshole on foot.  Many pedestrians are assholes, but they get the short end of the stick because they can't walk in the road, but many cyclists use the sidewalk.

Not legally, they don't, but courtesy is definitely the best course of action for all people on the road. The delay caused by a bicycle seems longer than it really is because, once a car does pass a bicycle, they quickly catch up to the traffic ahead of them. There was no actual time lost. To quote labreform.org:

"The actual delay to traffic from a bicycle is almost always trivial.  Most traffic is able to pass with no impact other than slowing a bit and perhaps changing lanes.  Occasionally, a passing driver must wait a few seconds in order to fit a gap for safe passing.  Very rarely is the wait as much as 30 seconds.

Remember, the passing driver needs only to slow to the speed of the bicycle.  Typically, the bicycle is traveling at half the speed limit, so the delay is half what it seems.  Then after passing, the driver can go faster in the open space ahead of the bicycle.  Most soon catch up to their earlier place in the traffic queue.  This means the real delay is usually zero.

I often see someone pass me in a huff, and then shortly the brake lights come on as that driver catches up to other traffic.  The motorist will perceive that I caused a delay.  The reality is there was no delay.  The presence of my bicycle simply redistributed the delays already present due to the other traffic.

I follow this logic when driving. I see no need to speed up and waste gas just to brake in a half mile. Screw the idiots who ride my ass while I go the speed limit while in the right or center lanes.

[Captain and Mrs Slow]

Ley make this very clear, and I never understood the logic of this, but bikes don't belong on the road, they belong on a dedicated bike lane next to the sidewalk. Why would someone put bikes and cars in the same area

I'm in Munich next week I'll post some pictures.

I also, if I can do it without hitting the damm cyclist, pictures of suicde alley, a popular but VERY narrow stretch of highway in the mountains where I live (Madrid)  the shoulder is perhaps a bit over a foot wide. How anyone in thier right mind would bike it is beyond me, especially as there is an alternative route where the shoulder is almost a meter wide but nobody takes it.

It gets worse as you head up into the mountains, narrow twisty roads, very popular with both cars trucks and hard core cyclists. My brother in law couldn't believe the numbers of cyclists there, he said there is no way he could make it those hills.

[Guitarist]

Ley make this very clear, and I never understood the logic of this, but bikes don't belong on the road, they belong on a dedicated bike lane next to the sidewalk. Why would someone put bikes and cars in the same area

I'm in Munich next week I'll post some pictures.

I also, if I can do it without hitting the damm cyclist, pictures of suicde alley, a popular but VERY narrow stretch of highway in the mountains where I live (Madrid)  the shoulder is perhaps a bit over a foot wide. How anyone in thier right mind would bike it is beyond me, especially as there is an alternative route where the shoulder is almost a meter wide but nobody takes it.

It gets worse as you head up into the mountains, narrow twisty roads, very popular with both cars trucks and hard core cyclists. My brother in law couldn't believe the numbers of cyclists there, he said there is no way he could make it those hills.

I assume you are willing to fund the worldwide bike lane construction project then, right? :-P

[DoubleDown]

Hopefully the Golden Rule applies to all. I don't want anyone riding my ass or driving unsafely whether I'm on a bike or driving a car. And I should assume a bike rider who is willing to ride down the center of the street going half the speed limit, conditions-and- everyone-else-be-damned, is not going to get the least bit bent out of shape if they had to ride for 10 miles behind a truck or tractor going no more than 4 mph, (completely legally) belching black smoke from its exhaust, and refusing to pull over for the parade of 200 cars and bikes stuck behind it. And remember, you can't pass it on your bike, you must go 4 mph behind it for the entire trip...

There is a third way, between having to take the middle of the lane or having to ride through a dangerous shoulder with broken glass: Safely stop, pull off for 30 secs allowing other to pass, then resume the ride. If you think a driver shouldn't be in such a hurry to get past you going 20 mph in a 45 mph zone, then why are you in such a hurry that you wouldn't sacrifice 30 seconds yourself to pull over?

[Captain and Mrs Slow]

More the thought that everyone complains that bikes don't belong on the sidewalk, a bike person collision is a lot less damaging than a bike SUV Kick Ass Truck.

[DoubleDown]

bikes belong on a dedicated bike lane next to the sidewalk. Why would someone put bikes and cars in the same area

Just about every day where I live I see cyclists riding uphill on the road with a long line of cars behind them, RIGHT NEXT TO THE WELL-MAINTAINED, DEDICATED BIKE PATH that parallels the road, separated by a sidewalk and grass median. And then they wonder why self-important car drivers have the nerve to get irritated with them and their rights to be on the road.

[Russ]

More the thought that everyone complains that bikes don't belong on the sidewalk, a bike person collision is a lot less damaging than a bike SUV Kick Ass Truck.

Since you seem to be familiar with everyone "complaining" how bikes don't belong on the sidewalk I'll spare you details, but as a reminder riding on the sidewalk makes bike-SUV-Kickass Truck collisions much more probable than when riding on the road. That's the reason it's illegal most places in the US.

[dragoncar]

Whoo boy... I go away for one day...

It's clear that there wasn't room to pass withing the lane because the cyclist was riding in the center.

No, it's clear that there wasn't room to pass within the lane and it's clear the cyclist was riding either in the center or to the right of the center but not in the shoulder. Any other details are ones you made up based only on biases you brought into the conversation.

Where are you getting this from?  The only information given about the cyclist's position was the following:

Bicyclist stayed put like they owned the road (btw it was 45mph speed limit)

When you "own the road" you ride in the center of the lane.  It is completely reasonable to interpret this as the cyclist riding in the center.  Tooq does not mention whether it would be safe to pass if the cyclist pulled over to the side of the lane.

Yes, because all of us MMM readers drive giant F-250 trucks

Holy miss the point batman. Even a Town and Country is a little over 90 inches wide, and it's built on a car frame! That doesn't leave room for curb, debris, cyclist, 3 feet, Town and Country, and a margin between the car and the next lane in 12 feet.

Why on earth are you talking about giant trucks and minivans?  Tooq does not state the kind of car, and it is unlikely that an MMM reader would have a large vehicle.  It would likely be less than the (apparent) average of 72 inches.

(which apparently still leave room for sharing on a 12-foot lane, according to the linked image).

Correction: which clearly don't leave room for sharing, because the cyclist only has 5 inches instead of the statutory 36 inches if the truck is passing within the lane.

All I see in the image is two vehicles side by side in a lane, not overlapping.  I didn't see any reference to a 36 inch minimum in the image, but I'm happy to read a source if you have one.  Even assuming a 36 inch minimum, there are many cars small enough to pass safely.  Not sure what the F250 strawman has to do with anything, since we are discussing a specific situation encountered by one of our readers.

However, the linked image seems to make the point that cyclists are idiots for sharing the road with drivers.

i. Two sentences ago the linked image was "apparently" making the point that there was plenty of room. So which is it?
ii. "Sharing the road" and "sharing a lane with other drivers passing within the lane" are not the same.
iii. "Sharing the road" is reciprocal, and depends on the behavior of motorists as well as cyclists. It's not motorists' road to share or not with cyclists, it's everyone's road to share with everyone else.

"Sharing the road" refers to riding on the same roads as F250s.  Given the hyperbolic dangers cited in the image (which is not necessarily my perspective), it would be foolhardy to put oneself in that danger.

Apparently they do not have a steel cage

We've been over this already this week.

no fenders, balancing a single track vehicle, vulnerable to debris, pavement imperfections, and windblast, and are passed with the highest speed differentials.  If that's your argument for giving them the full lane, then that's my argument for why they should not be allowed in high speed traffic lanes at all.

Ignoring for a moment that half of your reasons make no sense... your argument that cyclists should not be allowed in high-speed traffic lanes, while nonsensical, at least starts from a basis of concern for cyclists' safety. So how do you then use that as an excuse to drive in an unsafe manner around cyclists? Doesn't that seem a little like psychosis to you?

Yeah, those "reasons" are cited verbatim from the image you linked to support your argument.  If they are "nonsensical" then maybe you should reconsider the sources you cite.  If they do make sense, then they do imply that it is crazy to go out there under such dangerous conditions.

There is no double standard here, by the way.  I would fully expect a car going 10-20 mph in a 35 or higher zone to pull over as a matter of courtesy

Sure, as would I. Again, there's the whole "compelling interest in immediate physical safety" thing I mentioned? That doesn't apply to the same degree for a sedan as it does for a bike.

Tooq made no indication that it would be unsafe for the cyclist to stop and pull over.  I'd like to give tooq the benefit of the doubt of being a reasonable person who would not wish the cyclist to risk safety.  Nevertheless, tooq's account makes it sound like the cyclist should have pulled over, at least as a matter of courtesy.

AND law

That's not the law. Consult, for example, the only posts anywhere on this forum in which anyone has quoted transportation law. They've all been me, they've all been the Ohio Revised Code, and not a one has supported the 'right' of impatient motorists to be yielded to by people in front of them.

Well as you can see above it seems likely to me that OH law would have required the cyclist to pull to the right side of the lane for same-lane passing (assuming of course that we aren't talking about a giant F250). 

However, I wonder if we are reading the same thread.  Much of this hubub started when I cited relevant California law as a solitary counterexample to Destron's claim that cyclists never have to pull over as a matter of law:

California Department of Motor Vehicles, CVC 21656, Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles[14]

(as discussed, in certain jurisdictions,

No jurisdictions were given but the state of Ohio, which is a counterexample and not a supporting point.

See above.  I cited California law early in the thread.

but I have no qualms saying that such conventions should be codified everywhere).

"I think X should be the law" is not equivalent to "the law is X". Democracy, people with opinions other than yours, yadda yadda...

Sure, what I can't have an opinion as to what the law should be?

Even if dragoncar isn't trolling on purpose, the fact that he's being rude and is holding is position and defending against the guy from the internet! so furiously just makes this whole discussion a dead-end.

It takes two sides to argue, always.  For every "guy from the internet" there is another "guy from the internet" arguing the opposite point.

You're right of course.  I just enjoy the occasional pointless argument.  I will agree that the name calling is over the line.

Which name calling is that?

I am enjoying the debate from the outside here, as I know for a fact that dragoncar is wrong in my State as well (being a lawyer that occasionally handles accident cases) I am enjoying watching him try to defend his position after being purposely rude (apparently he has no time for courtesy or waiting for cyclists, but plenty of time to respond endlessly to his defenseless position). 

I doubt I've discussed your state.  I do often wait for cyclists -- usually as a pedestrian who stays on the curb during a walk signal so that I don't get run down when they run red lights.  Which position is it that you think I hold?

[jp]

Which name calling is that?

This one: 

ven that that's exactly the opposite of what the image actually conveys, I think we should all just conclude that you're a dumbass and should STFU.

I doubt I've discussed your state.  I do often wait for cyclists -- usually as a pedestrian who stays on the curb during a walk signal so that I don't get run down when they run red lights.

Ah, so it is only courtesy that is too time consuming for you then.

Which position is it that you think I hold?

If you would stop changing your position, it would be easier to tell.  But as far as I can tell, your position was:

Yeah, and usually the rules for cars is if there are 5 cars behind you then you have to let them pass.

[dragoncar]

Which name calling is that?

This one: 

ven that that's exactly the opposite of what the image actually conveys, I think we should all just conclude that you're a dumbass and should STFU.

That wasn't me, although I agree it was uncalled for.

I doubt I've discussed your state.  I do often wait for cyclists -- usually as a pedestrian who stays on the curb during a walk signal so that I don't get run down when they run red lights.

Ah, so it is only courtesy that is too time consuming for you then.

Which discourtesy?  If you are referring to curtness, or succinctness, I believe there is a difference.

Which position is it that you think I hold?

If you would stop changing your position, it would be easier to tell.  But as far as I can tell, your position was:

Yeah, and usually the rules for cars is if there are 5 cars behind you then you have to let them pass.

[/quote]

Ok, I haven't changed that position.  That's usually the rule in CA (in my experience, as discussed above).  Apparently OH has a similar rule.  Sure, there may be states with no rules about slow moving vehicles ... I don't know.  Please enlighten us as to the rule in your state.

[capital]

There is no double standard here, by the way.  I would fully expect a car going 10-20 mph in a 35 or higher zone to pull over as a matter of courtesy AND law (as discussed, in certain jurisdictions, but I have no qualms saying that such conventions should be codified everywhere).  Would you let a bicycle on the freeway?  If not, why a 45 mph highway?

If you're an American, one of our most time-honored Constitutional rights, so uncontroversial that it wasn't even explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, is freedom of movement. Unfortunately, in most of the United States, the roads affording this freedom are ill-designed for anyone not in a private automobile. That doesn't mean the right is abrogated. When I lived in San Diego, riding my bicycle on Interstate 5 was part of my daily commute, as the area was built up in an era so car-centered that there are no practical alternate routes available (avoiding the interstate would have added at least 5 miles to my trip). As a result, Caltrans is obligated to open the freeway to bicycles. The same is true through Camp Pendleton, and in many areas throughout the country where there are no alternative routes to freeways.

Most roads in this country are designed with little provision for bicycle transportation. Bicyclists, especially commuters, use 65mph interstates, 45mph highways, and other similarly unpleasant roads because there are no alternative routes to take them where they are going, at least within a reasonable amount of time. In many cases, the arterial road that is the only route in and out of all-too-many neighborhoods in this country has at least a 45mph speed limit. Attempting to ban bicyclists from these roads violates their right of movement, and that's why it was never done, even in a country as insanely car-centered as this.

[jp]

That wasn't me, although I agree it was uncalled for.

I know it wasn't you, the comment was not directed at you.

Which discourtesy?  If you are referring to curtness, or succinctness, I believe there is a difference.

I was referring to this comment:

I don't always have time during the working day to add pleasantries when correcting inaccurate legal advice on the internet.

As if it is so time consuming to say, "I don't think that is the case, at least not from my understanding of the law in CA."  Which took me 5 seconds, as opposed the many minutes you have since spent defending.  I assume that if you have time to respond to all these comments, you have an extra 5 seconds to phrase your response in a more friendly way.  Maybe not.

Ok, I haven't changed that position.  That's usually the rule in CA (in my experience, as discussed above).  Apparently OH has a similar rule.  Sure, there may be states with no rules about slow moving vehicles ... I don't know.  Please enlighten us as to the rule in your state.

Well, you added that little qualifier of "In California" which is completely different than saying "usually" generally... which implies that the rule applies everywhere, not in one State only and even then under narrow circumstances.  I am not debating the rule with you, I really don't care if it is the rule or not.  I was just pointing out that I was enjoying the debate and I see that you have mutated your initially wide position and will probably continue to narrow the definition of "usually" until it means "almost never" (all while insisting that this was your position all along).

[kendallf]

http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2012/02/08

Lighten up, people.

[Khao]

http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2012/02/08

Lighten up, people.

Excellent

[dragoncar]

I know it wasn't you, the comment was not directed at you.

OK my bad.

I was referring to this comment:

I don't always have time during the working day to add pleasantries when correcting inaccurate legal advice on the internet.

As if it is so time consuming to say, "I don't think that is the case, at least not from my understanding of the law in CA."  Which took me 5 seconds, as opposed the many minutes you have since spent defending.  I assume that if you have time to respond to all these comments, you have an extra 5 seconds to phrase your response in a more friendly way.  Maybe not.

If you must know, I happened to be on a bus, on my way to a meeting, composing the response on my phone while my stop was coming up.  I basically had time to find a relevant counterexample and paste it.  I (perhaps mistakenly) didn't consider that more explanation or pleasantries would be necessary.  Surely you can see that not having time to do something on one day does not imply that I do not have time to do it another day.

Well, you added that little qualifier of "In California" which is completely different than saying "usually" generally... which implies that the rule applies everywhere, not in one State only and even then under narrow circumstances.  I am not debating the rule with you, I really don't care if it is the rule or not.  I was just pointing out that I was enjoying the debate and I see that you have mutated your initially wide position and will probably continue to narrow the definition of "usually" until it means "almost never" (all while insisting that this was your position all along).

By usually, I meant "commonly observed."  I don't think anyone really wants to quibble about dictionary definitions, but that's my subjective intent.  Whenever I've seen a long line of cars behind another car or bike, the rule would seem to apply.  And yes, both Destron and I are in California (Hell A. being a sarcastic twist on L.A. I presume).

We can always be more precise, or add qualifiers to everything we say.  Things that seem clear to one person may be totally different to another (see the discussion above regarding whether the cyclist in front of tooqk4u22 was in the center of the lane).  Some people don't seem to bother reading the entire thread for context, or the entirety of the links they cite.  That's fine, but then I don't see how it's trollish for me to then elaborate.  I usually (there's that word again) find people here well-reasoned, but there's always this aspect to life in forums:

[tooqk4u22]

Whoo boy... I go away for one day...

No kidding.   Grant was in a particuliarly snarky mood when responding to my post, maybe he was having a bad day, but he was focused on the technicality of law.

To be clear there was a shoulder that was clear of vehicles and debris for the foreseeable distance and to be honest if the bicyclist was in the center of the road I could have passed him on the right (obviously illegal, unsafe, and I wouldn't do it - but the should was that big).

Hopefully the Golden Rule applies to all. I don't want anyone riding my ass or driving unsafely whether I'm on a bike or driving a car. And I should assume a bike rider who is willing to ride down the center of the street going half the speed limit, conditions-and- everyone-else-be-damned, is not going to get the least bit bent out of shape if they had to ride for 10 miles behind a truck or tractor going no more than 4 mph, (completely legally) belching black smoke from its exhaust, and refusing to pull over for the parade of 200 cars and bikes stuck behind it. And remember, you can't pass it on your bike, you must go 4 mph behind it for the entire trip...

There is a third way, between having to take the middle of the lane or having to ride through a dangerous shoulder with broken glass: Safely stop, pull off for 30 secs allowing other to pass, then resume the ride. If you think a driver shouldn't be in such a hurry to get past you going 20 mph in a 45 mph zone, then why are you in such a hurry that you wouldn't sacrifice 30 seconds yourself to pull over?

DoubleDown nails it for me - if it were me on the bike I would have gone in the shoulder or pulled over if cars backed up to much.  Its a courtesy thing, unfortunately Grant takes the position of righteousness that this single biker apparently did and to me that is indecent.  What if I am driving and I see a large puddle in the road with a biker/pedestrian next to it - legally I can go through the puddle and soak them and be well within the legal view but it would be grossly indecent thing to do.  Is it too much to ask for common courtesy.

Plus as biker why in the world would you want to open yourself up to the vast world of idiots that are easily open to road rage.  Being defensive is also important - when a crosswalk says to walk I don't blindly walk forward without looking both ways - maybe some people like Grant do cause the law says you can - I don't know, not wise to me though.

[destron]

I think we can all agree that this discussion is not really constructive anymore at this point! We have discovered that bicycle laws are different in different states (shocking!) and that, in CA, a bicycle has to pull over to let people pass when the following conditions are met:

* There are five or more cars behind it
* You are on a two lane road
* There is too much traffic in the opposing direction to safely pass
* There is a safe place for the bicyclist to pull over

But that in OH (and some other states) there is no requirement to do so.

[tooqk4u22]

I think we can all agree that this discussion is not really constructive anymore at this point! We have discovered that bicycle laws are different in different states (shocking!) and that, in CA, a bicycle has to pull over to let people pass when the following conditions are met:

* There are five or more cars behind it
* You are on a two lane road
* There is too much traffic in the opposing direction to safely pass
* There is a safe place for the bicyclist to pull over

But that in OH (and some other states) there is no requirement to do so.

The CA rules actually sound sensical, which is strange coming out CA,  - although Grant might take liberty with the 4th bullet and say that biker might never feel safe pulling over so therefore the biker is within their right to stay in the lane and let traffic back up forever.

[skyrefuge]

I'm imagining a line of 4 cars heading up a mountain, full of fuming drivers who have been stuck behind an 8mph cyclist for 3 miles. In his rearview mirror, the 4th driver spots a car approaching in the distance. "Yes! Finally! As soon as he catches up with us, we will be 5, and they cyclist will have to pull over!!" But, just before the 5th car joins the pack, car #2 turns off onto a side-road to his ranch, and the pack remains at 4.   "FFFFFFUUUUUUCCCKKK!!!!!"

If only they had been in Idaho, where the law says they only need 3 cars.  (see, those Californians ARE A bunch of hippie liberals after all!)

I also imagine all cyclists in California with giant 8-foot-wide outrigger mirrors somehow attached to their bicycles, so that they can properly see past the RV directly behind them and allow them to keep an exact count of the total number of cars trailing them. I bet they can't even sell bicycles in California without such mirrors, because otherwise it would be impossible for cyclists to follow the law.

Anyhow, it's pretty obvious to me that the CA law was written with mountain roads in mind, particularly those which have signed turnoff areas every mile or so. Having just ridden my bicycle over 1000 miles over the length of California's mountains, it seems the law at hand is so rarely applicable for bicycles that it's not even worth talking about. There were plenty of turnouts where I stopped regardless of traffic, just because I'd been climbing a mountain and it was a nice spot to take a break. When going uphill, and not otherwise having a reason to stop, a cyclist can simply slide over into the turnout area, keep riding at his slow pace, and most of the time the line of cars will have gone by before the cyclist reaches the end of the turnout. Only one or two times do I remember pulling over at a turnout and *stopping* where I otherwise would not have stopped. Those were on downhills, to let a demonic logging truck by, even though I actually was not a "slow moving vehicle" in those cases. 

But otherwise, if the road has no shoulder, it probably also doesn't have safe stopping areas even for a bicycle between turnouts, so I would have been fully within the law to grind up the mountain at 4mph with 100 cars behind me for 15 minutes until I got to the next designated turnout a mile later. Of course, that never happened, because it's a made-up situation that never happens, except in the imaginations of people making silly Internet arguments.

tooqk and DoubleDown, how about Google Maps/Streetview links to the areas where you were frustrated by cyclists? It's always useful for people to see the actual setups that someone else is talking about, because often it's a situation entirely outside their personal traffic environment.

[DoubleDown]

tooqk and DoubleDown, how about Google Maps/Streetview links to the areas where you were frustrated by cyclists?

Hey thanks for asking! Here's one example of an area that frustrates motorists, rightfully so IMHO. I often bike this part of the W&OD trail, visible to the left. It's a dedicated, two-way bike/jogging trail that goes for about 40 miles. You see cyclists all the time riding up the middle of the road here, with cars piling up behind them (no passing allowed, no shoulder, double yellow line). So why the f*** are the cyclists not utilizing the perfectly suitable and well-maintained bike path, dedicated for their use, in the left of the picture?!! I use it. They deserve the obscenities screamed at them ;-)

I could have picked out one thousand similar bike paths in our area where selfish cyclists will instead take up the road.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.890039,-77.207505&spn=0.001428,0.001816&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.890027,-77.207906&panoid=XvxKFaZ2VF3x9bEawtFN2A&cbp=12,254.88,,0,21.44

[jpo]

Hey thanks for asking! Here's one example of an area that frustrates motorists, rightfully so IMHO. I often bike this part of the W&OD trail, visible to the left. It's a dedicated, two-way bike/jogging trail that goes for about 40 miles. You see cyclists all the time riding up the middle of the road here, with cars piling up behind them (no passing allowed, no shoulder, double yellow line). So why the f*** are the cyclists not utilizing the perfectly suitable and well-maintained bike path, dedicated for their use, in the left of the picture?!! I use it. They deserve the obscenities screamed at them ;-)

I could have picked out one thousand similar bike paths in our area where selfish cyclists will instead take up the road.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.890039,-77.207505&spn=0.001428,0.001816&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.890027,-77.207906&panoid=XvxKFaZ2VF3x9bEawtFN2A&cbp=12,254.88,,0,21.44

I would imagine it's the possible danger of a driver pulling into a driveway without checking the bike path ("right hook"). That section of the bike path seems like a glorified sidewalk.

[GuitarStv]

tooqk and DoubleDown, how about Google Maps/Streetview links to the areas where you were frustrated by cyclists?

Hey thanks for asking! Here's one example of an area that frustrates motorists, rightfully so IMHO. I often bike this part of the W&OD trail, visible to the left. It's a dedicated, two-way bike/jogging trail that goes for about 40 miles. You see cyclists all the time riding up the middle of the road here, with cars piling up behind them (no passing allowed, no shoulder, double yellow line). So why the f*** are the cyclists not utilizing the perfectly suitable and well-maintained bike path, dedicated for their use, in the left of the picture?!! I use it. They deserve the obscenities screamed at them ;-)

I could have picked out one thousand similar bike paths in our area where selfish cyclists will instead take up the road.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.890039,-77.207505&spn=0.001428,0.001816&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.890027,-77.207906&panoid=XvxKFaZ2VF3x9bEawtFN2A&cbp=12,254.88,,0,21.44

That's a very dangerous section of bike/jogging path due to the multiple driveways that intersect it.  Going at a good clip along there, you are effectively invisible to anyone backing out/into a driveway.  Very likely to have an accident.  Going east, I would only get on the bike path around Shreve Rd once past all the houses - for safety's sake.  As a matter of fact, the bike lane terminates into a sidewalk just a block or so West from the point you provided . . . which means that you would have to dismount your bike, cross the street, and then continue biking on the street on the two lane Virginia lane ANYWAY.

It really looks like they put in a 'bike path' in place of a sidewalk there, without proper consideration for usage of that bike path.  As it stands there, that path is not a safe place to ride.

[skyrefuge]

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.890039,-77.207505&spn=0.001428,0.001816&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.890027,-77.207906&panoid=XvxKFaZ2VF3x9bEawtFN2A&cbp=12,254.88,,0,21.44

Thanks. I agree with the others that that's a very dangerous section of bike path to be riding on, so it makes total sense to me that you would see cyclists using the road there. It's also telling that the short driveway/intersection-filled segment is the exact area you were thinking of (rather than the much longer sections of uninterrupted bike path on either side of that segment), so that's a hint to me that cyclists use the path in general, except in brief sections where they determine that it's safer to be in the road.

It's hard to say what I would do in that situation. I'm pretty sure I would *not* ride on the path there, because it would feel so unsafe to me, but on the other hand, I also don't like being that asshole cyclist (especially when I know the drivers will be fuming to themselves "BUT THERE'S A PATH RIGHT THERE!!!"). It's only a 500 yard section between where the path crosses Virginia and when it turns off it, so depending on how much traffic actually uses the road, I might feel comfortable blasting through that section on the road at 20mph and taking the lane. But if I felt like I was always creating a line of pissed-off drivers behind me, I might find a totally different route.

It looks like that section of path was created as an unfortunate link required to complete this long-distance off-street bike path. The other sections make a lot more sense, following an old railroad line, which means there aren't many crossings. But this segment deviates from the railroad line because they need a way to get cyclists across I-66, and the rail line doesn't have its own bridge (the rail line and I-66 must have never co-existed, or they demolished the rail bridge when building I-66). I guess the designers chose to accept a crappy link rather than no link at all, which is an understandable decision since it's such a short segment. 3-foot-wide on-road bike lanes on both sides of the road going in the direction of traffic would have been a much better solution there but maybe that wasn't in the budget.

Hopefully that perspective helps you at least realize that the cyclists likely have *some* reason for avoiding the path, and they aren't doing it just to piss you off!

[Spork]

I really REALLY don't want to stir crap up.  I'm cyclist friendly.  Really.  I promise.

That said, it sounds odd that no one wants do cycle on a 500 yd section of path because they'd have to slow down and be careful to watch for cars that are hard to see.  All the while, the auto drivers are complaining that they have to slow down and be careful for slow cyclists that are hard to see.

I feel like both sides are making the same arguments here and both thinking the other side is WRONGEDYWRONGWRONG.

Casual observation... moving along now.

[GuitarStv]

I really REALLY don't want to stir crap up.  I'm cyclist friendly.  Really.  I promise.

That said, it sounds odd that no one wants do cycle on a 500 yd section of path because they'd have to slow down and be careful to watch for cars that are hard to see.  All the while, the auto drivers are complaining that they have to slow down and be careful for slow cyclists that are hard to see.

I feel like both sides are making the same arguments here and both thinking the other side is WRONGEDYWRONGWRONG.

Casual observation... moving along now.

Legally I can bike on the road or the bike path.  I pick the safer route.  Picking the safer route benefits cars and bikes equally. . . nobody wants to get into an accident.  I don't mind slowing down to be safer when biking, but I would have to dismount my bike and walk it to be going slow enough to safely avoid cars backing out at all of those driveways.  That effectively makes the 'bike path' a sidewalk, with the same inherent dangers that a sidewalk has.  There's a reason it's illegal to bike on a sidewalk - it's dangerous for bikers and causes more accidents for cars.

[Spork]

I really REALLY don't want to stir crap up.  I'm cyclist friendly.  Really.  I promise.

That said, it sounds odd that no one wants do cycle on a 500 yd section of path because they'd have to slow down and be careful to watch for cars that are hard to see.  All the while, the auto drivers are complaining that they have to slow down and be careful for slow cyclists that are hard to see.

I feel like both sides are making the same arguments here and both thinking the other side is WRONGEDYWRONGWRONG.

Casual observation... moving along now.

Legally I can bike on the road or the bike path.  I pick the safer route.  Picking the safer route benefits cars and bikes equally. . . nobody wants to get into an accident.  I don't mind slowing down to be safer when biking, but I would have to dismount my bike and walk it to be going slow enough to safely avoid cars backing out at all of those driveways.  That effectively makes the 'bike path' a sidewalk, with the same inherent dangers that a sidewalk has.  There's a reason it's illegal to bike on a sidewalk - it's dangerous for bikers and causes more accidents for cars.

I'm not going to argue with you... I have no real dog in this fight.  But I've heard cyclists complain about pedestrians/skaters/etc on bike paths with the exact same arguments as the drivers on the roads.  Yes, the cyclist is legal in both places.  Yes, you might have to walk a bike on that sidewalk, just like a car might have to slow down to 15mph on a road.   I was just trying to add perspective.  Both sides need to get over themselves.

[DoubleDown]

Hopefully that perspective helps you at least realize that the cyclists likely have *some* reason for avoiding the path, and they aren't doing it just to piss you off!

Can't let this thread die yet!! ;-)

To be clear, I do bike on that section of the path, so I understand the cyclist perspective. It's not evident from Google Maps, but there is a steep incline there, which is why I chose it as an example. I've never seen a cyclist able to go faster than maybe 8 mph up that hill, even the hardcore ones. That's why I don't ride on the street uphill there. I think to do so is pretty selfish given the adjacent bike path. It's easy to avoid hazards like a car exiting the driveway when biking 7-8 mph uphill. And to be clear, there are driveways and hazards on the street to the right, just like the bike path on the left.

But I can't fault your perspective or tolerance for hazard as you see it. I just wouldn't be surprised as a cyclist if a motorist was pissed off in this situation. And I do get frustrated when I'm a motorist there and a cyclist is taking up the road going uphill.