Bad bicycle reporting on Channel 5 in Kansas City

[bhugh@mwsc.edu]

Bicyclists,

A TV news story has been making the rounds of cycling email groups in
Missouri & Kansas. The basic situation is that a pair of cyclists were
riding abreast on Blue River Road. This road runs right through Kansas
City, Missouri, along the (you guessed it!) Blue River. It's a
two-lane road that generally has a rural feel to it, with relatively
low traffic most times of the day--maybe about 500-1000 average daily
traffic.

The bicyclists were riding abreast around a curve. They said they
heard the driver approach from the rear and honk. They didn't even
have time to single up when he started to pass. The cyclists say that
as he came beside them he suddenly swerved over, hit the outside rider
with his mirror, causing both to run off the road and crash. (They
were not injured too seriously.)

Of course, the driver has a different story.

I won't comment on whose story I believe. I will encapsulate my
viewpoint on the matter by saying that it is both polite and legally
required to single up when a car approaches to pass. Yet failure to do
so does not give the motorist carte blanche to go into attack mode--or
even "must pass no matter how stupid and dangerous" mode.

But what is notable is how really, really bad the TV reporting is. It
implies the bicyclists are not allowed in the "traffic lane", they
should always ride on the shoulder (in this case a dinky little thing
about 6-12 inches wide), that the cyclists were at fault for riding
abreast whereas the motorist was not at fault at all, and so on.

Worse yet is that much of the misinformation seems to have come from
the police.

See the story (text and video) at:

http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=2965878&nav=1PuZWWjV

Note that the text is a summary--the video has quite a lot more
details.

Local cyclists are planning to contact the TV station and the police to
try to educate them a little.

But if you should feel inclined to politely express your opinion about
this piece of reporting, here is how:

KCTV5
P.O. Box 5555
Kansas City, MO 64109

KCTV5 news email:
KCTV5 news fax: 913-677-7243
KCTV5 news phone: 913-677-7211

For reference, Missouri bicycle laws, and links to Missouri traffic
laws, can be found here:

http://mobikefed.org/statutes.html

--Brent
brent [at] brenthugh.com

[bhugh@mwsc.edu]

> See the story (text and video) at:
> http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=2965878&nav=1PuZWWjV

I can't resist adding just one juicy quote from the story:

"Police say technically it was the *cyclists* who broke the law here
today because by riding two abreast with very little shoulder they were
in the traffic lane, that traffic lane belonging to the car, they say.
In the end, though, they didn't cite anyone."

So if you're riding two abreast in a lane and a motorist hits you, it's
all your fault.

Because the traffic lane belongs to the car.

See?

?!?

--Brent
brent [at] brenthugh.com

[psycholist]

Wow,

I hope the education program is successful. Y'all should press for the
station to make amends by retracting some of those comments, specifically,
and by having a "cyclists right" segment on one or more of their broadcasts.

That is, off course, if you can come up with the appropriate statutes to
prove that they're wrong. In my state, they're wrong. Don't know if that
holds for every state.

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

[Arthur Harris]

"psycholist" wrote:

> I hope the education program is successful. Y'all should press for the
> station to make amends by retracting some of those comments, specifically,
> and by having a "cyclists right" segment on one or more of their
> broadcasts.
>
> That is, off course, if you can come up with the appropriate statutes to
> prove that they're wrong. In my state, they're wrong. Don't know if that
> holds for every state.

This may not be the best case to make an issue of. In many (most?) states,
cyclists are required to ride single file when being passed. On a quiet
country road (which this apparently was), you can usually hear a car
approaching from a pretty good distance.

The motorist says he slowed down, honked, waited for them to get out of the
way and swerved when they didn't, but the sideview mirror on his vehicle
clipped one of their handlebars. The cyclists claim he swerved into them
intentionally. I suspect the truth is somewhere between those two extremes.

Now, certainly the driver saw the cyclists if he honked, and he is at fault
for hitting them. And certainly there are situations where cyclists have a
right to be "in the traffic lane." But I'm not convinced from what I read
that the cyclists really tried to single up.

The article DOES NOT say cyclists are never allowed in the traffic lane.

It says, "Technically the bicyclists were at fault because they weren't
supposed to ride two abreast on such a narrow shoulder." I would have
phrased it slightly differently: Technically, the bicyclists were partially
at fault because they were riding two abreast in the traffic lane while
being passed.

Art Harris

[Chris Neary]

>This may not be the best case to make an issue of. In many (most?) states,
>cyclists are required to ride single file when being passed. On a quiet
>country road (which this apparently was), you can usually hear a car
>approaching from a pretty good distance.

I'd like to see some citations of the code sections which might be
applicable in this case. In my scan of what I believe is the VC for Missouri
(http://www.moga.mo.gov/STATUTES/STATUTES.HTM) I can find no mention of the
typical "bicyclist must ride single file except when passing" language.

Equally surprising, the Online version of Missouri Drivers Guide makes no
mention of this either (http://www.dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/dlguide/)

So at this point, I can't verify that the cyclists were at fault in any
manner....at least in Missouri.


Chris Neary


"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

[Rich]

Chris Neary wrote:

> Equally surprising, the Online version of Missouri Drivers Guide makes no
> mention of this either (http://www.dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/dlguide/)

From that link:

"WHERE TO RIDE MOPEDS AND BICYCLES

On public streets and highways, you have the same rights and
responsibilities as a motor vehicle operator. Always ride with traffic,
never against it. When operating at less than the posted speed or
traffic flow, generally ride as near to the right side of the roadway as
safe."

If they were two abreast, one was NOT riding as near to the right side
of the roadway as safe.

Rich

[Chris Neary]

>> Equally surprising, the Online version of Missouri Drivers Guide makes no
>> mention of this either (http://www.dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/dlguide/)
>
> From that link:
>
>"WHERE TO RIDE MOPEDS AND BICYCLES
>
>On public streets and highways, you have the same rights and
>responsibilities as a motor vehicle operator. Always ride with traffic,
>never against it. When operating at less than the posted speed or
>traffic flow, generally ride as near to the right side of the roadway as
>safe."
>
>If they were two abreast, one was NOT riding as near to the right side
>of the roadway as safe.

Thanks for the ref, my brain must have zoned out when originally reading the
page.

Actually, the initial post contains a link with VC references:
http://mobikefed.org/files/biketips_bikelaws.pdf

VC section 307.190 is the relevant cite. Note that riding two abreast is
specifically permitted in Missouri "when not impeding other vehicles".

Based on the accounts in news article, the riders were not at fault for
riding two abreast, but would be at fault for not "singling up" once they
were aware a vehicle was behind them.

The vehicle would be at fault for unsafe passing.


Chris Neary


"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

[jj]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:36:45 -0800, Chris Neary >
wrote:

>>> Equally surprising, the Online version of Missouri Drivers Guide makes no
>>> mention of this either (http://www.dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/dlguide/)
>>
>> From that link:
>>
>>"WHERE TO RIDE MOPEDS AND BICYCLES
>>
>>On public streets and highways, you have the same rights and
>>responsibilities as a motor vehicle operator. Always ride with traffic,
>>never against it. When operating at less than the posted speed or
>>traffic flow, generally ride as near to the right side of the roadway as
>>safe."
>>
>>If they were two abreast, one was NOT riding as near to the right side
>>of the roadway as safe.
>
>Thanks for the ref, my brain must have zoned out when originally reading the
>page.
>
>Actually, the initial post contains a link with VC references:
>http://mobikefed.org/files/biketips_bikelaws.pdf
>
>VC section 307.190 is the relevant cite. Note that riding two abreast is
>specifically permitted in Missouri "when not impeding other vehicles".
>
>Based on the accounts in news article, the riders were not at fault for
>riding two abreast, but would be at fault for not "singling up" once they
>were aware a vehicle was behind them.

What's interesting to me is that there's no provision for how long the
riders have to 'single up'. If you take two relatively uncoordinated riders
who have not to this point practiced this, it could take quite a while.

First one rider has to be aware of the vehicle, then the other rider, then
they have to communicate to each other there's a car there. Then they have
to ascertain if it's safe for the car to pass so as not to be squeezed off
the road should the driver passing encounter a car coming the other way
around the bend.

Finally they have to decide who is going to speed up and who is going to
slow down and get behind. Allowing for a couple brief mistakes in who goes
behind whom and you have nearly 15-20 seconds, or more. Obviously a
well-coordinated team of riders could single up in 3-5 seconds after
sensing a car following, and a responsible team, both having mirrors would
be able to anticipate the car coming up from quite a way.

However, to my knowledge the law does not address this. In fact, in
allowing the two abreast riding, this allows for two cyclists to be almost
totally oblivious to what's behind them - there's no requirement for
cyclists to have mirrors to my knowledge - making it completely the
driver's responsibility to signal without causing undue alarm to the riders
and then pass when it's safe. (now having said this it's pretty obvious
that cyclists being aware of their vulnerablility would take steps to
anticipate and practice these maneuvers but this is not, to my knowledge,
part of the law).

So it seems to me that it's almost a given drivers are going to be
significantly delayed in passing two unaware, uncoordinated cyclists.
Obviously the people who wrote the law had to realize that once they allow
two-abreast riding they've got to take into account not the
well-coordinated team, but the least possible coordinated team.

So how do you judge when the riders are 'at fault' for not singling up.
Perhaps they just took too long for this impatient driver. In that case the
burden for passing safely has to be on the larger faster vehicle - yes even
if it takes a minute to get coordinated and allow a safe pass.

>The vehicle would be at fault for unsafe passing.

In addition what about the law about hitting someone from behind? Clearly
if you're passing another car and clip them in passing, you have hit them
from behind and thus have failed to pass safely. I think the driver should
also be cited for reckless driving - sounds like he was trying to 'scare'
the cyclists.

jj

>
>Chris Neary

>
>"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
>you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
>loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

[Rich]

jj wrote:

> So it seems to me that it's almost a given drivers are going to be
> significantly delayed in passing two unaware, uncoordinated cyclists.

If the cyclists can't handle the responsibility of verifying they aren't
impeding traffic, then they shouldn't be riding two abreast.

And while there's no law saying they need mirrors, there's no law agaist
them getting mirrors. And if that's what it takes for them to not
impeed the flow of traffic, then that's what they need to do.


> So how do you judge when the riders are 'at fault' for not singling up.

Seems pretty easy to me. If they impeed the flow of traffic, they're at
fault.

Rich

[Chris Neary]

>>VC section 307.190 is the relevant cite. Note that riding two abreast is
>>specifically permitted in Missouri "when not impeding other vehicles".
>>
>>Based on the accounts in news article, the riders were not at fault for
>>riding two abreast, but would be at fault for not "singling up" once they
>>were aware a vehicle was behind them.
>
>What's interesting to me is that there's no provision for how long the
>riders have to 'single up'. If you take two relatively uncoordinated riders
>who have not to this point practiced this, it could take quite a while.

It can be argued that under some conditions, the riders are *never* required
to "single up". VC 307.190 states that the rider shall exercise "due care
.... when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle".

I read this to mean that if the lane is too narrow to share, you may "take
the lane" and overtaking traffic must wait until it is safe to move into the
other lane and pass.

Did the road conditions in this incident meet this criteria? I don't know.


>So it seems to me that it's almost a given drivers are going to be
>significantly delayed in passing two unaware, uncoordinated cyclists.
>Obviously the people who wrote the law had to realize that once they allow
>two-abreast riding they've got to take into account not the
>well-coordinated team, but the least possible coordinated team.

In my personal experience, I try to keep the big perspective. I can't
remember the last time I was delayed by a cyclist, "significantly" or
otherwise (and I live in a cycling hotspot). But I am delayed
"significantly" by motor vehicles on a daily basis.

>So how do you judge when the riders are 'at fault' for not singling up.
>Perhaps they just took too long for this impatient driver. In that case the
>burden for passing safely has to be on the larger faster vehicle - yes even
>if it takes a minute to get coordinated and allow a safe pass.

Agreed, You cannot be "forced" into performing an unsafe pass.



Chris Neary


"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

[Arthur Harris]

"jj" wrote:

> What's interesting to me is that there's no provision for how long the
> riders have to 'single up'. If you take two relatively uncoordinated
> riders
> who have not to this point practiced this, it could take quite a while.

I think you have to take into account the type of road, speed limit, and
traffic volume. If you're being passed every 20-30 seconds by 50 mph
traffic, it's probably better to just ride single file. You're right that
the law doesn't spell that out. It's more of a common sense thing.

After viewing the video of the road in question, it seems to have more
traffic than I expected based on the OPs description. It's not exactly a
quiet country lane!

> So how do you judge when the riders are 'at fault' for not singling up.
> Perhaps they just took too long for this impatient driver. In that case
> the
> burden for passing safely has to be on the larger faster vehicle - yes
> even
> if it takes a minute to get coordinated and allow a safe pass.

The two cyclists in the video claim to have over 20 years of riding
experience. I can't imagine a situation where it would take more than a
couple of seconds for two riders to single up.

>>The vehicle would be at fault for unsafe passing.
>
> In addition what about the law about hitting someone from behind? Clearly
> if you're passing another car and clip them in passing, you have hit them
> from behind and thus have failed to pass safely. I think the driver should
> also be cited for reckless driving - sounds like he was trying to 'scare'
> the cyclists.

I wouldn't doubt it. If I had to guess I'd say the two cyclists were
ignoring the horn honking motorist, expecting him to go around them (into
the other lane). The motorist got angry and decided to pass as close as
possible. He misjudged and brushed one of the cyclists. If so, both would be
partially to blame, but obviously the cyclists were more vulnerable. Draw
your own conclusions.

Art Harris

[Arthur Harris]

"Chris Neary" wrote:
> It can be argued that under some conditions, the riders are *never*
> required
> to "single up". VC 307.190 states that the rider shall exercise "due care
> ... when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle".
>
> I read this to mean that if the lane is too narrow to share, you may "take
> the lane" and overtaking traffic must wait until it is safe to move into
> the
> other lane and pass.

I'm not shy about "taking the lane" when conditions dictate. But it seems
contradictory to be riding two abreast under those conditions.

That's one area where motorists really need to be educated. They just don't
understand what's going on when you take the lane. They think you're just
trying to impede them for the fun of it.

In the interview, the cyclists never claimed the road was too narrow. Their
defense was just that they didn't have enough time to single up. As someone
else pointed out here, if you're going to ride two abreast, the burden is on
you to know when traffic is approaching.

Art Harris

[jj]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:59:01 -0700, Rich > wrote:

>jj wrote:
>
>> So it seems to me that it's almost a given drivers are going to be
>> significantly delayed in passing two unaware, uncoordinated cyclists.
>
>If the cyclists can't handle the responsibility of verifying they aren't
>impeding traffic, then they shouldn't be riding two abreast.

Yes but note the law says nothing about skill. It could just as easily be
two 14 y.o. kids. The law allows them to ride two abreast and therefore
it's the driver's responsibility to take the safest course.

>And while there's no law saying they need mirrors, there's no law agaist
>them getting mirrors. And if that's what it takes for them to not
>impeed the flow of traffic, then that's what they need to do.

Somewhat playing the devil's advocate, the riders may be somewhat
incompetent, and slightly less than optimally prepared. They may in fact
think they are not impeding traffic and might in fact be incorrect. It's
still the responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to take the safest
course. The driver has to proceed with the utmost caution, know how
vulnerable the biker is, knowing that the chain could come off, knowing
that there could be a momentary mis-communication between the two riders,
yada, yada.

In any venue I've ever seen the faster larger vehicle has to be the one
taking the most precaution. Sure, it would be great in a perfect world for
every rider to be optimally prepared, and to practice singling up, but it's
not going to happen.

I admit to be slighly surprised that the lawmakers would enact this kind of
law given all the inherent problems. I mean saying that riders have to
single up doesn't make it happen magically. It takes time, skill, intent
and practice and the bike has to be in good mechanical condition. But it
ain't happening that way in the real world. To me it's an invitation to
disaster to allow it in the first place. I'm certainly not advocating
hiding behind a bad law, and being incompetent. Mostly I'm just pondering
the situation.

>> So how do you judge when the riders are 'at fault' for not singling up.
>
>Seems pretty easy to me. If they impeed the flow of traffic, they're at
>fault.

Not easy at all. What if one of the riders has a momentary mechanical
problem, or is having a bit of trouble singling up? Should they be run
down? If a pedestrian is crossing against the traffic does it give drivers
the right to run them down, or to play chicken with them with their
vehicle? I think not.

jj

>Rich

[jj]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:05:42 -0500, "Arthur Harris" >
wrote:

>"jj" wrote:
>
>> What's interesting to me is that there's no provision for how long the
>> riders have to 'single up'. If you take two relatively uncoordinated
>> riders
>> who have not to this point practiced this, it could take quite a while.
>
>I think you have to take into account the type of road, speed limit, and
>traffic volume. If you're being passed every 20-30 seconds by 50 mph
>traffic, it's probably better to just ride single file. You're right that
>the law doesn't spell that out. It's more of a common sense thing.

Oh for sure. I'm just trying to think about the ramifications of having
such a law and the problems coping with it in an imperfect world.

>After viewing the video of the road in question, it seems to have more
>traffic than I expected based on the OPs description. It's not exactly a
>quiet country lane!
>
>> So how do you judge when the riders are 'at fault' for not singling up.
>> Perhaps they just took too long for this impatient driver. In that case
>> the burden for passing safely has to be on the larger faster vehicle -
>> yes even if it takes a minute to get coordinated and allow a safe pass.
>
>The two cyclists in the video claim to have over 20 years of riding
>experience. I can't imagine a situation where it would take more than a
>couple of seconds for two riders to single up.

I can imagine several problems as I said. Momentary mis-communication,
slight mechanical problem, foot comes unclipped, chain comes off, gear
shifted the wrong way in the heat of the moment.

>>>The vehicle would be at fault for unsafe passing.
>>
>> In addition what about the law about hitting someone from behind? Clearly
>> if you're passing another car and clip them in passing, you have hit them
>> from behind and thus have failed to pass safely. I think the driver should
>> also be cited for reckless driving - sounds like he was trying to 'scare'
>> the cyclists.
>
>I wouldn't doubt it. If I had to guess I'd say the two cyclists were
>ignoring the horn honking motorist, expecting him to go around them

Are there any laws about deaf riders? Perhaps the cyclists couldn't even
hear the driver. Doesn't give him any additional rights, or require any
less caution. Sure it's probably stretching it to postulate this. But in
fact the more obtuse the cyclists seemed the more carefully the driver
should have reacted. Hah, I can hear Judge Judy now. "ok, sir since the
cyclists weren't reacting to or didn't seem to be able to hear your honking
did it give you the right to try and run them over?" ;-p

>(into the other lane). The motorist got angry and decided to pass as close as
>possible. He misjudged and brushed one of the cyclists. If so, both would be
>partially to blame, but obviously the cyclists were more vulnerable. Draw
>your own conclusions.

Again, if you are trying to cycle past two pedestrians on a Multi-use trail
and they fail to move over after several polite requests, and you clip one
of them and the bike cop sees you, -you- are going to be cited. It matters
not which of any of a dozen reasons the bikers or pedestrians fail to
immediately comply - if you are the faster vehicle -and- overtaking from
behind -you- are normally the responsible party in my experience.

There is no 'right' to go ahead of the other person at the expense of their
safety that I'm aware. I mean sure it ticks me off when pedestrians on the
trail wear headphones and seemingly ignore requests to pass, and sure I'd
like to give them a swift kick in the behind, but it's not gonna help
matters and their being an ass doesn't allow me to harm them.

jj

>Art Harris
>

[jj]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:23:17 -0500, "Arthur Harris" >
wrote:

>"Chris Neary" wrote:
>> It can be argued that under some conditions, the riders are *never*
>> required
>> to "single up". VC 307.190 states that the rider shall exercise "due care
>> ... when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle".
>>
>> I read this to mean that if the lane is too narrow to share, you may "take
>> the lane" and overtaking traffic must wait until it is safe to move into
>> the other lane and pass.
>
>I'm not shy about "taking the lane" when conditions dictate. But it seems
>contradictory to be riding two abreast under those conditions.

According to my reading the law allow riding two abreast and says when they
should single up, but doesn't say anything about type of road where it's
allowed or not allowed. It may be that for the moment it appeared safe and
then perhaps wasn't as safe.

>That's one area where motorists really need to be educated. They just don't
>understand what's going on when you take the lane. They think you're just
>trying to impede them for the fun of it.

Exactly. Every driver, imo, should react to any cyclists as though it's
their child on the bike ahead and behave accordingly. Unfortunately they
all too frequently take out their frustrations of the day on the most
vulnerable target, then lie to get out of any problems their bad attitude
takes.

>In the interview, the cyclists never claimed the road was too narrow. Their
>defense was just that they didn't have enough time to single up. As someone
>else pointed out here, if you're going to ride two abreast, the burden is on
>you to know when traffic is approaching.
>
>Art Harris

I'd have to quibble with your last statement, Art. Where do you derive that
"the burden is on you to know when traffic is approaching"? If the law
allows riding two abreast then it has to allow for significant time to
single up, including problems, road conditions, and communication. I'm sure
you've encounter many situations where you had to hold your line for a
short period. Could be bad pavement, could be slick paint on a wet stretch
of pavement, could be there's an approaching vehicle and it's not safe to
pass. In that case both cyclists should be allowed to ride in the
right-hand tire track until they can safely relinquish the lane and avoid
being 'squeezed'.

I mean it might be common sense to know when traffic is approaching, but
there's no legal precedent for having to be aware of traffic moving up from
behind unless you're doing something like changing lanes. The
responsibility is with the overtaking driver. It's just not defensible for
the overtaking vehicle to hit anyone and claim it's partly their fault
unless the cyclist made a sudden erratic movement or something like that.

jj

[Rich]

jj wrote:

> Somewhat playing the devil's advocate, the riders may be somewhat
> incompetent, and slightly less than optimally prepared. They may in fact
> think they are not impeding traffic and might in fact be incorrect.

If they're impeeding traffic, then they're at fault. If someone has
slow reflexes, that does not give them the right to run through a light
that just turned red. Lacking the skills to obey a law (or being
ignorant of the law), will not stand up as a defense in court.

Rich

[jj]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:26:52 -0700, Rich > wrote:

>jj wrote:
>
>> Somewhat playing the devil's advocate, the riders may be somewhat
>> incompetent, and slightly less than optimally prepared. They may in fact
>> think they are not impeding traffic and might in fact be incorrect.
>
>If they're impeeding traffic, then they're at fault. If someone has
>slow reflexes, that does not give them the right to run through a light
>that just turned red. Lacking the skills to obey a law (or being
>ignorant of the law), will not stand up as a defense in court.
>
>Rich

That is more cut and dried. Actually when you think about it that's the
reason that every driver has to pass a driving test. However it's not
necessary for a cyclist to pass a cycling in traffic test you know. ;-)

I guess I'd like to see a legal definition of 'impeding traffic'. Is it
impeding traffic to delay one car for 20 seconds? 30 seconds? Hard to say.
A good law would include this in the definition, I'd think.

Though I'm basically on the side of the cyclists, I'd have to say, imo, the
riding two abreast is a bad law, or a bad idea. In fact I can't understand
how it came to be. Is it because of some innate need for comraderie between
cyclists? I mean it's definitely a skill, maybe not as much as drafting
correctly, but requires more skill and daring than riding in the park, and
not every cyclist has the dexterity, awareness and bike handling to do this
safely.

jj

[bhugh@mwsc.edu]

> I'd like to see some citations of the code sections which
> might be applicable in this case.

Well, you asked for it . . .

For bicycle-related provisions in Missouri law:

http://mobikefed.org/statutes.html

But, more specifically--Missouri Law applicable to this situation:

"304.012. 1. Every person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and
highways of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and prudent
manner and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of
another or the life or limb of any person and shall exercise the
highest degree of care."

(The fact that the bicyclists were guilty of an infraction--riding
abreast when they shouldn't--be no means excuses the driver from
driving in a "careful and prudent manner" nor from "exercising the
highest degree of care".)

-----------

"304.016. 1. (1) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle
proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a
safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the
roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle."

(Note that a bicycle is considered as a vehicle as far as 304.016 is
concerned. So motorists must pass bicyclists at a safe distance and
wait until safely clear before moving back over. This motorist clearly
did neither of these--and didn't even have the wits to maintain that
the bicyclists "swerved", which is his only conceivable defense against
a charge of unsafe passing. Although the bicyclists and the driver
disagree on details, it is clear even from the driver's version of the
story alone that he violated both 304.012 and 304.016.)

-----------

"304.016 4. No vehicle shall at any time be driven to the left side of
the roadway under the following conditions:

(1) When approaching the crest of a grade or upon a curve of the
highway where the driver's view is obstructed within such distance as
to create a hazard in the event another vehicle might approach from the
opposite direction;"

(It is quite clear that the motorist violated this section, too, since
he made a big point about how far over the bicyclists were. Since they
were so far over, he could not have passed without moving into the
opposing lane. But on a curve moving into the opposing lane is
illegal.)

-----------

Summing it up from the driver's point of view:

He comes upon two bicyclists riding abreast. Perhaps this is a
violation of the law (an infraction--see below). Certainly it is
annoying. What are his options:

1. Pull into the other lane and pass.

Nope--since he's going around a curve with inadequate sight distance,
this is illegal by 304.016.4. Can't do it.

2. Squeeze by within the lane, passing the bicyclists closer than
safe.

Nope, can't do that, either. 304.016.1 says you have to pass at a safe
distance and can't move back over until past the bicyclists. 304.012
says you can't do anything dangerous.

So what's left?

3. What behind until safe to pass; pass at safe distance. Optional:
curse bicyclist for rude traffic infraction.

This is the driver's only legal course of action. The speed limit is
low enough, and road has enough blind curves, hills, and so on (meaning
that the driver must be continually watching the road ahead or find
himself driving off a cliff), that there is no way the driver can
maintain with a straight face that he didn't have time to slow.

If he'd slammed into the back of them, "didn't see them in time" might
be an excuse. But he didn't do that--he shoved them off the road.

-----------

"307.188. Every person riding a bicycle or motorized bicycle upon a
street or highway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be
subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle as
provided by chapter 304, RSMo . . . except as to those provisions of
chapter 304, RSMo, which by their nature can have no application."

(This section establishes that all traffic laws, rights, & duties
applying to motorists, apply to bicyclists just as well.)

----------

"307.190. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less
than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street
or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe,
exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding
in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding
hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another
vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when
not impeding other vehicles."

Note that bicyclists are required to ride as far to the "right side of
the roadway as safe".

Note that Missouri law defines the "roadway" as the main traveled way,
"exclusive of the berm or shoulder". The injunction, in 307.190,
requiring bicyclist to ride to the right of the *roadway*, then,
absolutely does NOT require bicyclists to ride in the shoulder.

Note that, if the lane is too narrow to share, the requirement for the
bicyclist to ride to the right is completely removed.

I would say, based on having ridden at this location many times, that
is is debatable whether there is room to share the lane. It is about
a 12 foot lane with a 1 foot shoulder--13 feet of surface total (right
of the double yellow line).

Most references consider lanes 14 feet wide or more to be in
"shareable" territory (it depends on exact configuration--existence or
not of curb, etc.). Less than 14 feet wide, though, is pretty much
universally considered not shareable.

Practically speaking, in the spot where this incident occured, you
could probably share safely with a compact car that had slowed down to
ease past carefully.

You couldn't share safely with a big truck or bus, or with someone who
insisted on zooming by at high speed. To pass safely, all those people
would need to move at least partly into the oncoming lane.

---------

307.193. Penalty for violation. Any person seventeen years of age or
older who violates any provision of sections 307.180 to 307.193 is
guilty of an infraction and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished
by a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than twenty-five
dollars. Such an infraction does not constitute a crime and conviction
shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on
conviction of a criminal offense.

(Riding two abreast when not allowed is an "infraction".)

----------

--Brent
brent [at] brenthugh.com

[Rich]

jj wrote:

> However it's not
> necessary for a cyclist to pass a cycling in traffic test you know.

Yea. Too bad, though. My guess is they figure a car can pretty easily
kill innocent people, so they want to make sure you have some some level
of skill before operating it. But a bicycle is likely only to kill the
operator, so it's up to you to assure you're qualified to operate it.
And in reality, this isn't a bad standard, as it'd be overwelming to
have to pass a test to do everything.


> Though I'm basically on the side of the cyclists

While I am a cyclists, I'm on the side of common courtesy. And riding
two abreast when it results in slowing traffic (even one car), I think
is not wise, and not in the interest of anyone.


> I'd have to say, imo, the
> riding two abreast is a bad law, or a bad idea. In fact I can't understand
> how it came to be. Is it because of some innate need for comraderie between
> cyclists?

I think it's not a problem if it doesn't affect anyone else. So I'm not
against riding two abreat, and have done it a lot when riding with my
wife. However, we were very consious of traffic, and always got in
single file when traffic aproached us. And we planned ahead, we knew
who was going to speed up and who was going to slow down so it was
fairly quick to do. That said, even we sometimes got caught off
guard..... so now we ride a tandem.

Rich

[Bob]

wrote:
> > I'd like to see some citations of the code sections which
> > might be applicable in this case.
>
> Well, you asked for it . . .
>
> For bicycle-related provisions in Missouri law:
>
> http://mobikefed.org/statutes.html
>
> But, more specifically--Missouri Law applicable to this situation:
>
> "304.012. 1. Every person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and
> highways of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and
prudent
> manner and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of
> another or the life or limb of any person and shall exercise the
> highest degree of care."
>
> (The fact that the bicyclists were guilty of an infraction--riding
> abreast when they shouldn't--be no means excuses the driver from
> driving in a "careful and prudent manner" nor from "exercising the
> highest degree of care".)
>
> -----------
>
> "304.016. 1. (1) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle
> proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a
> safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the
> roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle."
>
> (Note that a bicycle is considered as a vehicle as far as 304.016 is
> concerned. So motorists must pass bicyclists at a safe distance and
> wait until safely clear before moving back over. This motorist
clearly
> did neither of these--and didn't even have the wits to maintain that
> the bicyclists "swerved", which is his only conceivable defense
against
> a charge of unsafe passing. Although the bicyclists and the driver
> disagree on details, it is clear even from the driver's version of
the
> story alone that he violated both 304.012 and 304.016.)
>
> -----------
>
> "304.016 4. No vehicle shall at any time be driven to the left side
of
> the roadway under the following conditions:
>
> (1) When approaching the crest of a grade or upon a curve of the
> highway where the driver's view is obstructed within such distance as
> to create a hazard in the event another vehicle might approach from
the
> opposite direction;"
>
> (It is quite clear that the motorist violated this section, too,
since
> he made a big point about how far over the bicyclists were. Since
they
> were so far over, he could not have passed without moving into the
> opposing lane. But on a curve moving into the opposing lane is
> illegal.)
>
> -----------
>
> Summing it up from the driver's point of view:
>
> He comes upon two bicyclists riding abreast. Perhaps this is a
> violation of the law (an infraction--see below). Certainly it is
> annoying. What are his options:
>
> 1. Pull into the other lane and pass.
>
> Nope--since he's going around a curve with inadequate sight distance,
> this is illegal by 304.016.4. Can't do it.
>
> 2. Squeeze by within the lane, passing the bicyclists closer than
> safe.
>
> Nope, can't do that, either. 304.016.1 says you have to pass at a
safe
> distance and can't move back over until past the bicyclists. 304.012
> says you can't do anything dangerous.
>
> So what's left?
>
> 3. What behind until safe to pass; pass at safe distance.
Optional:
> curse bicyclist for rude traffic infraction.
>
> This is the driver's only legal course of action. The speed limit is
> low enough, and road has enough blind curves, hills, and so on
(meaning
> that the driver must be continually watching the road ahead or find
> himself driving off a cliff), that there is no way the driver can
> maintain with a straight face that he didn't have time to slow.
>
> If he'd slammed into the back of them, "didn't see them in time"
might
> be an excuse. But he didn't do that--he shoved them off the road.
>
> -----------
>
> "307.188. Every person riding a bicycle or motorized bicycle upon a
> street or highway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be
> subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle as
> provided by chapter 304, RSMo . . . except as to those provisions of
> chapter 304, RSMo, which by their nature can have no application."
>
> (This section establishes that all traffic laws, rights, & duties
> applying to motorists, apply to bicyclists just as well.)
>
> ----------
>
> "307.190. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at
less
> than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a
street
> or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as
safe,
> exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding
> in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding
> hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with
another
> vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast
when
> not impeding other vehicles."
>
> Note that bicyclists are required to ride as far to the "right side
of
> the roadway as safe".
>
> Note that Missouri law defines the "roadway" as the main traveled
way,
> "exclusive of the berm or shoulder". The injunction, in 307.190,
> requiring bicyclist to ride to the right of the *roadway*, then,
> absolutely does NOT require bicyclists to ride in the shoulder.
>
> Note that, if the lane is too narrow to share, the requirement for
the
> bicyclist to ride to the right is completely removed.
>
> I would say, based on having ridden at this location many times, that
> is is debatable whether there is room to share the lane. It is
about
> a 12 foot lane with a 1 foot shoulder--13 feet of surface total
(right
> of the double yellow line).
>
> Most references consider lanes 14 feet wide or more to be in
> "shareable" territory (it depends on exact configuration--existence
or
> not of curb, etc.). Less than 14 feet wide, though, is pretty much
> universally considered not shareable.
>
> Practically speaking, in the spot where this incident occured, you
> could probably share safely with a compact car that had slowed down
to
> ease past carefully.
>
> You couldn't share safely with a big truck or bus, or with someone
who
> insisted on zooming by at high speed. To pass safely, all those
people
> would need to move at least partly into the oncoming lane.
>
> ---------
>
> 307.193. Penalty for violation. Any person seventeen years of age or
> older who violates any provision of sections 307.180 to 307.193 is
> guilty of an infraction and, upon conviction thereof, shall be
punished
> by a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than twenty-five
> dollars. Such an infraction does not constitute a crime and
conviction
> shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on
> conviction of a criminal offense.
>
> (Riding two abreast when not allowed is an "infraction".)
>
> ----------
>
> --Brent
> brent [at] brenthugh.com

I'm almost assuredly wasting my time replying because everyone seems to
have already made up their mind what happened and what Missouri law
means so I'll point out just three things. First, it's rare for one
operator to be *solely* to blame in any collision that occurs in moving
traffic. Sharing the road means sharing responsibility no matter what
kind of vehicle one uses. In this case the cyclists were familiar with
the road, knew that it had blind curves and grades that obstructed
sight lines but still chose to ride two abreast. Their decision to ride
two abreast was a bad one and directly contributed to the crash.
Second, riding two abreast on that road was arguably unlawful. This was
not a two unit but a three unit crash. The cyclist nearest the
centerline of the roadway could have easily been charged with violating
307.190. Third, did anyone else notice that the driver in the crash was
wearing a USPS baseball cap? This is mere conjecture on my part but IF
he was actively engaged in delivering the US Mail at the time of the
crash he was, by statute, virtually "unticketable" for a wide variety
of offenses. USPS delivery vehicles, governmentally operated snow
removal equipment, construction equipment, and emergency vehicles that
are actively engaged in their respective endeavors are all exempt from
many of the provisions of State traffic codes.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Arthur Harris]

"jj" wrote:
> "Art Harris" wrote:
>>As someone
>>else pointed out here, if you're going to ride two abreast, the burden is
>>on
>>you to know when traffic is approaching.

> I'd have to quibble with your last statement, Art. Where do you derive
> that
> "the burden is on you to know when traffic is approaching"? If the law
> allows riding two abreast then it has to allow for significant time to
> single up, including problems, road conditions, and communication.

I don't think so. Where I live, the New York State law (Section 1234b)
simply says:

"Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file when being
overtaken by another vehicle."

There are no "if, and's, or but's." You SHALL ride single file when being
overtaken. So if, for whatever reason, you're not riding single file when
overtaken, you're in violation. That puts the burden on the cyclist to
watch/listen for traffic and react accordingly. If the rider can't or isn't
willing to do that, he should ride single file.

Now of course, even if the cyclist is in violation, it doesn't give a
motorist the right to hit him, any more than he could run over a person
lying in the road.

I agree that the whole "riding two abreast" thing is kind of strange. This
may be a holdover from a simpler time. Cyclists (particularly those on
casual rides) like to converse, and if there is little or no traffic,
there's no harm in riding two abreast. Personally, I'll only do it on very
quiet roads, or if there's a very wide shoulder.

Art Harris

[Chris Neary]

>I'm almost assuredly wasting my time replying because everyone seems to
>have already made up their mind what happened and what Missouri law
>means so I'll point out just three things. First, it's rare for one
>operator to be *solely* to blame in any collision that occurs in moving
>traffic. Sharing the road means sharing responsibility no matter what
>kind of vehicle one uses. In this case the cyclists were familiar with
>the road, knew that it had blind curves and grades that obstructed
>sight lines but still chose to ride two abreast. Their decision to ride
>two abreast was a bad one and directly contributed to the crash.

I disagree with this point. The driver had the ultimate responsibility for
his actions. He made the decision to pass in an unsafe manner.

Further, there hasn't been any evidence offered that the driver passed in a
less safe manner because they were riding two abreast, so we have no reason
to believe the same outcome would not have occured had they been riding
single file.

>Second, riding two abreast on that road was arguably unlawful.

Agreed.

In my view, both parties could be prosecuted under the VC (not withstanding
any possible immunity if the driver was conducting postal business), and the
driver sued in civil court for damages.



Chris Neary


"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

[jj]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:24:48 -0500, "Arthur Harris" >
wrote:

>"jj" wrote:
>> "Art Harris" wrote:
>>>As someone
>>>else pointed out here, if you're going to ride two abreast, the burden is
>>>on
>>>you to know when traffic is approaching.
>
>> I'd have to quibble with your last statement, Art. Where do you derive
>> "the burden is on you to know when traffic is approaching"? If the law
>> allows riding two abreast then it has to allow for significant time to
>> single up, including problems, road conditions, and communication.
>
>I don't think so. Where I live, the New York State law (Section 1234b)
>simply says:
>
>"Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file when being
>overtaken by another vehicle."
>
>There are no "if, and's, or but's." You SHALL ride single file when being
>overtaken. So if, for whatever reason, you're not riding single file when
>overtaken, you're in violation. That puts the burden on the cyclist to
>watch/listen for traffic and react accordingly. If the rider can't or isn't
>willing to do that, he should ride single file.

OK, I think I get that, certainly the language seems to indicate as you
suggest. Thanks for the clarification.

Since common sense suggests that it isn't always possible to do this given
that riding a bike requires strong concentration in a forward direction <g>
it's a difficult law to abide by, no? I know I've been passed quite a few
times single file riding where it was a complete surprise, and I'm the kind
of rider that checks my mirror every few seconds if there are any cars
around. (I don't ride roads where the speed limit is over 35, usually).

>Now of course, even if the cyclist is in violation, it doesn't give a
>motorist the right to hit him, any more than he could run over a person
>lying in the road.
>
>I agree that the whole "riding two abreast" thing is kind of strange. This
>may be a holdover from a simpler time. Cyclists (particularly those on
>casual rides) like to converse, and if there is little or no traffic,
>there's no harm in riding two abreast. Personally, I'll only do it on very
>quiet roads, or if there's a very wide shoulder.
>
>Art Harris

Yeah for short periods on back residential streets, but I'm not comfortable
doing it for long. Don't think many riders are.

jj

[Leo Lichtman]

This has nothing to do with the law--it is just good practice:

1.) I would NEVER consider it wise or safe to ride side-by-side without a
mirrors. And I would constantly observe the road behind me, to be aware
when singling up is needed.

2.) In the process of singling up, I always use head movements and hand
signals to make it clear to the other rider AND THE DRIVER that we are going
to let him by.

His impatience, justified or not, can become dangerous to the riders, and
can be minimized by proper communication.

[Mike Kruger]

"Chris Neary" > wrote in message
>
> Based on the accounts in news article, the riders were not
at fault for
> riding two abreast, but would be at fault for not "singling
up" once they
> were aware a vehicle was behind them.
>
> The vehicle would be at fault for unsafe passing.

No matter whether the bicyclists were at fault (and could have
been ticketed), there is no legal justification for the
cyclist being hit by the car because of it.

An example: if you are driving a car and somebody is
jaywalking across the street, you aren't allowed to swerve and
hit the pedestrian. The pedestrian's violation of the law
doesn't create some sort of "open season".

The driver is within his first amendment rights to roll down
his window and yell "Get off the f*ing road", and honk his
horn, but colliding with the cyclist is another thing
entirely.

[wafflycat]

"Rich" > wrote in message
...
> jj wrote:
>
>> Somewhat playing the devil's advocate, the riders may be somewhat
>> incompetent, and slightly less than optimally prepared. They may in fact
>> think they are not impeding traffic and might in fact be incorrect.
>
> If they're impeeding traffic, then they're at fault. If someone has slow
> reflexes, that does not give them the right to run through a light that
> just turned red. Lacking the skills to obey a law (or being ignorant of
> the law), will not stand up as a defense in court.
>
> Rich
>

We Brits have our faults, but I am glad of one thing - in cyclist mode we
have a *right* to be on the road and it's perfectly legal to ride 2-abreast.
Indeed, it's perfectly legal to ride more than 2-abreast. The onus is on the
motorist to overtake only when safe to do so. When in motorist mode, when we
only have a *licence* to be on the road - even though too many motorists
seem to think it's a god-given right to be on the public highway ;-)

Cheers, helen s

[Dennis P. Harris]

On 18 Feb 2005 20:51:54 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc,
wrote:

> But what is notable is how really, really bad the TV reporting is. It
> implies the bicyclists are not allowed in the "traffic lane", they
> should always ride on the shoulder (in this case a dinky little thing
> about 6-12 inches wide), that the cyclists were at fault for riding
> abreast whereas the motorist was not at fault at all, and so on.
>
so write or call the station and ask for time for fair reply and
rebuttal to explain the station's error, or ask for an on-air
correction.

[Dennis P. Harris]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:26:52 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, Rich
> wrote:

> If they're impeeding traffic, then they're at fault. If someone has
> slow reflexes, that does not give them the right to run through a light
> that just turned red. Lacking the skills to obey a law (or being
> ignorant of the law), will not stand up as a defense in court.

wrong! first the word is "impeding". second, the law in every
state puts an overtaking vehicle at fault in any rear end
accident, which this was. the driver should be cited for unsafe
passing. the law requires him to wait until it is safe to pass,
whether YOU like it or not.

[Dennis P. Harris]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:05:42 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Arthur
Harris" > wrote:

> If I had to guess I'd say the two cyclists were
> ignoring the horn honking motorist, expecting him to go around them (into
> the other lane). The motorist got angry and decided to pass as close as
> possible. He misjudged and brushed one of the cyclists. If so, both would be
> partially to blame,

bull****! the overtaking driver is at fault. THE LAW REQUIRES
HIM TO PASS SAFELY and he did not do so.

[Jym Dyer]

> ... it is both polite and legally required to single up when
> a car approaches to pass.

=v= That's a statement that needs qualifiers. There are times
when bicyclists should take the lane, and "around a curve" is
pretty much a classic example of that. To "single up" in such
a situation sends out a dangerous message. It is not impolite.

=v= There is widespread expectation that if a motorist in front
of you slows down, there could well be a valid reason, even if
you can't tell what it is from your perspective. Bicyclists
should be given the same consideration, and not an iota less.
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

>> If they were two abreast, one was NOT riding as near to the
>> right side of the roadway as safe.

=v= Bad assumption. We don't know the whole story, but we do
know the car was passing around a curve. In that situation it
is generally wrong and unsafe for the car to attempt to pass,
but *not* wrong and unsafe for bicyclists to take the lane.

> Note that riding two abreast is specifically permitted in
> Missouri "when not impeding other vehicles".

=v= I can't find Missouri's definition of "impeding" but in
most states the definition takes safety into account. If it
is unsafe to pass, one is not "impeded" by not being able to
pass.
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

> "Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file
> when being overtaken by another vehicle."
>
> There are no "if, and's, or but's."

=v= New York State's laws are archaic when it comes to bicycles.
Fortunately, for folks in New York City, there are ifs ands or
buts: Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1642 authorizes large-enough
cities to override some of these, and § 4-02(e) of the New York
City Traffic Rules does exactly that.
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

> "307.190. ... Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding
> other vehicles."

=v= Thanks for looking this up. Can you look up the definition
of "impeding?"
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

>> Second, riding two abreast on that road was arguably
>> unlawful.
> Agreed.

=v= But also arguably lawful. The whole thing depends on
whether it was safe to pass around the curve.
<_Jym_>

[jj]

On 20 Feb 2005 06:02:31 -0800, Jym Dyer > wrote:

>> ... it is both polite and legally required to single up when
>> a car approaches to pass.
>
>=v= That's a statement that needs qualifiers. There are times
>when bicyclists should take the lane, and "around a curve" is
>pretty much a classic example of that. To "single up" in such
>a situation sends out a dangerous message. It is not impolite.
>
>=v= There is widespread expectation that if a motorist in front
>of you slows down, there could well be a valid reason, even if
>you can't tell what it is from your perspective. Bicyclists
>should be given the same consideration, and not an iota less.
> <_Jym_>

The perception of the cops is important as well. Too often they seem to
consider bikes as 'being in the way' or not belonging on the road as their
first reaction and then, if at all they seem to dimly recall 'oh, yeah,
bikes are 'vehicles' too'. But when it comes to applying the law there
seems to be a 'nod' to the drivers - like 'dumbass bikers should have known
not to go there, or do that', and they get some kind of pay-off from
blaming the biker - a sort of 'blame the victim' mentality.

As a driver, I sort of understand this - too often we see pedestrians in
the same light - with a 'get the hell off my street' mentality. I mentioned
previously how last week a driver started gesticulating and honking at me
when I was limping across the street in a cross-walk right in front of the
court-house and he noticeably exaggeratedly swerved to go around me. OK the
'don't walk light' was on, but turned after I started across and he was too
far away to see what that light said.

Driver anxiety goes way up when they are stopped or sitting still in
traffic, and dramatically decreases when they start moving again. Try it,
noticing how there's an impulse to 'get moving' especially if you have
somewhere to go or are in a hurry.

So perhaps we have this free-floating anxiety and when it's a biker we
attach it to them as though they're purposely -causing- us to be delayed,
to slow or stop, when intellectually we know they're not intentionally
doing anything to us specifically.

jj

[Arthur Harris]

"Jym Dyer" wrote:

> Art Harrias wrote:

>> "Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file
>> when being overtaken by another vehicle."
>>
>> There are no "if, and's, or but's."
>
> =v= New York State's laws are archaic when it comes to bicycles.
> Fortunately, for folks in New York City, there are ifs ands or
> buts: Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1642 authorizes large-enough
> cities to override some of these, and § 4-02(e) of the New York
> City Traffic Rules does exactly that.

What specifically do the NYC rules say about riding two abreast?

Art Harris

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:41:55 -0500,
>,
jj > wrote, in part:

>
>Driver anxiety goes way up when they are stopped or sitting still in
>traffic, and dramatically decreases when they start moving again. Try it,
>noticing how there's an impulse to 'get moving' especially if you have
>somewhere to go or are in a hurry.

Like our tolerance for noise, I believe it's also linked to the
perception of the activity's economic importance. Somebody on a
bicycle is "playing" in the street. A truck-load of spilled lumber is
"serious business".
The truck can cause them hours of delay but they can understand it.
They find it much harder to accept cyclists rights as legitimate road
users when the activity is seen as sport or recreation.
--
zk

[Leo Lichtman]

"Zoot Katz" wrote: (clip) when the activity is seen as sport or recreation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you have identified a real problem. And it occurs on a subconscious
level, so the person can feel resentment, even approaching "road rage,"
without even knowing that it is based on bias. I can cite from my own
experience: I often drive by a major horserace track. The traffic
conjestion in that area can be horrible, and I find myself feeling
resentment toward "those people," because I feel that I am being hindered in
my "legitimate" travel by their indulgence is a slightly "unsavory" pastime.

[Bob]

Chris Neary wrote:
> >I'm almost assuredly wasting my time replying because everyone seems
to
> >have already made up their mind what happened and what Missouri law
> >means so I'll point out just three things. First, it's rare for one
> >operator to be *solely* to blame in any collision that occurs in
moving
> >traffic. Sharing the road means sharing responsibility no matter
what
> >kind of vehicle one uses. In this case the cyclists were familiar
with
> >the road, knew that it had blind curves and grades that obstructed
> >sight lines but still chose to ride two abreast. Their decision to
ride
> >two abreast was a bad one and directly contributed to the crash.
>
> I disagree with this point. The driver had the ultimate
responsibility for
> his actions. He made the decision to pass in an unsafe manner.
>
> Further, there hasn't been any evidence offered that the driver
passed in a
> less safe manner because they were riding two abreast, so we have no
reason
> to believe the same outcome would not have occured had they been
riding
> single file.
>
Two cyclists were present. If the only cyclist that was struck was the
cyclist furthest away from the right I think it's a fair assumption to
make that his position on the roadway contributed to the crash. Of
course if the cyclist nearest the right was the one struck it's an
entirely different story.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bob]

Jym Dyer wrote:

> =v= There is widespread expectation that if a motorist in front
> of you slows down, there could well be a valid reason, even if
> you can't tell what it is from your perspective. Bicyclists
> should be given the same consideration, and not an iota less.
> <_Jym_>

Agreed. The flip side though is that, except for the special
considerations the law grants, we shouldn't be given *more*
consideration either. Too often in this NG guilt and innocence is
ascribed solely on the basis of whether the act is performed by a
cyclist or a driver. For instance, many here seem to believe that a
cyclist "filtering" through motor vehicle traffic stopped at a red
light is not passing illegally though in fact, in Illinois anyway, they
are. Let that filtering cyclist get doored and there are more than a
few in this group that will call for a public hanging. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Chris Neary]

>Two cyclists were present. If the only cyclist that was struck was the
>cyclist furthest away from the right I think it's a fair assumption to
>make that his position on the roadway contributed to the crash. Of
>course if the cyclist nearest the right was the one struck it's an
>entirely different story.

No, I have to disagree.

Assuming the driver believed he was passing the leftmost rider with
sufficient room, why should we assume he would have been any more competent
at passing "singled-up" riders?



Chris Neary


"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

[Bob]

Chris Neary wrote:
> >Two cyclists were present. If the only cyclist that was struck was
the
> >cyclist furthest away from the right I think it's a fair assumption
to
> >make that his position on the roadway contributed to the crash. Of
> >course if the cyclist nearest the right was the one struck it's an
> >entirely different story.
>
> No, I have to disagree.
>
> Assuming the driver believed he was passing the leftmost rider with
> sufficient room, why should we assume he would have been any more
competent
> at passing "singled-up" riders?
>
>
>
> Chris Neary
>

Allow me to put your question in a cycling context. If you can't keep
your tires on a two inch wide strip of roadway, why should we assume
you'd be more competent to keep your tires on a two foot wide strip?
That the cyclist positioned himself badly doesn't relieve the driver of
his duty to not pass unless he can do so safely but to assume that the
cyclist's position on the roadway didn't contribute in any way to the
crash seems counterintuitive at best to me.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bob]

Jym Dyer wrote:
> >> Second, riding two abreast on that road was arguably
> >> unlawful.
> > Agreed.
>
> =v= But also arguably lawful. The whole thing depends on
> whether it was safe to pass around the curve.
> <_Jym_>

The problem with situations that are "arguably (un)lawful" is in order
to arrive at any meaningful conclusion somebody has to be the test case
since the courts, not Usenet NGs, decide what's lawful and what is not.
;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Chris Neary]

>> Assuming the driver believed he was passing the leftmost rider with
>> sufficient room, why should we assume he would have been any more
>>competent at passing "singled-up" riders?

>Allow me to put your question in a cycling context. If you can't keep
>your tires on a two inch wide strip of roadway, why should we assume
>you'd be more competent to keep your tires on a two foot wide strip?
>That the cyclist positioned himself badly doesn't relieve the driver of
>his duty to not pass unless he can do so safely but to assume that the
>cyclist's position on the roadway didn't contribute in any way to the
>crash seems counterintuitive at best to me.

I realize that we're rapidly reaching (or have reached!) the "beating a dead
horse" phase of this discussion, but indulge me in allowing me to respond.

The problem is that the driver wasn't given the figurative "two-inch wide
strip of roadway" to use to pass the riders, he had access to a full lane,
which in my mind is analogous to "a two foot wide strip" in bicycle-speak.

Your analogy is similar to the old "the riders forced him to make a bad
decision" line of thought, which I don't buy either.



Chris Neary


"We will teach our twisted speech to the young believers"
-- The Clash

[Jym Dyer]

> What specifically do the NYC rules say about riding two
> abreast?

=v= The state requirement is overruled and no such requirement
is reinstated in the sections overruling it.
<_Jym_>