Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clearview.

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:25:18 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/29/2015 8:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:36:06 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:34 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
I have nor read every state's traffic regulations but the three I did
read all stated that "thou shall not impede other traffic" (in
Biblical terms :-) so while the three states did specifically state
that bicycles had a right to use the road none of them gave the
bicycle a right to impede other users.

Courts have decided otherwise, setting useful legal precedents when
doing so.

This man was instrumental in one of the more important cases.
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncate...e-road-stinks/

Essentially (IIRC) the appeals court judges ruled that the capabilities of
the vehicle must be taken into account. So farm tractors, delivery vans,
post office trucks, garbage trucks, heavy loads, scooters and bicyclists
are not required to abandon their rights to the road because they
can't go fast. The few exceptions are usually limited access highways..
But even those are legal for cyclists in many western U.S. locations.

That Ohio case applies in Ohio and clearly does not represent the law in most states. The standard UVC (Uniform Vehicle Code) provisions apply to bicycles, including the prohibitions on impeding traffic and failing to yield to overtaking traffic. Again, one must look to state law. There are fifty states with different versions of the UVC, and I think a few states that don't follow the UVC at all.

This has been in the UVC since at least the year 2000:

"11-1205-Position on roadway
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less
than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the
conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to
the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any
of the following situations:
1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into
a private road or driveway.
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions' including
but not limited to: fixed or moving objects; parked or moving vehicles;
bicycles; pedestrians; animals; surface hazards; or substandard width
lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb
or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is
a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel
safely side by side within the lane."

Note that last part, please.

Frank, we're talking about impeding laws -- and this is why Ohio is unusual.. Note section (C) please:

4511.22 Slow speed.
(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

(B) Whenever the director of transportation or local authorities determine on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any part of a controlled-access highway, expressway, or freeway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the director or such local authority may declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or street car except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. No minimum speed limit established hereunder shall be less than thirty miles per hour, greater than fifty miles per hour, nor effective until the provisions of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code, relating to appropriate signs, have been fulfilled and local authorities have obtained the approval of the director.

(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact, in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its operator.

(D) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

Effective Date: 01-01-2004; 09-21-2006

The Oregon version (and most versions) say nothing about the "capabilities of the vehicle and its operator." As far as I know, the Ohio law is unique.. http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/analyses126/h0389-rh-126.pdf

Look at the usual UVC section, as illustrated by ORS § 811.130
Impeding traffic
* penalty
(1) A person commits the offense of impeding traffic if the person drives a motor vehicle or a combination of motor vehicles in a manner that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this section if the person is proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation.
(3) Proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation includes but is not necessarily limited to:
(a) Momentarily stopping to allow oncoming traffic to pass before making a right-hand or left-hand turn.
(b) Momentarily stopping in preparation of, or moving at an extremely slow pace while, negotiating an exit from the road.
(4) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this section if the person is proceeding as part of a funeral procession under the direction of a funeral escort vehicle or a funeral lead vehicle.
(5) The offense described in this section, impeding traffic, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §569; 1985 c.16 §288; 1989 c.433 §1; 1991 c.482 §18; 1995 c.383 §45]

We also have this law, which specifically applies to bikes:

ORS § 811.425¹
Failure of slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle
* penalty
(1) A person commits the offense of failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle if the person is driving a vehicle and the person fails to move the persons vehicle off the main traveled portion of the highway into an area sufficient for safe turnout when:
(a) The driver of the overtaken vehicle is proceeding at a speed less than a speed established in ORS 811.105 (Speeds that are evidence of basic rule violation) as prima facie evidence of violation of the basic speed rule;
(b) The driver of the overtaking vehicle is proceeding at a speed in conformity with ORS 811.105 (Speeds that are evidence of basic rule violation);
(c) The highway is a two directional, two-lane highway; and
(d) There is no clear lane for passing available to the driver of the overtaking vehicle.
(2) This section does not apply to the driver of a vehicle in a funeral procession.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §640; 1991 c.482 §16; 1995 c.383 §68; 2001 c.104 §307; 2003 c.819 §15]

Our exception to the "ride right" rule is also written slightly differently than yours:

[ride right except]

"When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 (Failure of slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle) or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements."

You can take the lane when it is necessary to "avoid unsafe operation in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel side by side." So, you can take the lane to prevent unsafe passing in the lane, for example. But if there is no traffic in the opposite direction, there is no reason to assume that anyone will pass unsafely. Your statute is similar, and I don't think either of them gives a cyclist a free pass to ride lane center simply because a lane is too narrow to be shared - but both statues are vague, and there are no reported Oregon cases on point (at least that I recall sitting here -- I'm going for a ride on a plastic bike and don't want to bother looking).

-- Jay Beattie.

On 5/30/2015 12:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/30/2015 12:33 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 12:25:18 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/29/2015 8:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:36:06 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:34 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
I have nor read every state's traffic regulations but the three I did
read all stated that "thou shall not impede other traffic" (in
Biblical terms :-) so while the three states did specifically state
that bicycles had a right to use the road none of them gave the
bicycle a right to impede other users.

Courts have decided otherwise, setting useful legal precedents when
doing so.

This man was instrumental in one of the more important cases.
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncate...e-road-stinks/


Essentially (IIRC) the appeals court judges ruled that the
capabilities of
the vehicle must be taken into account. So farm tractors, delivery
vans,
post office trucks, garbage trucks, heavy loads, scooters and
bicyclists
are not required to abandon their rights to the road because they
can't go fast. The few exceptions are usually limited access
highways.
But even those are legal for cyclists in many western U.S. locations.

That Ohio case applies in Ohio and clearly does not represent the
law in most states. The standard UVC (Uniform Vehicle Code)
provisions apply to bicycles, including the prohibitions on
impeding traffic and failing to yield to overtaking traffic. Again,
one must look to state law. There are fifty states with different
versions of the UVC, and I think a few states that don't follow the
UVC at all.

This has been in the UVC since at least the year 2000:

"11-1205-Position on roadway
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less
than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the
conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to
the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any
of the following situations:
1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into
a private road or driveway.
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions' including
but not limited to: fixed or moving objects; parked or moving vehicles;
bicycles; pedestrians; animals; surface hazards; or substandard width
lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb
or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is
a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel
safely side by side within the lane."

Note that last part, please.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Also note this part in describing what "as far right' means = "...or
substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along
the right-hand curb or edge."

CURB or EDGE neither of which is the center of the lane!

If you're trying to justify riding right at the edge, you'll need to try
again. The UVC says to ride "as close as practicable" to the curb or
edge. That doesn't mean to ride right at it. In fact, given that some
degree of wobble is unavoidable on a bicycle, it's clear that riding
right at the edge is not "practicable."

AFAIK, nobody with any official standing requires edge riding. And
incidentally, some of my riding buddies are cops, ex-cops, professors of
criminal justice, highway patrolmen, lawyers, etc.

Related:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1227372284446

First, in keeping with newspapers' standard practice, you can tell that
the doctor was wearing a helmet. They usually omit the "h" word if one
was worn; and it is Australia, where they're mandatory.

But note, he was close enough to the parked car that his pedal may have
gouged the paint. It got him killed.

I'd have controlled the lane.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/30/2015 10:20 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:25:18 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/29/2015 8:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:36:06 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:34 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
I have nor read every state's traffic regulations but the three I did
read all stated that "thou shall not impede other traffic" (in
Biblical terms :-) so while the three states did specifically state
that bicycles had a right to use the road none of them gave the
bicycle a right to impede other users.

Courts have decided otherwise, setting useful legal precedents when
doing so.

This man was instrumental in one of the more important cases.
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncate...e-road-stinks/

Essentially (IIRC) the appeals court judges ruled that the capabilities of
the vehicle must be taken into account. So farm tractors, delivery vans,
post office trucks, garbage trucks, heavy loads, scooters and bicyclists
are not required to abandon their rights to the road because they
can't go fast. The few exceptions are usually limited access highways.
But even those are legal for cyclists in many western U.S. locations.

That Ohio case applies in Ohio and clearly does not represent the law in most states. The standard UVC (Uniform Vehicle Code) provisions apply to bicycles, including the prohibitions on impeding traffic and failing to yield to overtaking traffic. Again, one must look to state law. There are fifty states with different versions of the UVC, and I think a few states that don't follow the UVC at all.

This has been in the UVC since at least the year 2000:

"11-1205-Position on roadway
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less
than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the
conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to
the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any
of the following situations:
1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into
a private road or driveway.
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions' including
but not limited to: fixed or moving objects; parked or moving vehicles;
bicycles; pedestrians; animals; surface hazards; or substandard width
lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb
or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is
a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel
safely side by side within the lane."

Note that last part, please.

Frank, we're talking about impeding laws -- and this is why Ohio is unusual. Note section (C) please:

4511.22 Slow speed.
(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

(B) Whenever the director of transportation or local authorities determine on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any part of a controlled-access highway, expressway, or freeway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the director or such local authority may declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or street car except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. No minimum speed limit established hereunder shall be less than thirty miles per hour, greater than fifty miles per hour, nor effective until the provisions of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code, relating to appropriate signs, have been fulfilled and local authorities have obtained the approval of the director.

(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact, in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its operator.

(D) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

Effective Date: 01-01-2004; 09-21-2006

The Oregon version (and most versions) say nothing about the "capabilities of the vehicle and its operator." As far as I know, the Ohio law is unique. http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/analyses126/h0389-rh-126.pdf

Look at the usual UVC section, as illustrated by ORS § 811.130
Impeding traffic
* penalty
(1) A person commits the offense of impeding traffic if the person drives a motor vehicle or a combination of motor vehicles in a manner that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this section if the person is proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation.
(3) Proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation includes but is not necessarily limited to:
(a) Momentarily stopping to allow oncoming traffic to pass before making a right-hand or left-hand turn.
(b) Momentarily stopping in preparation of, or moving at an extremely slow pace while, negotiating an exit from the road.
(4) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this section if the person is proceeding as part of a funeral procession under the direction of a funeral escort vehicle or a funeral lead vehicle.
(5) The offense described in this section, impeding traffic, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §569; 1985 c.16 §288; 1989 c.433 §1; 1991 c.482 §18; 1995 c.383 §45]

We also have this law, which specifically applies to bikes:

ORS § 811.425¹
Failure of slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle
* penalty
(1) A person commits the offense of failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle if the person is driving a vehicle and the person fails to move the persons vehicle off the main traveled portion of the highway into an area sufficient for safe turnout when:
(a) The driver of the overtaken vehicle is proceeding at a speed less than a speed established in ORS 811.105 (Speeds that are evidence of basic rule violation) as prima facie evidence of violation of the basic speed rule;
(b) The driver of the overtaking vehicle is proceeding at a speed in conformity with ORS 811.105 (Speeds that are evidence of basic rule violation);
(c) The highway is a two directional, two-lane highway; and
(d) There is no clear lane for passing available to the driver of the overtaking vehicle.
(2) This section does not apply to the driver of a vehicle in a funeral procession.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §640; 1991 c.482 §16; 1995 c.383 §68; 2001 c.104 §307; 2003 c.819 §15]

Our exception to the "ride right" rule is also written slightly differently than yours:

[ride right except]

"When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 (Failure of slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle) or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements."

You can take the lane when it is necessary to "avoid unsafe operation in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel side by side." So, you can take the lane to prevent unsafe passing in the lane, for example. But if there is no traffic in the opposite direction, there is no reason to assume that anyone will pass unsafely. Your statute is similar, and I don't think either of them gives a cyclist a free pass to ride lane center simply because a lane is too narrow to be shared - but both statues are vague, and there are no reported Oregon cases on point (at least that I recall sitting here -- I'm going for a ride on a plastic bike and don't want to bother looking).

The Ohio code section on minimum speeds applies only to freeways.
That's moot.

Ohio law specifically permits cyclists to control a lane that's too
narrow to safely share. So does Oregon's, as you've quoted. Many other
states have versions of the same idea in their codes, written for this
specific purpose. So does the UVC, as I quoted above. I'm surprised
you're claiming those statutes are "vague."

Regarding the UVC : Are you going to try to pretend that its intent is
to prevent the operation of a 20 mph farm tractor on public roads? Or
the steep uphill passage of an 80,000 pound truck? Sorry, that's silly.
But in any case, the UVC's specific permission for bicyclists makes
that point moot, as well.

We have case precedent that the capabilities of the vehicle must be
taken into account. We have, in every state, the practice of letting
slow vehicles use the road even if some road users are slightly delayed.
And again, this idea of controlling narrow lanes is universal among
legitimate cycling education courses and documents, AFAIK. This has
arisen because of vast experience showing that - contrary to your
assertion - there is _plenty_ of evidence that doing otherwise promotes
dangerously close passing, and that lane control helps dissuade it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/30/2015 9:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2015 00:31:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/29/2015 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2015 13:36:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:34 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
I have nor read every state's traffic regulations but the three I did
read all stated that "thou shall not impede other traffic" (in
Biblical terms :-) so while the three states did specifically state
that bicycles had a right to use the road none of them gave the
bicycle a right to impede other users.

Courts have decided otherwise, setting useful legal precedents when
doing so.

This man was instrumental in one of the more important cases.
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncate...e-road-stinks/

Essentially (IIRC) the appeals court judges ruled that the capabilities of
the vehicle must be taken into account. So farm tractors, delivery vans,
post office trucks, garbage trucks, heavy loads, scooters and bicyclists
are not required to abandon their rights to the road because they
can't go fast. The few exceptions are usually limited access highways.
But even those are legal for cyclists in many western U.S. locations.

- Frank Krygowski

You are correct. Just as I stated "bicycles had a right to use the
road". Shoot, in a farming community you didn't need a Judge to tell
you that you could drive your tractor on the road, you just "knew" it.

But the point that you leave out is that there equally isn't a law
that gives a farm wagon, or a bicycle, the right to deliberately
impede other traffic, which in essence you are encouraging by arguing
that "take the lane" is the perfect solution. In fact I distinctly
remember signs posted by the Highway Department that said "Slow
Traffic Keep Right", in other words "do your best not to impede
others".

The point of lane control is not to deliberately impede others. The
point is to avoid a lane position that puts the rider at unnecessary risk.


Well Frank, the purpose of the semi trailer truck I saw hauling a
great monstrous power boat down to the port so it could be loaded on a
ship wasn't to deliberately impede either. I'm sure the driver just
wanted to get his load to the destination so he could get paid.

But the Police took the attitude that intentions be damned, he was
impeding other road users and parked him on the side of the road until
midnight when the escorted him the rest of the way.... and than
charged him for the escort.

Where was that? What did the law specifically say? Was the "great
monstrous power boat" load within standard size and weight limits?

In our state (and the rest of the U.S., AFAIK) there are special rules
for oversize and overweight vehicles, requiring permits, escorts, etc.
But trucks under 80,000 pounds and under 8.5' width are allowed to
travel on almost all roads (exceptions are residential streets, etc.)
even if they can't travel at the speed limit. On regular roads, it's an
upper limit anyway, not a lower limit. In the mountains of Virginia and
West Virginia, such trucks are frequently seen climbing 65 mph freeways
at 25 mph.

Some states have "five or more" laws, requiring pulling over if that
number of motor vehicles are unable to pass. Four vehicle operators are
expected to just be patient. And even those laws do not require that
the slow vehicle operator put himself in danger to do so.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/30/2015 2:23 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

geeze Frank. The UVC you quoted says as far RIGHT as practical and it's that UVC
that uses the words curb and adge which all together means not in the
center of the lane.

OK, let's try breaking it down for you, Sir. Here are the relevant
parts of the UVC text:

""11-1205-Position on roadway
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less
than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the
conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to
the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except ... [in]
substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the
right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard
width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor
vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

Pay very, very close to the word "except."

You keep trotting out that 10 feet (not foot btw as feet is plural)
wide lane and 8.5 feet wide truck. The UVC says that if it's not safe
to share that lane then tthe bicyclist can ride further left. BUT that
does NOT mean that a bicyclist can ride in the center of every lane which
is what you continually espouse no matter the conditions or width of the
lane.

Nope. I've repeatedly said that I share lanes that are wide enough to
be safely shared. You need to stop arguing against what you _think_ I
say (or pretend I say), and address my actual statements. Oh, and the
actual statements of essentially every adult cycling education program
or book in the English speaking world.

I know there are plenty of cyclists who think "Oooh, I'd never want to
inconvenience any driver, and I'll risk my own life so they don't try to
kill me." But those milquetoasts never manage to get publishers for
their ideas. Do you wonder why?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/30/2015 5:59 AM, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 12:50:46 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/30/2015 12:36 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


#3 in your UVA clearly states right hand curb or edge not lane center
except where it's unsafe to ride along the right hand curb or edge!

OK, Sir: Ten foot lane, 8.5 foot truck. Are you really claiming it's
safe to ride along the right hand curb or edge? _Really_??

--
- Frank Krygowski

geeze Frank. The UVC you quoted says as far RIGHT as practical and it's
that UVC that uses the words curb and adge which all together means not
in the center of the lane.

You keep trotting out that 10 feet (not foot btw as feet is plural) wide
lane and 8.5 feet wide truck. The UVC says that if it's not safe to share
that lane then tthe bicyclist can ride further left. BUT that does NOT
mean that a bicyclist can ride in the center of every lane which is what
you continually espouse no matter the conditions or width of the lane. If
you ride lane center in heavy traffic and you impede the flow of that
traffic then you are breaking the law and ****ing off other road users
who are travelling faster than you. Those other road users could be
motorcyclists and/or bicyclists. If the impeded traffic is motor vehicles
then ****ing them off just makes them more determined to either get
bicyclists off the road altogether or lobby to have bicycles licensed.
Either one is detrimental to promoting bicycling.

Cheers

Quebec law states that if the lane is not wide enough for the vehicle to
safely pass the vehicle must leave the lane to pass when it's safe to do
so. It does not give the cyclist or other slow moving vehicle the right to
take the lane. In Frank's tiresome "test case" it's clearly the
responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to pass safely.

So tell us, Duane, in my test case - 10' lane, 8.5' truck - where _do_
you ride? How close to the curb, or dropoff, or parked car?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/30/2015 9:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2015 00:14:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/29/2015 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:


I described an incident where two women and two kids, on a 100 cc
motorcycle did exactly that and the results was one truck turned over
and the driver injured sufficiently to be admitted to the hospital,
one woman and one child killed in the crash and the other woman and
child were admitted to the hospital "in critical condition".

You replied to my post saying, "they shouldn't have done that".

IIRC (and correct me if I'm wrong) you eventually said they pulled out
from a side road almost directly in front of the truck. And it's true,
they shouldn't have done that. Nobody is advising such a move.


No Frank, that wasn't what happened and I doubt very much that I would
have described it in such terms. They entered via a slip road at
perhaps a 10 or 15 degree angle to the main road.

sigh The point was, did they yield to the oncoming truck, or did they
pull directly in front of him? I thought you said it was the latter.
And again, nobody is claiming a cyclist should suddenly pull in directly
in front of a high speed vehicle directly behind him.


Frank you just went on at some length about the wide truck and the
narrow road, a somewhat similar incident to what I described. and you
said "Take the Lane!"

"Somewhat similar" except in the most critical aspect. Again, nobody's
ever said taking the lane should be a sudden move directly in front of a
passing vehicle.

Frank, we weren't trying to analyze bicycle fears. Simply trying to
determine why someone chants the mantra "Take the Lane; Take the Lane;
Take the lane" as, apparently, a all purpose act...

That's straw man nonsense. I've written here, and in many other places,
quite a lot about other techniques of competent riding.

However, riding too far right for safety is very common, and it does
encourage dangerously close passes, right hooks and left crosses.

Riding facing traffic is also the root cause of lots of car-bike
crashes. But warnings against that practice generate fewer online
debates. I suppose those dudes aren't into cycling enough to discuss
their ideas; but they, too, think they already know everything about how
to ride, despite never having actually taken a cycling class, read a
proper book (or even pamphlet) on riding.


I do like my eyeglass mirror and do
keep an eye on rearward traffic, but I can't think of a situation where
it's really made a difference. So I don't think it deserves as much
emphasis.

Gee Frank, you seem to have a very selective memory. I remember a big
to-do over "right turn" crashes a while ago and I seem to remember
that you had something to say in that furor. Now, it has been my
experience that looking behind you to see if anyone is overtaking and
looks as though he might turn is very helpful in avoiding these type
of accidents, but apparently you see no need for that sort of
foolishness.

Hmm. OK, we seem to be shifting the topic of discussion. That's fine;
but why not look back and see what I actually said on that topic, rather
than giving more "I seem to remember" straw man stuffing?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 9:02:32 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/30/2015 10:20 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:25:18 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/29/2015 8:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:36:06 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:34 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
I have nor read every state's traffic regulations but the three I did
read all stated that "thou shall not impede other traffic" (in
Biblical terms :-) so while the three states did specifically state
that bicycles had a right to use the road none of them gave the
bicycle a right to impede other users.

Courts have decided otherwise, setting useful legal precedents when
doing so.

This man was instrumental in one of the more important cases.
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncate...e-road-stinks/

Essentially (IIRC) the appeals court judges ruled that the capabilities of
the vehicle must be taken into account. So farm tractors, delivery vans,
post office trucks, garbage trucks, heavy loads, scooters and bicyclists
are not required to abandon their rights to the road because they
can't go fast. The few exceptions are usually limited access highways.
But even those are legal for cyclists in many western U.S. locations..

That Ohio case applies in Ohio and clearly does not represent the law in most states. The standard UVC (Uniform Vehicle Code) provisions apply to bicycles, including the prohibitions on impeding traffic and failing to yield to overtaking traffic. Again, one must look to state law. There are fifty states with different versions of the UVC, and I think a few states that don't follow the UVC at all.

This has been in the UVC since at least the year 2000:

"11-1205-Position on roadway
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less
than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the
conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to
the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any
of the following situations:
1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into
a private road or driveway.
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions' including
but not limited to: fixed or moving objects; parked or moving vehicles;
bicycles; pedestrians; animals; surface hazards; or substandard width
lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb
or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is
a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel
safely side by side within the lane."

Note that last part, please.

Frank, we're talking about impeding laws -- and this is why Ohio is unusual. Note section (C) please:

4511.22 Slow speed.
(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

(B) Whenever the director of transportation or local authorities determine on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any part of a controlled-access highway, expressway, or freeway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the director or such local authority may declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or street car except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. No minimum speed limit established hereunder shall be less than thirty miles per hour, greater than fifty miles per hour, nor effective until the provisions of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code, relating to appropriate signs, have been fulfilled and local authorities have obtained the approval of the director.

(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact, in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its operator.

(D) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

Effective Date: 01-01-2004; 09-21-2006

The Oregon version (and most versions) say nothing about the "capabilities of the vehicle and its operator." As far as I know, the Ohio law is unique. http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/analyses126/h0389-rh-126.pdf

Look at the usual UVC section, as illustrated by ORS § 811.130
Impeding traffic
* penalty
(1) A person commits the offense of impeding traffic if the person drives a motor vehicle or a combination of motor vehicles in a manner that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this section if the person is proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation.
(3) Proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation includes but is not necessarily limited to:
(a) Momentarily stopping to allow oncoming traffic to pass before making a right-hand or left-hand turn.
(b) Momentarily stopping in preparation of, or moving at an extremely slow pace while, negotiating an exit from the road.
(4) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this section if the person is proceeding as part of a funeral procession under the direction of a funeral escort vehicle or a funeral lead vehicle.
(5) The offense described in this section, impeding traffic, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §569; 1985 c.16 §288; 1989 c.433 §1; 1991 c.482 §18; 1995 c.383 §45]

We also have this law, which specifically applies to bikes:

ORS § 811.425¹
Failure of slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle
* penalty
(1) A person commits the offense of failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle if the person is driving a vehicle and the person fails to move the persons vehicle off the main traveled portion of the highway into an area sufficient for safe turnout when:
(a) The driver of the overtaken vehicle is proceeding at a speed less than a speed established in ORS 811.105 (Speeds that are evidence of basic rule violation) as prima facie evidence of violation of the basic speed rule;
(b) The driver of the overtaking vehicle is proceeding at a speed in conformity with ORS 811.105 (Speeds that are evidence of basic rule violation);
(c) The highway is a two directional, two-lane highway; and
(d) There is no clear lane for passing available to the driver of the overtaking vehicle.
(2) This section does not apply to the driver of a vehicle in a funeral procession.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §640; 1991 c.482 §16; 1995 c.383 §68; 2001 c.104 §307; 2003 c.819 §15]

Our exception to the "ride right" rule is also written slightly differently than yours:

[ride right except]

"When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 (Failure of slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle) or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements."

You can take the lane when it is necessary to "avoid unsafe operation in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel side by side." So, you can take the lane to prevent unsafe passing in the lane, for example. But if there is no traffic in the opposite direction, there is no reason to assume that anyone will pass unsafely. Your statute is similar, and I don't think either of them gives a cyclist a free pass to ride lane center simply because a lane is too narrow to be shared - but both statues are vague, and there are no reported Oregon cases on point (at least that I recall sitting here -- I'm going for a ride on a plastic bike and don't want to bother looking).

The Ohio code section on minimum speeds applies only to freeways.
That's moot.

Ohio law specifically permits cyclists to control a lane that's too
narrow to safely share. So does Oregon's, as you've quoted. Many other
states have versions of the same idea in their codes, written for this
specific purpose. So does the UVC, as I quoted above. I'm surprised
you're claiming those statutes are "vague."

Regarding the UVC : Are you going to try to pretend that its intent is
to prevent the operation of a 20 mph farm tractor on public roads? Or
the steep uphill passage of an 80,000 pound truck? Sorry, that's silly.
But in any case, the UVC's specific permission for bicyclists makes
that point moot, as well.

We have case precedent that the capabilities of the vehicle must be
taken into account. We have, in every state, the practice of letting
slow vehicles use the road even if some road users are slightly delayed.
And again, this idea of controlling narrow lanes is universal among
legitimate cycling education courses and documents, AFAIK. This has
arisen because of vast experience showing that - contrary to your
assertion - there is _plenty_ of evidence that doing otherwise promotes
dangerously close passing, and that lane control helps dissuade it.

You need to read the statutes more carefully. There is no common law of traffic. It's statutory. The Ohio statute is peculiar and is not the law in every state -- or anywhere else from what I can tell.

Under the UVC, slow moving vehicles must yield to faster traffic on one-lane (each way) roads -- without regard to the physical fitness of the driver, except in Ohio. in your scenario, the slow moving tractor on a one lane road must yield to faster traffic. In other words, it has to pull of when it is safe and let traffic by. Tractor drivers often fail to do that, but it doesn't mean they're following the law.

The Oregon statute gives a bicyclist the right to take the lane to avoid "unsafe operation" within a lane that is too narrow to share. Crossing the center line to pass is not unsafe operation -- so if there is room to pass (no oncoming traffic), the statute does not give riders a free pass to take the lane -- not as written.

The take-away from all of this is that the rules of the road for bicyclists can vary significantly from one state to another. You cannot tell a rider in another state how he or she should ride -- not without looking at state and local law. In fact, city ordinances may affect where an how a bicyclist can use the roads or sidewalks.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Fri, 29 May 2015 23:46:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Have you ridden there?

Been about sixty years since I did, but I'll bet one thing about
Florida hasn't changed: If you leave the pavement, you sink deep into
loose sand.


--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- needlework
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 4:20:53 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:

You need to read the statutes more carefully. There is no common law of traffic. It's statutory. The Ohio statute is peculiar and is not the law in every state -- or anywhere else from what I can tell.

Under the UVC, slow moving vehicles must yield to faster traffic on one-lane (each way) roads -- without regard to the physical fitness of the driver, except in Ohio. in your scenario, the slow moving tractor on a one lane road must yield to faster traffic. In other words, it has to pull of when it is safe and let traffic by. Tractor drivers often fail to do that, but it doesn't mean they're following the law.

The Oregon statute gives a bicyclist the right to take the lane to avoid "unsafe operation" within a lane that is too narrow to share. Crossing the center line to pass is not unsafe operation -- so if there is room to pass (no oncoming traffic), the statute does not give riders a free pass to take the lane -- not as written.

The take-away from all of this is that the rules of the road for bicyclists can vary significantly from one state to another. You cannot tell a rider in another state how he or she should ride -- not without looking at state and local law. In fact, city ordinances may affect where an how a bicyclist can use the roads or sidewalks.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, I realize you're a lawyer and I'm not. But I also realize that Steve
Magas is a lawyer. So is Bob Mionske. So are a couple of the guys I ride with.
So are people on staff at the League of American Bicyclists, other guys on
the board of the Ohio Bicycle Federation, other folks in other state
bicycling advocacy organizations.

Despite what you say, your view on controlling a narrow lane seems to be
in disagreement with what all those people say. Don't pretend that I'm
the only person recommending riding far enough left to control a lane.
It's the standard advice in the League's education programs, in the
Cycling Savvy courses, in CAN-BIKE, and in similar cycling courses in
other countries. Are all the lawyers associated with all those
education programs wrong? I doubt it.

To paraphrase and old joke: I don't think everyone's out of step except
our little Jay.

- Frank Krygowski