A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old May 30th 15, 05:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clear view.

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!

Cheers
Ads
  #52  
Old May 30th 15, 05:34 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clearview.

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.


Oh, and IIRC that Ohio case was decided based partly on a precedent set
in Georgia, regarding farm equipment that could not reach the speed
limit. Steve Magas (the lawyer for the victorious cyclist) believes
that the cycling case in Ohio is a valuable precedent for use in other
states.

On the other hand, IANAL. Perhaps you should discuss this with Steve.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #53  
Old May 30th 15, 05:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clear view.

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 12:31:42 AM UTC-4, 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.

Despite the skepticism in this forum, the Uniform Vehicle Code and every
adult cycling education scheme I know of recognizes that it's foolish to
ride far right when a lane is not wide enough to safely share. And the
law should not (and AFAIK does not) require a person to endanger
themselves in order to save another person fifteen seconds.

--
- Frank Krygowski


#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!

Cheers
  #54  
Old May 30th 15, 05:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clearview.

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #55  
Old May 30th 15, 05:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clearview.

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
  #56  
Old May 30th 15, 07:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clear view.

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
  #57  
Old May 30th 15, 07:37 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clearview.

On 5/29/2015 8:08 AM, Duane wrote:
On 29/05/2015 10:50 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/28/2015 7:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 8:56:52 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2015 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2015 16:13:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
snip

Everyone I know who has tried it - and there are many - report that
riding more prominently gets them much more passing clearance from
motorists, and fewer crashes and close calls. For one thing, it's
obvious from much further back that the presence of the cyclist will
require some attention.


Although passing clearance often has nothing to do with road
position. I have been passed closely while riding lane center --
taking the entire lane. Numerous times. Taking the lane makes sense in
places, but it is no guaranty of safe passes. People who want to pass
will pass, and if you're traveling slowly down the middle of a lane,
you will get passed -- sometimes closely and aggressively. The
frequency of unsafe passes will depend on the local driver population
and the model number of the truck, e.g. 150, 250 350 etc.


For transportational cycling, nothing is as good as a side flag for
increasing the passing distance between a bicycle and a car. It is
amazing that motorists are so fearful of getting their car scratched by
a piece of plastic, but they make a wide arc around the cyclist rather
than passing closely.

I might not go this far though:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Cyclist-uses-long-pole-video-camera-to-remind-5425186.php



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt-ZBXZd2kc

The best one is
http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/27/54/13/6210271/4/622x350.jpg.

"He's been met with anger from motorists who aren't acquainted with the
law, as can be seen on the videos he's collected on his YouTube channel.
Most people seen in the videos are angry about their own cars being
damaged."


How does this work when you are on a bi-directional bike lane?


You fold it in I guess. The short flags sold commercially are not a
problem though.

  #58  
Old May 30th 15, 10:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clear view.

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.

This is where we'll hear about the failure of our local bike advocacy.
Although we have a much larger cycling foot print than Ohio with a smaller
population. And btw a better safety record for cyclists. So I'm not sure
how our advocacy is failing exactly other than by not agreeing with Frank.


I'll use a famous quote from from Lafcadio Hearn. Better to live here in
sack cloth and ashes than to own the whole state of Ohio. He was talking
about New Orleans but it seems to fit. It seems you have to risk your life
in Ohio by pulling in front of trucks to keep them from killing you.

Like Jay says there are times you can move left to indicate your intention.
But it's not the cure-all that some or at least one makes it out to be.

duane
  #59  
Old May 30th 15, 02:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
john B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,603
Default Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clear view.

On Sat, 30 May 2015 00:14:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/29/2015 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2015 13:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:29 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2015 16:12:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Once again, the question is: Ten foot lane, 8.5 foot truck. Where do
you ride? If you try to avoid it by skimming the pavement edge, you
signal to the trucker that it's fine to brush your elbow and squeeze past.

No thanks. I've tried both tactics; I know what works better.

I see what you are typing but you seem to use the refrain "take the
lane" like a mantra. Keep repeating it and you'll be all right. But
what about taking the lane on a highway where the motor vehicles are
traveling at. say 80 - 100 KPH?

They come over the hill or around the corner and there you are..,
right in the middle of the lane pedaling along at 20 kph.

About a 22 Mtr/sec differential velocity. They come over the hill and
you are 100 meters ahead and they have 4.5 seconds to (1) notice you
and (2) decide what to do. If it is a lady refreshing her lip gloss,
looking in the rear view mirror, well, say a couple of seconds to
apply and sort of mash the lips together, another couple of second to
blot with the tissue and take a final look and you are 0.5 seconds
from Nirvana. A bit of a frown and the thought, "Whatever is that
right in the middle of the road? A Bicycle?" and you are just a
receding picture in the rear view mirror.

And, from what I read, this is not a rare event in the U.S. I read
that over 70% of U.S. drivers surveyed admitted to texting, reading
e-mail, applying makeup or reading the newspaper while driving.

"Oh, I didn't see him", while perhaps not a valid excuse seems to
becoming a common excuse.

First, rather little cycling is done on highways with high speed limits.
Perhaps that means you don't, in fact, disagree with lane control when
necessary at slower speeds. I hope that's the case.


That is, in a left handed way, exactly what I meant. I might add that
much, perhaps most of my cycling is done on roads that are as
described, but that isn't the point.

The point is that, as I said, you appear to preach "take the lane" as
a mantra to solve all bicycle-motor vehicle interaction and it
obviously isn't, as you seem to admit above.

If, as you do not say, the mantra went something like "take the lane
where it is safe to do so" than I wouldn't comment, but you don't say
that.

You describe the wide truck and the narrow road and say, "take the
lane".

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.


So, essentially your "take the lane" advice, while perhaps logical in
certain situations is not the cure all solution that you seem to be
trying to market it as.


I've never marketed it as a cure all solution. FWIW, as safety chairman
of my bike club, I've written articles almost every month on some aspect
of bike safety. There's been far more to say than just "take the lane."


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!"

ONTOH whenn teaching in any field, the principles that are most important
and most often ignored are the ones that should get the most emphasis
and repetition. (I was noted for hammering into my students that I
wanted them to always explicitly show units of measurements and their
conversions in every calculation.) And any casual observation of
American cyclists will show that there are far more gutter bunnies than
riders properly controlling lanes. Heck, look at the arguments the lane
control idea gets in this forum, despite links to dozens of
corroborating sources, despite examination of crash causes, despite
citations of legal decisions, etc.


In the case of a higher speed highway, IME they seldom have blind curves
that hide cyclists until the last second. That's based on my riding in
47 U.S. states (so far) and about a dozen foreign countries. High-speed
roads that do have blind curves or sharp hill crests almost always have
low traffic, meaning the problem you cite comes up infrequently.


I'm in Phuket at the moment and I can assure you that on the "road to
town" where traffic is usually passing me when I'm doing 80 KPH in my
old pickup, there are at least three places where the road curves
sufficiently that you cannot see a cycle 100 Meters ahead and several
hills that are sufficiently abrupt that the same conditions apply.


I can only comment on the places where I've ridden. The place I found
most uncomfortable for lane control was Tallinn, Estonia (although I had
no trouble in another smaller Estonian town). Another very avid rider
of my acquaintance claimed that the formerly communist eastern European
countries were unpleasant that way. He theorized that those who were
finally rose out of communist poverty and scarcity were lording it over
those they perceived as being sticks in the mud, so to speak. I can't
say whether his sociological guess was correct.

I can envision there might be countries this doesn't work at all - say,
places where the rule of law is extremely weak, or places with an
intense "might makes right" culture. (And as I've said, nothing works
100% of the time.) But it's clear to me that in westernized, generally
non-cycling countries, the vast majority of cyclists have grossly
inflated "fear from the rear," and they actually subject themselves to
extra risk by gutter hugging.


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, and when someone
does as advised and dies the defense is "Oh, they shouldn't have done
that".


In the unusual instances where those problems arise, I've done fine by
paying attention to the possibility of traffic from behind.


But Frank, you don't say that, you say, "take the lane". You imply
that in the wide truck, narrow road situation, that you describe, that
every thing will be hunky-dory if one just takes the lane.


My experience, having done it thousands of times, is that yes,
everything is hunky-dory if one properly uses their right to the road.
It's not that nobody _ever_ honks at me. It's not that nobody _ever_
passes closer than I'd like. But the honks are rare and don't bother
me; and the close passes are far fewer than in my gutter-hugging days.

Now you say "take the lane, but watch your arse" which is a
significantly different thesis.


Well, I know one nationally-known bicycling advocate who emphasizes the
use of a rear view mirror, and in fact emphasizes it enough that it
irritates some of his colleagues. 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.
--
Cheers,

John B.
  #60  
Old May 30th 15, 02:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
john B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,603
Default Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clear view.

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.


Despite the skepticism in this forum, the Uniform Vehicle Code and every
adult cycling education scheme I know of recognizes that it's foolish to
ride far right when a lane is not wide enough to safely share. And the
law should not (and AFAIK does not) require a person to endanger
themselves in order to save another person fifteen seconds.

--
Cheers,

John B.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No wonder some drivers can't see cyclists TMS320 UK 47 March 2nd 14 11:28 PM
Drivers - don't take on cyclists... Bertie Wooster[_2_] UK 19 October 26th 13 08:14 AM
2 out of 3 drivers like cyclists Bertie Wooster[_2_] UK 16 September 9th 13 03:22 AM
Why is it OK to ram cyclists but not other drivers? Doug[_3_] UK 346 November 5th 08 10:18 AM
What Determines Your Level? forrestunifreak Unicycling 2 January 28th 05 10:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.