A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

When to honk at a bicyclist



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #221  
Old November 3rd 04, 03:34 PM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:


While linking you with "Wrong-way Willie" /was/ rather low, it wasn't a
non-sequiter in that you both advocate potentially dangerous riding
practices.


I'm not sure what you mean by "potentially dangerous riding practices."

In reading what Wayne wrote, he seemed to be saying that it's up to the
cyclist whether to take the lane. Are you saying taking the lane is
"potentially dangerous"?

I'd call it "potentially dangerous" only in the same way that walking
across a roadway is "potentially dangerous" - or, for that matter,
walking and chewing gum.

In my view, the willingness to take the lane when appropriate is one
hallmark of a skilled cyclist. Skilled cyclists generally do this
because it is _safer_ than the alternative.

And, practically speaking, the cyclist is the person who gets to judge
when it's appropriate.

Skulking in the gutter? Now that's potentially dangerous!


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Ads
  #222  
Old November 3rd 04, 03:51 PM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

R15757 wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

I 'm with Wayne on this. The typical situation with a cyclist in a
narrow lane is extremely similar to the situation of a 30 mph driver on
a 35 mph road - say, because he's towing a heavy trailer up a steep
hill, or because he's transporting some very fragile cargo.

He has a right to use the road. ...

The key word there is "narrow". Cyclist
in a NARROW lane.

The situation is very different for a
cyclist as opposed to a trailer-hauling
truck, because if the lane is wide
enough, the cyclist is able to share the
lane with another vehicle.


"Narrow lane," in practice, should not be defined as width of pavement.
For example, a 13 foot lane with 4 feet of deep potholes at the right
is a narrow lane for the cyclist, even if a motorist could drive over
those potholes.

A lane with a big patch of broken glass at the right is a narrow lane
for a cyclist, although it doesn't affect a motorist at all.

A lane with wet fallen leaves reaching out several feet from the curb is
a narrow lane for a cyclist. So is a 12 foot lane with a 2 foot drain
grate with slots parallel to the direction of travel.

IOW, there are many road situations where an experienced cyclist knows
he cannot safely use the right portion of the lane. Motorists may not
understand this. Even cops may not understand this. But it's obvious
to the cyclist, who is likely to be much more expert in this matter, as
well as much more concerned by it.

The upshot is this: The cyclist gets to decide when he should take the
lane. Nothing else is reasonable.

There may be blatant abuses, of course - but in my experience, they are
few and far between. In fact, they are much more rare than blatant
cyclist abuse by motorists.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

  #223  
Old November 3rd 04, 04:58 PM
B i l l S o r n s o n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Frank Krygowski wrote:
B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:


While linking you with "Wrong-way Willie" /was/ rather low, it
wasn't a non-sequiter in that you both advocate potentially
dangerous riding practices.


I'm not sure what you mean by "potentially dangerous riding
practices."

In reading what Wayne wrote, he seemed to be saying that it's up to
the cyclist whether to take the lane. Are you saying taking the lane
is "potentially dangerous"?


Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the snippets I read /sounded like/ he was
saying a cyclist can take a lane any time s/he damned well pleases. (And
apparently Bob took it the same way I did.) I don't agree with that. Of
course it's advisable and even necessary at times; it's also stupid and even
suicidal at other times.

Bill "hell, pass 'em on the left on mountain road descents (but know what
the hell you're doing)" S.


  #224  
Old November 3rd 04, 07:09 PM
Wayne Pein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:


While linking you with "Wrong-way Willie" /was/ rather low, it
wasn't a non-sequiter in that you both advocate potentially
dangerous riding practices.


I'm not sure what you mean by "potentially dangerous riding
practices."

In reading what Wayne wrote, he seemed to be saying that it's up to
the cyclist whether to take the lane. Are you saying taking the lane
is "potentially dangerous"?



Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the snippets I read /sounded like/ he was
saying a cyclist can take a lane any time s/he damned well pleases. (And
apparently Bob took it the same way I did.) I don't agree with that. Of
course it's advisable and even necessary at times; it's also stupid and even
suicidal at other times.



Bill, having examined thousands of bicyclist collisions, been a
bicycling researcher for seven years, and spent 42 years bicycling, I
can clearly say you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim using
the full lane is "stupid and even suicial." You are fear mongering.

Wayne

  #226  
Old November 3rd 04, 08:13 PM
B i l l S o r n s o n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wayne Pein wrote:
B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:


Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the snippets I read /sounded like/
he was saying a cyclist can take a lane any time s/he damned well
pleases. (And apparently Bob took it the same way I did.) I don't
agree with that. Of course it's advisable and even necessary at
times; it's also stupid and even suicidal at other times.


Bill, having examined thousands of bicyclist collisions, been a
bicycling researcher for seven years, and spent 42 years bicycling, I
can clearly say you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim using
the full lane is "stupid and even suicial." You are fear mongering.



What part of "at other times" did you not see/read/understand, Wayne? I
know when to take a lane, and when not to (and the latter is a mistake that
night be made only once).

Bill "no dog in this hunt, so bow-wowing out now" S.


  #227  
Old November 3rd 04, 10:03 PM
R15757
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:


"Narrow lane," in practice, should not be defined as width of pavement.
For example, a 13 foot lane with 4 feet of deep potholes at the right
is a narrow lane for the cyclist, even if a motorist could drive over
those potholes.

snip other examples

All those examples are covered in the
exceptions to the ride-right law where
I live.

My point is that there will often be
times when a cyclist can share the lane
with, say, a truck. But there will never be a
time when the truck will be able to share
the lane with another truck. This is the
root of the "discriminatory" ride-to-the-right
laws.

Robert
  #228  
Old November 4th 04, 12:16 AM
Wayne Pein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:



Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the snippets I read /sounded like/
he was saying a cyclist can take a lane any time s/he damned well
pleases. (And apparently Bob took it the same way I did.) I don't
agree with that. Of course it's advisable and even necessary at
times; it's also stupid and even suicidal at other times.



Bill, having examined thousands of bicyclist collisions, been a
bicycling researcher for seven years, and spent 42 years bicycling, I
can clearly say you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim using
the full lane is "stupid and even suicial." You are fear mongering.




What part of "at other times" did you not see/read/understand, Wayne? I
know when to take a lane, and when not to (and the latter is a mistake that
night be made only once).


I read your "at other times."

So, please tell us when a lawfully riding bicylist is "stupid and suicidal."

Wayne

  #229  
Old November 4th 04, 12:32 AM
Wayne Pein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

R15757 wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:


"Narrow lane," in practice, should not be defined as width of pavement.
For example, a 13 foot lane with 4 feet of deep potholes at the right
is a narrow lane for the cyclist, even if a motorist could drive over
those potholes.

snip other examples

All those examples are covered in the
exceptions to the ride-right law where
I live.

My point is that there will often be
times when a cyclist can share the lane
with, say, a truck. But there will never be a
time when the truck will be able to share
the lane with another truck. This is the
root of the "discriminatory" ride-to-the-right
laws.

Robert



Untrue. A two-lane road here has 22.5 ft lanes. Two 8 ft wide trucks
could drive abreast. And there are plenty of times when 3 six foot wide
cars could drive abreast in 2 twelve foot lanes, a very common roadway
configuration. Are these things tolerated? No.

However, there exists the implicit, but spurious, expectation that
motorists are allowed to pass bicyclists in the same lane and can
legally lane share without the permission of the bicyclist. This is not
by explicit language, but by omission of specific prohibition. Some
jurisdictions create enabling regulations upon the bicyclist like the
bicycle-specific ride right rule.

In practice, motorists using part of the bicyclist's lane to overtake is
often OK. It's quite the norm. But if it was always done with care and
respect for the bicyclist, bicyclists would not have anything to
complain about overtaking traffic. But, of course, this is not the case.

Wayne

  #230  
Old November 4th 04, 04:59 AM
R15757
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wayne Pein wrote:

Untrue. A two-lane road here has 22.5 ft lanes. Two 8 ft wide trucks
could drive abreast. And there are plenty of times when 3 six foot wide
cars could drive abreast in 2 twelve foot lanes, a very common roadway
configuration. Are these things tolerated? No.

However, there exists the implicit, but spurious, expectation that
motorists are allowed to pass bicyclists in the same lane and can
legally lane share without the permission of the bicyclist. This is not
by explicit language, but by omission of specific prohibition. Some
jurisdictions create enabling regulations upon the bicyclist like the
bicycle-specific ride right rule.

Good points. But I think situations where
two trucks could safely share the same
lane are rare at best. With cyclists, however,
lane sharing is, as you say, the norm.
Good points though.

In practice, motorists using part of the bicyclist's lane to overtake is
often OK. It's quite the norm. But if it was always done with care and
respect for the bicyclist, bicyclists would not have anything to
complain about overtaking traffic. But, of course, this is not the case.

No, it is not the case. Realistically,
however, taking the lane is no magic
force field against dangerous passes.
Dangerous passes are just part of
riding a bike on the street. Also
realistically speaking, while getting
passed is a near constant thing, these
passes are not a major source of danger
in our daily travels, as 90% of car-bike
collisons involve turning or crossing.

Robert

 




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
Bicycle police officer on bicycle hit [email protected] General 121 February 6th 04 04:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 PM.


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.