Bicycles Allowed Use Of Full Lane, The Million Car Challenge Campaign

On Dec 19, 11:24*am, Ronko wrote:
In article 997cd1ed-bf2b-4a16-8b04-
,
says...

BAUFL launched a bicycle awareness campaign this week at

http://www.baufl.org/. The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that say bicycles allowed use if full lane and to
advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. It's something
every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists right to use
the roads. I'm in, are you?

In California the relevant part of the Vehicle Code is VC21202.
Paraphrasing, it states a bicycle may have full use of the lane if you can go
at "the normal speed of traffic". Otherwise you should be over to the right
so long as it is safe. If it is not safe then you can use the full lane. There is
more and the law and worth reading.

This is a bad policy/campagin of BAUFL or whatever organization this really
is. Unless your Tour De France material, no amateur bicyclists can ride at
25mph or greater as an average speed. Blocking traffic is unsafe for both
yourself and people in cars. Its rude and on one lane roads forces cars to go
over the double yellow line.

This "campaign" is idiotic, unsafe and will fosrter more discord between
motor vehicles drivers and bicyclists.

Hi Ronko,

Your response is only partly true and is one of the better reasons
that public knowledge of road laws and codes are lacking, One of the
primary reasons the MUTCD added the BMUFL regulatory signs for use in
all states is to give awareness to drivers that if the road is too
narrow for a cyclist and a motor vehicle to operate in the same lane,
then the overtaking vehicle must change lanes to pass and to encourage
cyclists in those situations to ride in a manner that does not
encourage unsafe passing. It's not the only reason. For California it
can be found in the same code you were trying to quote, you just did
not quote the whole code. But the signs are for the use throughout the
US.

So the signs are coming and the state laws are there. Not everyone
agrees with the federal regulatory signs and the laws that back them
as you can see. It's a safety issue and the regulatory signs and laws
confirm those issues by doing what they just did by adding and
approving the signs.

With regard to riding responsibly and within the law, that is up to
the users of the roadway to do so. It's irresponsible to operate a
bicycle in a manner that is unsafe and illegal. It's better that we as
cyclists know the laws and codes of our states completely if we are to
be responsible for our own safety. Irresponsibility falls upon those
that know and disregard.

On Dec 19, 4:15 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that say bicycles allowed use if full lane and
to advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. It's
something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists
right to use the roads. I'm in, are you?
No way. Encouraging people who are basically defenseless to
provoke total strangers who can kill or maim them with a flick of
the wrist - and probably beat the rap - strikes me as
irresponsible.
Next we need to encourage pedestrians on mountain roads to "take
the lane" and not walk on the bit of pavement outside the road edge
stripe as some do. I see it similar to walking down the center of
a standard 48" sidewalk when encountering others going the other
way. It is rude, no matter what the user of a right-of-way does
that impairs other user's solely to demonstrate ones right to be
there, especially when not necessary. NRA all the way.
What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
safely share with a passing car?

I proceed as reasonably out of the way as I can and the driver of the
faster vehicle will hold back until it is safe to pass.

They will? That is most definitely counter to my experience, where
many (n.b., not 'all' or even 'most', but ';many') drivers will
attempt to pass when it is decidedly not safe to do so. Also, IME,
riding close to the edge of the roadway is an invitation to
some (n.b., 'some') drivers to squeeze the cyclist(s) off the road.

[...]

On Dec 19, 2:43*pm, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:15 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:





Frank Krygowski wrote:
The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that say bicycles allowed use if full lane and
to advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. *It's
something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists
right to use the roads. *I'm in, are you?
No way. *Encouraging people who are basically defenseless to
provoke total strangers who can kill or maim them with a flick of
the wrist - and probably beat the rap - strikes me as
irresponsible.
Next we need to encourage pedestrians on mountain roads to "take
the lane" and not walk on the bit of pavement outside the road edge
stripe as some do. *I see it similar to walking down the center of
a standard 48" sidewalk when encountering others going the other
way. *It is rude, no matter what the user of a right-of-way does
that impairs other user's solely to demonstrate ones right to be
there, especially when not necessary. *NRA all the way.
What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
safely share with a passing car?

I proceed as reasonably out of the way as I can and the driver of the
faster vehicle will hold back until it is safe to pass.

They will? That is most definitely counter to my experience, where
many (n.b., not 'all' or even 'most', but ';many') drivers will
attempt to pass when it is decidedly not safe to do so. Also, IME,
riding close to the edge of the roadway is an invitation to
some (n.b., 'some') drivers to squeeze the cyclist(s) off the road.

[...]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That was the conclusion by the regulatory panel and one reason for the
addition of the reg.BMUFL signs and why many areas have already
adopted either a BAUFL or BMUFL sign. It is a safety issue.

Jobst Brandt wrote:
[...]
http://tinyurl.com/yfmghlm

If someone had shown up to a GW Bush event carrying a gun and holding
that sign, they likely would have been shot on sight.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

In article c9104fc2-865a-4119-a023-
,
says...


On Dec 19, 3:50*pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Pete Cresswell wrote:
The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that say bicycles allowed use if full lane and to
advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. *It's
something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists
right to use the roads. *I'm in, are you?
No way.
Encouraging people who are basically defenseless to provoke total
strangers who can kill or maim them with a flick of the wrist - and
probably beat the rap - strikes me as irresponsible. *

Next we need to encourage pedestrians on mountain roads to "take the
lane" and not walk on the bit of pavement outside the road edge stripe
as some do. *I see it similar to walking down the center of a standard
48" sidewalk when encountering others going the other way. *It is
rude, no matter what the user of a right-of-way does that impairs
other user's solely to demonstrate ones right to be there, especially
when not necessary. *NRA all the way.

What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
safely share with a passing car?

- Frank Krygowski
In California, under VC21202, you have a right to take the lane to continue
on and move over to the right when safe.

On Dec 19, 3:57 pm, Ronko wrote:
In article c9104fc2-865a-4119-a023-
,
says...



On Dec 19, 3:50 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Pete Cresswell wrote:
The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that say bicycles allowed use if full lane and to
advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. It's
something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists
right to use the roads. I'm in, are you?
No way.
Encouraging people who are basically defenseless to provoke total
strangers who can kill or maim them with a flick of the wrist - and
probably beat the rap - strikes me as irresponsible.

Next we need to encourage pedestrians on mountain roads to "take the
lane" and not walk on the bit of pavement outside the road edge stripe
as some do. I see it similar to walking down the center of a standard
48" sidewalk when encountering others going the other way. It is
rude, no matter what the user of a right-of-way does that impairs
other user's solely to demonstrate ones right to be there, especially
when not necessary. NRA all the way.

What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
safely share with a passing car?

- Frank Krygowski

In California, under VC21202, you have a right to take the lane to continue
on and move over to the right when safe.

Exactly - here in Oregon, too (and presumably most places, which seem
to share much of the same concepts grounded in reasonableness) - but
too many motorists will still angrily honk and shout, "Get the f*%#!
off the road", and take out their frustrated existence by brushing you
back.

Heck, I imagine a lot of the accommodating drivers only are because
they're that kind of people - not because they understand the
bicyclist's right to use the road.

On Dec 19, 12:23*pm, Gary wrote:
On Dec 19, 12:00*pm, Peter Smith wrote:





On Dec 19, 11:24 am, Ronko wrote:

In article 997cd1ed-bf2b-4a16-8b04-
,
says...

BAUFL launched a bicycle awareness campaign this week at

http://www.baufl.org/. The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that say bicycles allowed use if full lane and to
advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. It's something
every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists right to use
the roads. I'm in, are you?

In California the relevant part of the Vehicle Code is VC21202.
Paraphrasing, it states a bicycle may have full use of the lane if you can go
at "the normal speed of traffic". Otherwise you should be over to the right
so long as it is safe. If it is not safe then you can use the full lane. There is
more and the law and worth reading.

This is a bad policy/campagin of BAUFL or whatever organization this really
is. Unless your Tour De France material, no amateur bicyclists can ride at
25mph or greater as an average speed. Blocking traffic is unsafe for both
yourself and people in cars. Its rude and on one lane roads forces cars to go
over the double yellow line.

This "campaign" is idiotic, unsafe and will fosrter more discord between
motor vehicles drivers and bicyclists.

They aren't saying that you should take the lane at all times, just
that you're entitled to the lane as you state in your message. *If
conditions drive me into the lane, I don't want to be contending with
drivers who think they'll be within their rights to run me over.
Unfortunately, that's the mindset that exists among many drivers, and
I believe that this mindset is all that this campaign is trying to
confront.

The stickers do not say "Cyclists should block cars whenever
possible."

I don't understand your and JB's protests except within the context of
the Forrester vs others culture war. *The stickers aren't printed for
them - they're for drivers to read.

P- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peter,

Thats exactly it. The laws are there for everyone to operate safely on
the road. The new federal Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs were just
added to the MUTCD this week. A campaign like this is to create
awareness of the laws that mandated these signs to be used in all
states. As you can see there will be people that disaprove of those
signs being used on the road or anywhere on print or bumpers of cars
for cars to read.
States still may use their own versions as seen on the BAUFL site. The
campaign is clearly aimed at spreading the word about these issues and
not about how someone rides a bike. Still for now most people are
unaware of the laws of with regard to bicycle use on the road.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But that is clearly not the law under the UVC which provides that
bicyclists must stay as far right as practicable and that slow moving
vehicles must yield. Here is the Oregon version:

814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person
commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the
person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal
speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the
existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as
practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.

(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this
section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as
practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the
following circumstances:

(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that
is proceeding in the same direction.

(b) When preparing to execute a left turn.

(c) 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 or from the penalties for failure to
comply with those requirements.

(d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the
left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to
move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is
operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and
exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are
applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of
the roadway.

(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other
bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a
single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and
reasonable movement of traffic.

(f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.

(3) The offense described in this section, improper use of lanes
by a bicycle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §701; 1985 c.
16 §339]


A bicycle may "take the lane" under limited circumstances,
e.g., when moving the speed of traffic or preparing for a left turn
(depending on the local version of the UVC). A bicyclist clearly may
not sit in the middle of the lane promenading at 15mph -- not without
a parade permit. The idea of a "national" or federal law that allows
bicyclists to take the lane is nonsense since the Commerce Clause does
not reach that far, and anyway, it would be bad policy to allow
bicyclists to take the lane at their whim and fancy. The current UVC
is a reasonable compromise that keeps traffic flowing. -- Jay Beattie.

On Dec 19, 5:14*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 19, 12:23*pm, Gary wrote:





On Dec 19, 12:00*pm, Peter Smith wrote:

On Dec 19, 11:24 am, Ronko wrote:

In article 997cd1ed-bf2b-4a16-8b04-
,
says...

BAUFL launched a bicycle awareness campaign this week at

http://www.baufl.org/. The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that say bicycles allowed use if full lane and to
advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. It's something
every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists right to use
the roads. I'm in, are you?

In California the relevant part of the Vehicle Code is VC21202.
Paraphrasing, it states a bicycle may have full use of the lane if you can go
at "the normal speed of traffic". Otherwise you should be over to the right
so long as it is safe. If it is not safe then you can use the full lane. There is
more and the law and worth reading.

This is a bad policy/campagin of BAUFL or whatever organization this really
is. Unless your Tour De France material, no amateur bicyclists can ride at
25mph or greater as an average speed. Blocking traffic is unsafe for both
yourself and people in cars. Its rude and on one lane roads forces cars to go
over the double yellow line.

This "campaign" is idiotic, unsafe and will fosrter more discord between
motor vehicles drivers and bicyclists.

They aren't saying that you should take the lane at all times, just
that you're entitled to the lane as you state in your message. *If
conditions drive me into the lane, I don't want to be contending with
drivers who think they'll be within their rights to run me over.
Unfortunately, that's the mindset that exists among many drivers, and
I believe that this mindset is all that this campaign is trying to
confront.

The stickers do not say "Cyclists should block cars whenever
possible."

I don't understand your and JB's protests except within the context of
the Forrester vs others culture war. *The stickers aren't printed for
them - they're for drivers to read.

P- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peter,

Thats exactly it. The laws are there for everyone to operate safely on
the road. The new federal Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs were just
added to the MUTCD this week. A campaign like this is to create
awareness of the laws that mandated these signs to be used in all
states. As you can see there will be people that disaprove of those
signs being used on the road or anywhere on print or bumpers of cars
for cars to read.
States still may use their own versions as seen on the BAUFL site. The
campaign is clearly aimed at spreading the word about these issues and
not about how someone rides a bike. Still for now most people are
unaware of the laws of with regard to bicycle use on the road.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But that is clearly not the law under the UVC which provides that
bicyclists must stay as far right as practicable and that slow moving
vehicles must yield. *Here is the Oregon version:

814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person
commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the
person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal
speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the
existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as
practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.

* * * (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this
section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as
practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the
following circumstances:

* * * (a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that
is proceeding in the same direction.

* * * (b) When preparing to execute a left turn.

* * * (c) 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 or from the penalties for failure to
comply with those requirements.

* * * (d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the
left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to
move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is
operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and
exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are
applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of
the roadway.

* * * (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other
bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a
single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and
reasonable movement of traffic.

* * * (f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.

* * * (3) The offense described in this section, improper use of lanes
by a bicycle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §701; 1985 c.
16 §339]

* * * * A bicycle may "take the lane" under limited circumstances,
e.g., when moving the speed of traffic or preparing for a left turn
(depending on the local version of the UVC). *A bicyclist clearly may
not sit in the middle of the lane promenading at 15mph -- not without
a parade permit. *The idea of a "national" or federal law that allows
bicyclists to take the lane is nonsense since the Commerce Clause does
not reach that far, and *anyway, it would be bad policy to allow
bicyclists to take the lane at their whim and fancy. The current UVC
is a reasonable compromise that keeps traffic flowing. -- Jay Beattie.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jay,

I don't think any responsible cyclist would violate the code at their
whim or fancy unless they did not understand the law. (The key word is
responsible) ORS 314.430 (2) (c) clearly allows a cyclist to ride
safely in the lane when a lane is too narrow to accomodate a vehicle
and a bicycle. As clear as can be written. As in every state once the
cyclist has either reached a safe area to turn out or designated
turnout then the slow moving codes may apply like ORS 811.425. No
different than operating any other vehicle under the code. No Parade
permit is required. Really. Never heard of an applicable "national" or
federal law that would apply to state vehicle code with regard to
bicycles either. Where did that come from?

In article ,
Ronko wrote:

In article c9104fc2-865a-4119-a023-
,
says...


On Dec 19, 3:50Â*pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Pete Cresswell wrote:
The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
million stickers that say bicycles allowed use if full lane and to
advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. Â*It's
something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists
right to use the roads. Â*I'm in, are you?
No way.
Encouraging people who are basically defenseless to provoke total
strangers who can kill or maim them with a flick of the wrist - and
probably beat the rap - strikes me as irresponsible. Â*

Next we need to encourage pedestrians on mountain roads to "take the
lane" and not walk on the bit of pavement outside the road edge stripe
as some do. Â*I see it similar to walking down the center of a standard
48" sidewalk when encountering others going the other way. Â*It is
rude, no matter what the user of a right-of-way does that impairs
other user's solely to demonstrate ones right to be there, especially
when not necessary. Â*NRA all the way.

What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
safely share with a passing car?

- Frank Krygowski
In California, under VC21202, you have a right to take the lane to continue
on and move over to the right when safe.

Also you are obliged to pull over, stop and allow
backed up traffic to pass. My recollection is five
vehicles staked up and you _must_ pull over. Let's
see ...

Slow-Moving Vehicles

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed
limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a
speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in
the same direction at such time shall be driven in the
right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking
and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same
direction or when preparing for a left turn at an
intersection or into a private road or driveway.

21654 (b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less
than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same
direction at such time, and is not being driven in the
right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute
prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the
vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this
section.

Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe
because of traffic in the opposite direction or other
conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a
passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles
are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the
nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected
by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway,
or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists,
in order to permit the vehicles following it to
proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle
is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than
the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and
place.

--
Michael Press

Also you are obliged to pull over, stop and allow
backed up traffic to pass. My recollection is five
vehicles staked up and you _must_ pull over. Let's
see ...

Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe
because of traffic in the opposite direction or other
conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a
passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles
are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the
nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected
by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway,
or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists,
in order to permit the vehicles following it to
proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle
is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than
the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and
place.

But apparently a bicycle is not considered a vehicle:

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or
tracks.