When to honk at a bicyclist

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. The truck,
on the other hand, will not be able
to share the lane no matter how
wide it is.

You guys need to stop trying to equate
bicycles with other slow
moving vehicles that always need a full
lane. Bicycles are unique and therefore
have unique laws.

Robert

Tom Keats wrote in part:

How can we obey the law when they won't even tell us what
the law is, or at least give it some context?

Don't strain your brain about it Tom. Just
continue riding in a cooperative, common
sense fashion and you will rarely if ever come
into conflict with the ride-right law. Sign of
a decent law, imo.

Robert

Frank Krygowski wrote:


Now if Wayne really means it's OK for cyclists to deliberately and
blatantly slow other's travel for no practical reason, then I disagree
with him.


I don't see or forsee individual bicyclists attempting to do this, so I
think its a non-issue. Also, I don't really think it is even possible
for a bicyclist to deliberately slow traffic for any appreciable amount
of time "for no practical reason." If there is lots of traffic, there
exists a practical reason. If there is little traffic, then motorists
can overtake pretty much no matter what the bicyclist does.

Wayne

(Tom Keats)

wrote:

Well, just to further clarify my position, here's what I'm stuck
with, according to the BikeSense manual published by British
Columbia's quasi-socialized auto insurance company:
http://bikesense.bc.ca/ch4.htm

"It is important to know that there is currently no concrete
legal definition of 'as near as practicable to the right side
of the highway', so the cyclist should use discretion to
decide whether to take the lane or how far to the right to ride.
It is often safer to ride in the manner detailed in this guide.
However, this issue is still undecided and it is possible that a
police officer could issue you a ticket."

Granted, the above is just one local example, and not universal.
But for all I know there are other jurisdictions in similar
situations.

How can we obey the law when they won't even tell us what
the law is, or at least give it some context?

But the rest of the page you linked *does* give cyclists a context. It would be
nice if a just law could be fashioned that clearly and without ambiguity
defined what is expected of us in every imaginable situation but that's like me
saying, "I wish I was tall and rich instead of just goodlooking and charming"
but some things just aren't possible. g My beef with those that want the
"cyclists keep right" laws to be so absolutely clear that there is no
possibility of those laws *ever* being misinterpreted is that they fail to
recognize the law of unintended consequence. The only possible such law would
be one that bans bicycles from public roadways altogether and neither of us
want that, right?
BTW, if you think "as practicable" is vague you should try defining "probable
cause", "necessary force", and "reasonable doubt"! Those concepts, just like
"as practicable", are always subject to others' review and opinion. One judge
may look at a set of facts and decide that I didn't have probable cause to
believe the defendant committed a crime yet another judge (or even the same
judge on a different day) might view the exact same facts as absolute *proof*
that the defendant is guilty. It happens.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Wayne Pein

wrote:

Bob,

You are free to have your own opinion and misinterpretation of the law.

Regards,
Wayne

Wayne,
My interpretations of traffic laws are based on reading the laws, reading the
opinions handed down by the courts, and what I've heard countless judges say
from the bench as well as my own personal experiences. What are yours based on
besides, "I wanna"?
You may now have the last word because I'm tired of trying to get you to see
the error of your position. Best of luck to you.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Frank Krygowski

wrote in part:

This is a tough one, Bob. We seem to be talking about the "right" of a
cyclist to take the lane, no matter what, versus the "right" of a
motorist to drive the speed limit.

I'm not asserting any such non-existent motorist right and Wayne is not
limiting himself to taking the lane to avoid hazards or enhance safety. He's
asserted that he has an *absolute* right to ride in any lane he wishes because
the phrase "as practicable" vests the final decision with the cyclist. It's not
a case of cyclists' versus drivers' rights. It's a case of one road user
claiming an *absolute* right no matter what.
Suppose for an instant that Wayne is riding in a lane well to the right of
center. There is more than adequate room for you to pass him as you overtake
him on your bike. As you do and with no warning at all, Wayne asserts that
absolute right of his to ride to the *left* of center. You are forced into
oncoming traffic where you are struck. Is that an unlikely even farfetched
scenario? Yes. Is it also an illustration of the very basic fact that no right
is absolute? Yes. What is there about this that makes it a "tough one"?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hunrobe wrote:
Wayne Pein

wrote:

Bob,

You are free to have your own opinion and misinterpretation of the
law.

Regards,
Wayne

Wayne,
My interpretations of traffic laws are based on reading the laws,
reading the opinions handed down by the courts, and what I've heard
countless judges say from the bench as well as my own personal
experiences. What are yours based on besides, "I wanna"?
You may now have the last word because I'm tired of trying to get you
to see the error of your position. Best of luck to you.

He's gonna need it.

Bill "Bill Baka and Wayne Pein: The Death Wish Brigade!" S.

Hunrobe wrote:

Have you considered that your argument, such as it is, could be used to justify
a total ban on bikes on the roadway since no law short of a ban can anticipate
*every* eventuality? In any event, I'm through discussing the issue with you
Wayne because anyone that claims their's is an *absolute* right overruling all
others- no matter what that right is- is an idiot.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

I *knew* it was only a matter of time until "Bob, I don't want to get in
an argument" Hunt would start mud slinging.

I guess you've run out of intelligent things to say.

Wayne

Hunrobe wrote:


I'm not asserting any such non-existent motorist right and Wayne is not
limiting himself to taking the lane to avoid hazards or enhance safety. He's
asserted that he has an *absolute* right to ride in any lane he wishes because
the phrase "as practicable" vests the final decision with the cyclist.


I assert that bicyclists can use the right lane of a multi-lane road, or
the lane of a two lane road. There is no reason for a bicyclist to ride
in a lane left of right except when preparing to turn left.

Please reread all my posts on this topic to figure out where you've
misinterpreted me. Probably right after you declared that you didn't
want to get into an argument.



It's not
a case of cyclists' versus drivers' rights. It's a case of one road user
claiming an *absolute* right no matter what.
Suppose for an instant that Wayne is riding in a lane well to the right of
center. There is more than adequate room for you to pass him as you overtake
him on your bike. As you do and with no warning at all, Wayne asserts that
absolute right of his to ride to the *left* of center. You are forced into
oncoming traffic where you are struck. Is that an unlikely even farfetched
scenario? Yes. Is it also an illustration of the very basic fact that no right
is absolute? Yes. What is there about this that makes it a "tough one"?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Irrelevant argument. Wayne is an experienced bicycle driver and doesn't
change line without looking back and yielding as appropriate. Frank
attempting to pass would say "On your left."

Here's one for you Bob. Two lanes same direction. 24 total feet. Two 6
ft wide cars driving adjacent to each other, yet far apart and doing 5
mph less than the speed limit. Is it OK to drive your car between the
two to pass given there is plenty of room to do so?

Wayne

Claire Petersky wrote:

Dear fellow Bellevue residents:
{snip}
When not to honk:

{snip}

I love it! Thanks, Claire (even though I live in upstate New York).
I clicked your post more quickly than usual because last night I
received my first honk. Been riding city streets for only a little over
a year, but during those 347 miles I never got a honk. I assume that
the Chevy Blazer-pointing offender behind me didn't like the fact that I
had moved left well ahead of a parked car and that since we were on a
two-lane residential street and a third vehicle was approaching in that
lane, he was prevented his crossing the center-line to pass. At the
stop sign at the end of the block, he pulled into the space I'd left
him, and I let him proceed ahead of me. One block later, he was stopped
behind a car that wanted to turn left. I slowed to make eye contact,
then passed. That's how I know "he" was a he. (Dude was so young he
had no facial hair)