Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

James wrote:
On 25/10/14 02:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:


What exactly does James advise?



Keep an eye on the pricks and be ready to bail out if necessary, then
chase and confront them at the next set of lights - if possible.

Taking number plate and vehicle details and reporting to police has
proved fruitless thus far.

Watch yourself. We had a rider do that and he was beaten nearly to death
by two guys in the car.

--
duane

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:42:04 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 10/24/2014 7:58 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:17:06 +0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 22:55:09 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joerg considered Wed, 22 Oct 2014
15:32:31 -0700 the perfect time to write:

Clive George wrote:
On 22/10/2014 17:59, Joerg wrote:

In many areas you cannot. Riding too far into the lane can trigger
numerous nasty things. Most of all drivers getting angry and eventually
passing you at very close range, to "show you who is king of the road".
Also a costly ticket from the local sheriff/police for impeding traffic.
In some legislations it's even illegal to ride anywhere than the far
right.

What are you doing about that? Insisting that paths are the only safe
places to ride isn't going to give them any incentive to change that law
- rather the opposite in fact, and you're still going to have to ride on
the road at some point.


Those laws won't change no matter what.

They did here.
See the Daniel Cadden case, where it had to be appealed to the House
of Lords to get a firm legal decision that cyclists are traffic, have
a right of way on the roads, and have the right to choose their own
positioning on the road.

That was after the police attempted to prosecute him for "causing an
obstruction" because he had the temerity to use the road on a bicycle
in front of them.

Set your self up as a test case if you like - fight it all the way to
the highest court in your country, and you can win too, as Daniel did.

I believe that in the U.S. most, if not all states, specify in their
traffic codes that a bicycle is a vehicle and has the right to use
public highways and apparently have had since the middle or late
1800's.
--

He's talking about bikes with unrestricted lane position.
I think you'll find in most states bikes are required to keep to the right
either specifically or implicitly due to the slow moving vehicle
specification. I think you'll find very few states that don't restrict the
lane position. Jay can probably offer more info here though.


John B.

As far as I remember there was always, at least as far back when I was
16 years old, a law that required slower traffic to move to the
extreme right side of the road. In fact I can remember signs posted
saying "Slow traffic keep right".

So regardless, a bicycle thundering along at 15 mph would be required
to stay on the right so not to impede other traffic.

I remember when there were still a couple of old fellows left that
were still driving a horse and buggy to town to do the Saturday
shopping and they certainly stayed pretty close to the edge of the
roads.


Right. It seems that many of us remember this and think that it hasn't
changed. Some of us apparently don't believe it though.

My final and all encompassing "traffic" law is "Don't get hit!"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2014 7:58 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


As far as I remember there was always, at least as far back when I was
16 years old, a law that required slower traffic to move to the
extreme right side of the road. In fact I can remember signs posted
saying "Slow traffic keep right".

So regardless, a bicycle thundering along at 15 mph would be required
to stay on the right so not to impede other traffic.

The laws you remember may not be the laws currently in effect. Times
have changed, at least in many states. IIRC, the UVC now has statements
explaining situations in which bicyclists don't need to be at far right.
Some states (like mine) have generous lists of examples of such
situations written into law, along with statements indicating there may
be other valid reasons.

Unfortunately, there are some areas whose laws have not progressed
beyond the 1950s. More unfortunately, there are motorists and cyclists
whose thinking has not progressed beyond the 1950s.

Yes, I know. But the idea of riding out in the middle of the road at
less then half the speed of overtaking traffic is not one that I would
recommend as it places the responsibility for one's safety completely
on the shoulders of others.

In fact, I described a case of someone "taking the lane" in which 2
out of the four riders were killed on the spot and the other two taken
to the hospital.

If I remember, you said something like, "well they shouldn't taken the
lane under those conditions."

Since "taking the lane" involves riding out in the middle of the road,
in traffic traveling perhaps two or three times the speed of the
bicycle, it appears that the mind set here is, "Oh, I'm out here where
they can see me so they won't hit me". But at the same time we are
bombarded with news stories talking about an auto hitting a bicycle
while the driver are texting, looking in the mirror to put on
lipstick, etc.

The fact that the UVC has examples of times when one doesn't have to
stay on the right side of the road is, I'm sure, of great comfort to
someone who's wife, husband, children, have just been run over by a
beautiful; young lady who "just had to" send that text message.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, October 24, 2014 8:29:13 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2014 7:58 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


As far as I remember there was always, at least as far back when I was
16 years old, a law that required slower traffic to move to the
extreme right side of the road. In fact I can remember signs posted
saying "Slow traffic keep right".

So regardless, a bicycle thundering along at 15 mph would be required
to stay on the right so not to impede other traffic.

The laws you remember may not be the laws currently in effect. Times
have changed, at least in many states. IIRC, the UVC now has statements
explaining situations in which bicyclists don't need to be at far right.
Some states (like mine) have generous lists of examples of such
situations written into law, along with statements indicating there may
be other valid reasons.

Unfortunately, there are some areas whose laws have not progressed
beyond the 1950s. More unfortunately, there are motorists and cyclists
whose thinking has not progressed beyond the 1950s.

Yes, I know. But the idea of riding out in the middle of the road at
less then half the speed of overtaking traffic is not one that I would
recommend as it places the responsibility for one's safety completely
on the shoulders of others.

In fact, I described a case of someone "taking the lane" in which 2
out of the four riders were killed on the spot and the other two taken
to the hospital.

If I remember, you said something like, "well they shouldn't taken the
lane under those conditions."

Since "taking the lane" involves riding out in the middle of the road,
in traffic traveling perhaps two or three times the speed of the
bicycle, it appears that the mind set here is, "Oh, I'm out here where
they can see me so they won't hit me". But at the same time we are
bombarded with news stories talking about an auto hitting a bicycle
while the driver are texting, looking in the mirror to put on
lipstick, etc.

The fact that the UVC has examples of times when one doesn't have to
stay on the right side of the road is, I'm sure, of great comfort to
someone who's wife, husband, children, have just been run over by a
beautiful; young lady who "just had to" send that text message.
--
Cheers,

John B.

In the instance of the 18 wheeler, me and a very narrow bridge, when I decided to leave tthe road to avoid getting run down by that truck that was gaining on me and not slowing; I was told that Ishould have maintained center lane position and the truck would have to slow before running me over and I was also told that if I was so scared about riding lane center in such instances that perhaps I shouldn't even be riding on the road!

Some people don't seem to have heard the saying, "He was right - dead right".

Cheers

Sir Ridesalot writes:

In the instance of the 18 wheeler, me and a very narrow bridge, when I
decided to leave tthe road to avoid getting run down by that truck
that was gaining on me and not slowing; I was told that Ishould have
maintained center lane position and the truck would have to slow
before running me over and I was also told that if I was so scared
about riding lane center in such instances that perhaps I shouldn't
even be riding on the road!

I'm no expert on vehicular cycling, but I don't believe the
recommendation is to wait until you reach a bottleneck (narrow bridge)
to "take the lane". That is, if you've already conceded the lane, then
you'll have to wait until its safe to do so. Meaning if you look back
while on the right and the truck is bearing down, you probably shouldn't
move left.

--
Joe Riel

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:42:04 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 10/24/2014 7:58 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:17:06 +0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 22:55:09 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joerg considered Wed, 22 Oct 2014
15:32:31 -0700 the perfect time to write:

Clive George wrote:
On 22/10/2014 17:59, Joerg wrote:

In many areas you cannot. Riding too far into the lane can trigger
numerous nasty things. Most of all drivers getting angry and eventually
passing you at very close range, to "show you who is king of the road".
Also a costly ticket from the local sheriff/police for impeding traffic.
In some legislations it's even illegal to ride anywhere than the far
right.

What are you doing about that? Insisting that paths are the only safe
places to ride isn't going to give them any incentive to change that law
- rather the opposite in fact, and you're still going to have to ride on
the road at some point.


Those laws won't change no matter what.

They did here.
See the Daniel Cadden case, where it had to be appealed to the House
of Lords to get a firm legal decision that cyclists are traffic, have
a right of way on the roads, and have the right to choose their own
positioning on the road.

That was after the police attempted to prosecute him for "causing an
obstruction" because he had the temerity to use the road on a bicycle
in front of them.

Set your self up as a test case if you like - fight it all the way to
the highest court in your country, and you can win too, as Daniel did.

I believe that in the U.S. most, if not all states, specify in their
traffic codes that a bicycle is a vehicle and has the right to use
public highways and apparently have had since the middle or late
1800's.
--

He's talking about bikes with unrestricted lane position.
I think you'll find in most states bikes are required to keep to the right
either specifically or implicitly due to the slow moving vehicle
specification. I think you'll find very few states that don't restrict the
lane position. Jay can probably offer more info here though.


John B.

As far as I remember there was always, at least as far back when I was
16 years old, a law that required slower traffic to move to the
extreme right side of the road. In fact I can remember signs posted
saying "Slow traffic keep right".

So regardless, a bicycle thundering along at 15 mph would be required
to stay on the right so not to impede other traffic.

I remember when there were still a couple of old fellows left that
were still driving a horse and buggy to town to do the Saturday
shopping and they certainly stayed pretty close to the edge of the
roads.


Right. It seems that many of us remember this and think that it hasn't
changed. Some of us apparently don't believe it though.

My final and all encompassing "traffic" law is "Don't get hit!"
--
Cheers,


Defensive riding succinctly stated. Works for me.


--
duane

On Friday, October 24, 2014 3:50:13 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 25/10/14 02:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:


What exactly does James advise?



Keep an eye on the pricks and be ready to bail out if necessary, then
chase and confront them at the next set of lights - if possible.

Taking number plate and vehicle details and reporting to police has
proved fruitless thus far.

Watch yourself. We had a rider do that and he was beaten nearly to death
by two guys in the car.

I unloaded on some guy . . . who turned out to be a circuit court judge. Yikes, I had to get another lawyer in my office to make all my appearances in his court for a few months, which was his memory span . . . when sober. That was a million years ago, and he's retired now.

My commute is only five miles each way and it hasn't changed much for 25 years, so I have to be careful that I'm not screaming at (1) a neighbor, or (2) someone who works with me or in my building. That makes for a really unpleasant elevator ride.

A month or so ago, I confronted a driver who about ran me down and then started ranting about sharing the road, etc. This was a tiny road where merely riding on it put you in the middle of the lane. He stopped and opened his window. I was all ready for the "f*** you, no f*** you (lather, rinse, repeat)" exchange, but instead I opened my mouth and informed him that he had just violated five laws and then I started citing them (some correctly). He must have thought I was a cop, because he became quiet and waited for me to let him drive away. Hmmm. Maybe it was my cop-esque sunglasses. On that same day, two thugs in a beater acted like they were going to hit me with the passenger side door. They were goons, and I wouldn't have confronted them. Some people you just don't confront, and they sped off around a corner before I could get a plate (assuming they had one).

-- Jay Beattie.

, and after catching my breath, I started citing all the statutes that he had violated -- criminal and traffic -- I looked at his plates

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2014 3:47 PM, James wrote:
On 25/10/14 02:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:


What exactly does James advise?



Keep an eye on the pricks and be ready to bail out if necessary, then
chase and confront them at the next set of lights - if possible.

I think all that's fine. But the question, as always, is where do you
ride in a narrow lane? Gutter like Jeorg, or center like me?

Taking number plate and vehicle details and reporting to police has
proved fruitless thus far.

Yes, that can be tough.

Some of my riding buddies are cops. One low-ranking guy, a city cop, was
run off the road by an elderly lady on a quiet residential street, an act
which was either deliberate or extremely incompetent. He reported it,
asking authority to ticket her after the fact (I think that was the plan)
but his superiors denied it. He thought they were afraid of bad
publicity and perhaps taxpayer revolt.

But in another case, a higher ranking guy was deliberately harrassed by a
motorist. He had the authority to decide on his own, and he used it. In
full uniform, he returned to the guys home, said "That was me on the
bike," and arresting him.

I don't recall for sure how the charges worked out in the end; I think
the guy just paid a fine. But I doubt he'll be as aggressive with cyclists any more.

I was talking to a cop once and he mentioned taking bike training during
which somebody cut across the path of his (fully armed) instructor. That
didn't end happily for the motorist, but at least he was only ticketed and
not shot.

Duane writes:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:42:04 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 10/24/2014 7:58 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:17:06 +0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 22:55:09 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joerg considered Wed, 22 Oct 2014
15:32:31 -0700 the perfect time to write:

Clive George wrote:
On 22/10/2014 17:59, Joerg wrote:

In many areas you cannot. Riding too far into the lane can trigger
numerous nasty things. Most of all drivers getting angry and eventually
passing you at very close range, to "show you who is king of the road".
Also a costly ticket from the local sheriff/police for impeding traffic.
In some legislations it's even illegal to ride anywhere than the far
right.

What are you doing about that? Insisting that paths are the only safe
places to ride isn't going to give them any incentive to change that law
- rather the opposite in fact, and you're still going to have to ride on
the road at some point.


Those laws won't change no matter what.

They did here.
See the Daniel Cadden case, where it had to be appealed to the House
of Lords to get a firm legal decision that cyclists are traffic, have
a right of way on the roads, and have the right to choose their own
positioning on the road.

That was after the police attempted to prosecute him for "causing an
obstruction" because he had the temerity to use the road on a bicycle
in front of them.

Set your self up as a test case if you like - fight it all the way to
the highest court in your country, and you can win too, as Daniel did.

I believe that in the U.S. most, if not all states, specify in their
traffic codes that a bicycle is a vehicle and has the right to use
public highways and apparently have had since the middle or late
1800's.
--

He's talking about bikes with unrestricted lane position.
I think you'll find in most states bikes are required to keep to the right
either specifically or implicitly due to the slow moving vehicle
specification. I think you'll find very few states that don't restrict the
lane position. Jay can probably offer more info here though.


John B.

As far as I remember there was always, at least as far back when I was
16 years old, a law that required slower traffic to move to the
extreme right side of the road. In fact I can remember signs posted
saying "Slow traffic keep right".

So regardless, a bicycle thundering along at 15 mph would be required
to stay on the right so not to impede other traffic.

I remember when there were still a couple of old fellows left that
were still driving a horse and buggy to town to do the Saturday
shopping and they certainly stayed pretty close to the edge of the
roads.


Right. It seems that many of us remember this and think that it hasn't
changed. Some of us apparently don't believe it though.

My final and all encompassing "traffic" law is "Don't get hit!"
--
Cheers,


Defensive riding succinctly stated. Works for me.

Yo're confusing results with methods.

--
Joe Riel

On 10/24/2014 9:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:


I unloaded on some guy . . . who turned out to be a circuit court judge. Yikes, I had to get another lawyer in my office to make all my appearances in his court for a few months, which was his memory span . . . when sober. That was a million years ago, and he's retired now.

My commute is only five miles each way and it hasn't changed much for 25 years, so I have to be careful that I'm not screaming at (1) a neighbor, or (2) someone who works with me or in my building. That makes for a really unpleasant elevator ride.

A month or so ago, I confronted a driver who about ran me down and then started ranting about sharing the road, etc. This was a tiny road where merely riding on it put you in the middle of the lane. He stopped and opened his window. I was all ready for the "f*** you, no f*** you (lather, rinse, repeat)" exchange, but instead I opened my mouth and informed him that he had just violated five laws and then I started citing them (some correctly). He must have thought I was a cop, because he became quiet and waited for me to let him drive away. Hmmm. Maybe it was my cop-esque sunglasses. On that same day, two thugs in a beater acted like they were going to hit me with the passenger side door. They were goons, and I wouldn't have confronted them. Some people you just don't confront, and they sped off around a corner before I could get a plate (assuming they had one).

I've had some success in saying "Let's call a cop. Let's call one right
now. Let's see what a cop says," over and over, sometimes pulling out
my cell phone.

I may have added more detail about rights to the road, etc., I really
don't recall. But the heart of it was my apparent eagerness to get the
cops involved. It's calmed a couple people down very nicely.

--
- Frank Krygowski