Trust

[Bob Boyce]

Serge asks, quite reasonably, how do we persuade people to trust motorists to act responsibly--not to run over cyclists. I'm presuming that he is asking about the concern that cars will run over the bicycle in the street--will hit them from behind.

One way is to show them the statistics--that only 5% of car-bicycle collisions involve the car hitting the bicycle from behind, and most of those are at night, and the bicycle has no light or reflectors.

Another way is to show videos of cyclists riding down a highway or street, and motorists not hitting them from behind--moving into another lane to pass, slowing until it's safe, and so forth.

Another way is to take them out into traffic on a bicycle--perhaps on a tandem?--and let them experience the fact themselves--or to WATCH cyclists doing that, not just videos of that situation.

Another way might be to take them in a car, and come up behind a cyclist, and SEE that motorists can easily avoid running into the back of a bicycle. Any other suggestions?? John--How did you do this with kids??

[John Forester]

I never discussed fear of same-direction motor traffic with children. I
taught them how to operate in traffic, and operating in traffic taught
them how traffic operates, which developed their confidence that it
normally does so operate. Not much to worry about, there.

> --
> --

--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com

[Neal]

Hello Bob Boyce and All,

Bob wrote in part: " One way is to show them the statistics--that only 5% of car-bicycle collisions involve the car hitting the bicycle from behind, and most of those are at night, and the bicycle has no light or reflectors."

Perhaps not:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811156.pdf

Pedalcyclist fatalities occurred more frequently in urban areas (69%), at non-intersection locations (64%), between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. (28%), and during the months of June (9%) and September (12%).

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811386.pdf

The majority of pedalcyclist fatalities in 2009 occurred in urban areas (70%). In respect to vehicle crash location in relation to an intersection, most pedalcyclist fatalities in 2009 occurred at non-intersections.

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25400/25439/DOT-HS-803-315.pdf

Page 229 – Class D Problems  (Cyclist struck from behind by motorist)

“Table 36 lists the problem types and subtypes for Class D and shows the proportion of fatal and non-fatal cases that were classified into each problem type and subtype. It can be seen in Table 36 that Class D accounted for nearly 38% of all fatal cases and that nearly one-fourth of all fatal accidents were classified into Problem Type 13.”

Cheers,

Neal

+1 mph Faster

[Serge Issakov]

Neal, I can't remember if this has been explained to you before, but will give you the benefit of the doubt.

There are two widely used definitions for "intersection".  I call them the narrow and broad interpretations.   Neither is right or wrong - they're just different.  You do have to understand which is being used in whatever context you're reading, because they're meanings are very different.

The narrow interpretation strictly limits "intersection" to refer to the space that is common to any two intersecting roadways.

The broad interpretation of "intersection"  refers to the vicinity of any place where vehicular travel from different directions can coincide.

All of the following are intersections per the broad interpretation, but not the narrow interpretation:

1. Vicinity of a driveway and a street.
2. Vicinity of an alley and a street.
3. The area immediately before a cross street.

The FARS data is based on the narrow definition of an intersection.  It ultimately depends on whether the officer at the scene checks the "intersection" box on the form, which the are trained to do only if the collision occurs within the intersecting space of two roadways.

So if a cyclist riding near a curb is right hooked by a right turning vehicle before the end of the block has been reached, it's counted as a non-intersection crash.  If a cyclist is left-crossed by an oncoming motorist turning left into a mid-block driveway, it's counted as a non-intersection crash.  If a cyclist is hit by someone pulling out of an alley, it's a non-intersection crash.  The list of common crash types involving turning movements that would be classified as "non-intersection" in the FARS data goes on and on.  Unfortunately, there is no way to discern from the FARS data which crashes definitely did not involve turning movements on the part of both parties, but the intersection/non-intersection data is essentially worthless for our purposes, though it obviously severely undercounts crashes involving turning movements.  No way can we assume all the "non-intersection" crashes involve a motorist hitting a cyclist from behind, both going straight.

Serge

--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
 
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
 
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bob Sutterfield]

The good news for cyclists is that the same simple active countermeasures are effective in all intersection environments, whether broadly or narrowly defined. So it's easy to teach and easy to learn and easy to perform: Merge into a lane control position before you reach an intersection *of any sort*, then keep your attention forward where conflicts will develop. The more densely the intersections *of all sorts* are arranged, the more time you'll spend controlling the lane.

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:

All of the following are intersections per the broad interpretation

​ (

​

vicinity of any place where vehicular travel from different directions can coincide

)​

, but not the narrow interpretation

​ (

​

space that is common to any two intersecting roadways

)​

:

[John Forester]

Neal's propaganda for bikeways has led him to repeatedly present studies of the types shown below. We've all seen this before, and have reasonably removed these presentations from the general field of car-bike collision studies. The reason is that these presentations concern only fatal collisions, while fatal collisions constitute only about 2% of all car-bike collisions and have an atypical distribution.

Neal questions my argument that only about 5% (generous, at that) of car-bike collisions involve the car hitting the bicycle from behind, while 95% involve crossing or turning movements by either or both participants. However, the third item that Neal presents is a small part of the Cross NHTSA study, which small part he has previously argued is relevant to the discussion. It so happens, though, that my 5%/95% analysis is directly drawn from Cross's own data sheets as published in Volume 2. We catch Neal vigorously supporting the small part of the Cross study that suits his purposes, a part whose accuracy has never been questioned (but whose relevance to the whole picture is questioned), while questioning a conclusion drawn directly from Cross's own data sheets. That's propaganda, data mining to suit one's own purposes while ignoring the whole picture presented by the data.

--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
 
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
 
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text inserted by Panda IS 2014:

This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: It is spam!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Neal]

Hello Serge and All,

Thanks for the intersection definitions although the data seems to be presented differently in the FARS database for 2012. [some improvements have been implemented]

I am a novice at using the FARS Encyclopedia so there will be some subtle [and not so subtle] attributes that escape me until I gain more experience and some tutoring.

Actually when you drill down in the NHTSA FARS Encyclopedia Database there is surprising detail or granularity.

Now that is not to say that the reporting police officer on scene does not commit errors in drafting the report.

I have a relative in law enforcement and I will ask him what his experience has been in officer accuracy of reporting.

For instance the following is noted for each crash occurrence.

 

RELATION TO TRAFFICWAY
01-On Roadway 02-On Shoulder 03-On Median 04-On Roadside 05-Outside Trafficway 06-Off Roadway - Location Unknown  07-In Parking Lane/Zone 08-Gore 10-Separator 11-Continuous Left-Turn Lane 98-Not Reported 99-Unknown

 

TYPE OF INTERSECTION
1-Not an Intersection 2-Four-way Intersection 3-T-Intersection 4-Y-Intersection  5-Traffic Circle 6-Roundabout 7-Five Point, or More 8-Not Reported 9-Unknown

 

 

MANNER OF COLLISION
00-Not Collision with Motor Vehicle In-Transport 01-Front-to-Rear 02-Front-to-Front 06-Angle 07-Sideswipe-Same Direction 08-Sideswipe-Opposite Direction  09-Rear-to-Side 10-Rear-to-Rear 11-Other 98-Not Reported 99-Unknown

 

RELATION TO JUNCTION
JUNCTION 01-Non-Junction 02-Intersection 03-Intersection Related 04-Driveway Access 05-Entrance/Exit Ramp Related 06-Rail Grade Crossing 07-Crossover-Related 08-Driveway Access Related 16-Shared-Use Path or Trail 17-Acceleration/Deceleration Lane  WITHIN INTERCHANGE AREA 0-No 1-Yes 8-Not Reported 9-Unknown 18-Through Roadway 19-Other Location Within Interchange Area 98-Not Reported 99-Unknown

 

Cheers,

Neal

+1 mph Faster

[Patricia Kovacs]

Dear Serge,

Thanks for explaining how intersections are defined by police officers. I just assumed they would treat driveways and alleys as intersections, too. There are also many other types of non-intersection crashes, like wrong way cyclists, lane changes, following too closely (cyclist hit from behind when stopping for red light or stopped traffic). That last one is something I worry about. I typically stop when a light is changing to red but with all the red light runners, I may not have time to signal and I worry the person behind won't stop.|

Recently a highway patrol officer told me the most common type of crash is due to lane changes. I think he was referring to highway driving, though.

Tricia Kovacs

---

From: Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>
To: Neal <nea...@gmail.com>
Cc: BicycleDriving <bicycle...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [BicycleDriving] Re: Trust

[Michael Graff]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Patricia Kovacs <pko...@att.net> wrote:

following too closely (cyclist hit from behind when stopping for red light or stopped traffic). That last one is something I worry about. I typically stop when a light is changing to red but with all the red light runners, I may not have time to signal and I worry the person behind won't stop.

Keep in mind the guideline about following distance and reaction time: 1 car length per 10 MPH.

If I'm going 40 in my car and being tailgated by another motorist, then I do sometimes worry that the guy behind me can stop in time.

If I'm going 15 on my bike and being followed by a motorist... Well, first of all, motorists don't really follow me that closely when I'm going 15. They have plenty of time to react at that speed.

[Patricia Kovacs]

That's a good point. I hadn't thought about it that way.

I remember when yellow lights meant prepare to stop, not hurry up to beat the red.

---

From: Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com>

[Bob Sutterfield]

The only time I've been hit from behind was by another cyclist who was drafting me in traffic, and was surprised when I stopped to wait my turn behind the line of stopped cars, rather than "shoot the gap" and maintain my speed in the bike lane. This wasn't in the intersection with another street so it wouldn't have been counted as an intersection collision, though the cars were stopped for a red light, so we were in an operational environment influenced by the traffic control device at the intersection ahead.

​Since then, I'm more vigilant to not trust strangers to draft me, particularly not in traffic.

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Patricia Kovacs <pko...@att.net> wrote:

[Serge Issakov]

When there is bike-bike drafting going on, communication by those at the front is critical.  Ideally those behind look ahead and predict the decisions and actions of those at the front, but often this is not possible.  Those at the front must use hand and verbal cues.

The hand signals used for intragroup communication are not standard driving signals.  "Stopping/slowing", for example, is hand in a fist behind you at the small of your back.

http://www.active.com/cycling/articles/8-cycling-hand-signals-for-your-next-group-ride

Serge

--

[Willie Hunt]

Maybe by some cyclists.  However, what I've always seen taught by driving instructors (based I guess on state laws) is a hand down for stopping.  Yes, this is confusing relative to pointing out debris or road surface issues.

Willie

[Willie Hunt]

On the subject of trusting following drivers: I don't trust them at all to recognize hand signals.  However, they do understand a bright LED brake light and blinking yellow LED turn turn signals.  On a normal bicycle it's a pain to install something that works well, since there are no good kits for this.  However, in my Quest, it's part of the standard lighting package.

Willie

[Bob Shanteau]

On 4/25/2014 8:15 AM, Bob Sutterfield wrote:

The only time I've been hit from behind was by another cyclist who was drafting me in traffic, and was surprised when I stopped to wait my turn behind the line of stopped cars, rather than "shoot the gap" and maintain my speed in the bike lane. This wasn't in the intersection with another street so it wouldn't have been counted as an intersection collision, though the cars were stopped for a red light, so we were in an operational environment influenced by the traffic control device at the intersection ahead.

Unless one of you was injured or damage exceeded $750, your collision was not reportable and thus not in the databases of your local law enforcement agency, SWITRS or USDOT.
<https://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/sr/sr1.htm>

Bob Shanteau

[John Forester]

In all my years of group riding, including racing, I saw only the left hand down signal for slowing.

On 4/25/2014 9:31 AM, Serge Issakov wrote:

When there is bike-bike drafting going on, communication by those at the front is critical.  Ideally those behind look ahead and predict the decisions and actions of those at the front, but often this is not possible.  Those at the front must use hand and verbal cues.

The hand signals used for intragroup communication are not standard driving signals.  "Stopping/slowing", for example, is hand in a fist behind you at the small of your back.

http://www.active.com/cycling/articles/8-cycling-hand-signals-for-your-next-group-ride

Serge

--
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Serge Issakov]

Group riding is not legally recognized, so there are no allowances for it in the law.  Group riding is more dangerous than solo riding because of the close proximity.  Because of that, it requires special rules. Using standard legal hand signals within a group can be confusing and therefore dangerous (context/situation matters).  Special rules and communication methods for group riding were developed decades ago and have been passed along as memes.  Anyone unwilling or uncomfortable with learning and following those rules probably should avoid group riding.

Serge

[Serge Issakov]

I've seen both, but in groups I've ridden with, the fist behind the back seems more common, usually coupled with a "SLOWING!" yell.

Serge

--

[Mark Ortiz]

In NC, it’s not a reportable crash unless a motor vehicle is involved, and there is death or injury requiring medical treatment or damage over the threshold amount.

 

I am not basically in agreement with demands that cyclists carry insurance comparable to car or motorcycle insurance, but I am confident that if this were required, we would in short order see police investigation and reporting of bicycle crashes.  The insurance companies would demand it.

 

 

Mark Ortiz

 

From: bicycle...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bicycle...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Shanteau
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 12:55 PM
To: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [BicycleDriving] Re: Trust

 

On 4/25/2014 8:15 AM, Bob Sutterfield wrote:

--

--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
 
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
 
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

[Bob Sutterfield]

I didn't know I was leading a group, I was just riding to work.

So I didn't think I was legally or socially constrained to any particular etiquette.

I saw him in my mirror and I was trying to open a gap because I don't like strangers drafting me, and I don't like anybody drafting me in traffic.

But I was unable to pull away, and besides I needed to slow because of the traffic ahead (that he didn't think warranted slowing).

I would have given the standard left hand down signal to stop, but my left hand was busy braking.

This is a recurring problem for me. Because of my height and prodigious bulk, I punch a generous hole in the wind, so I'm apparently a very popular target for people wanting to draft. I've even been scolded for not calling out rocks and squirrels for the benefit of the people who invited themselves to ride behind me, and for not (while climbing a grade with commuting weight in my panniers) moving right on the shoulder so they (riding bikes of gossamer and unobtanium) could pass me on the left without entering the travel lane.

Is there a group-riding signal for "don't draft me I don't want to be part of your group and play by your rules"?

[Serge Issakov]

>  Is there a group-riding signal for "don't draft me I don't want to be part of your group and play by your rules"?

Same as ditching a tailgater when driving a car.  Slow down.   And maybe pull aside so that they pass.

But why not conserve energy and work together, taking turns being on the front?  I, for one, love this social aspect of bicycling.

Serge

--

[John Forester]

Commit to drafting only with riders whom you already trust or have displayed behavior that exhibits trustworthiness.

I once rode the big twin century from Columbus south to the Ohio River and back. As is traditional, there was considerable rain. The usual crowd of cyclists whom one stayed away from. But, in the rain, five of us, unknown to each other, found ourselves riding as a group and threading our way through the crowd. All five of us had mudguards and rain capes. The proper equipment indicated experienced cyclists, which, added to behavior, indicated trustworthiness.

On 4/25/2014 11:02 AM, Serge Issakov wrote:

>  Is there a group-riding signal for "don't draft me I don't want to be part of your group and play by your rules"?

Same as ditching a tailgater when driving a car.  Slow down.   And maybe pull aside so that they pass.

But why not conserve energy and work together, taking turns being on the front?  I, for one, love this social aspect of bicycling.

Serge

[Willie Hunt]

Yes, of course Bob! :)

 

 

On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:53:47 AM UTC-7, Bob Sutterfield wrote:

.........

[Ed]

Besides sussing out intersection/nonintersection vs. turning collisions; there are many gotchas in FARS data, e.g. the MANNER OF COLLISION between a bike and an (one) MV is always going to be "00-Not Collision with Motor Vehicle In-Transport"... in other words, not very helpful.

For a brief period, the FARS data (for years 2010 and 2011) included "PBCAT" data coding which should be much more useful for bicyclist and pedestrian crashes; unfortunately they (NHTSA, or whoever) yanked it back saying there were some "inconsistencies"; and said they hope to bring it back in a few years. Nevertheless, i had unpacked some of the data and made various observations here that you might be interested in:
http://azbikelaw.org/blog/fars-and-pbcat/#comment-28913

[Bob Shanteau]

On 4/25/2014 10:53 AM, Bob Sutterfield wrote:

I've even been scolded for not calling out rocks and squirrels for the benefit of the people who invited themselves to ride behind me, and for not (while climbing a grade with commuting weight in my panniers) moving right on the shoulder so they (riding bikes of gossamer and unobtanium) could pass me on the left without entering the travel lane.

In California there is a requirement when driving on 2-lane roads to use the next safe opportunity to turn out if there are more than 5 vehicles behind. I wonder whether vehicles includes bicyclists.

---
CVC 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.
---

Bob Shanteau

[John Forester]

I'm not going to argue with the intent of the statute 21656, but it is very badly written. Bicycles are not vehicles in CVC, although bicycle riders have the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. Furthermore, the statute is written in the style of maritime law, in that it requires "a slow-moving vehicle ..... shall turn off the roadway ... " In maritime law, ships have rights and duties, and hence the free will to obey them, but in traffic law vehicles have no rights and duties, being no more than the tools of drivers. Certainly, the slow-moving vehicle might turn off the roadway, but it will do so only through being out of control. Shall be turned off the roadway would be better wording.

The assumption of the statute is that those vehicles lined up behind are there because each of their drivers wants to move faster than the one in front and has the power to do so, but is inhibited by opposing traffic and sight distance conditions. That is not the situation when cyclists ride in a group. True, a faster cyclist can be blocked by others ahead, but he can generally work his way through the group to a forward position from which it is possible to make a break. Indeed, knowing where and when to do this is part of the art of racing.

--

[Michael Graff]

If a paceline of cyclists in the lane catches up to a solo cyclist in the lane, isn't a single travel lane plenty wide for the paceline to pass? Opposite direction traffic isn't an issue because there's no need to cross the centerline.

Another way to look at it: I suppose this rule means that cycling pacelines can only have five cyclists in them. As soon as you have 6 cyclists, the one on the front has to turn out.

[Bob Sutterfield]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Bob Shanteau <rms...@gmail.com> wrote:

This was on a four-lane highway, divided into two two-lane roadways, so it isn't a two-lane highway, so 21656 doesn't apply.

The "other conditions" making passing unsafe could only be faster same-direction motorized traffic in the travel lane, but it was no heavier than usual, and there's another lane in the same direction.

​I was already off the roadway, in my usual position on the shoulder about a foot to the right of the edge stripe. They wanted me to move farther to the right on the shoulder, but I prefer to ride farther left to avoid the debris that collects farther right.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.345974,-122.078432,3a,75y,330.92h,82.7t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjg7j4G_-ddMZrxsakvehhA!2e0

[Bob Shanteau]

On 4/25/2014 2:02 PM, Michael Graff wrote:
> If a paceline of cyclists in the lane catches up to a solo cyclist in
> the lane, isn't a single travel lane plenty wide for the paceline to
> pass? Opposite direction traffic isn't an issue because there's no
> need to cross the centerline.
>
> Another way to look at it: I suppose this rule means that cycling
> pacelines can only have five cyclists in them. As soon as you have 6
> cyclists, the one on the front has to turn out.

Yes. CVC 21656 is a silly law when looked at from a cyclist's perspective.

Bob Shanteau

[Bob Shanteau]

On 4/25/2014 2:39 PM, Bob Sutterfield wrote:

This was on a four-lane highway, divided into two two-lane roadways, so it isn't a two-lane highway, so 21656 doesn't apply.

The "other conditions" making passing unsafe could only be faster same-direction motorized traffic in the travel lane, but it was no heavier than usual, and there's another lane in the same direction.

​ I was already off the roadway, in my usual position on the shoulder about a foot to the right of the edge stripe. They wanted me to move farther to the right on the shoulder, but I prefer to ride farther left to avoid the debris that collects farther right.

So the group was acting like you were blocking their "lane," i.e., the paved shoulder. A dismal failure of education, if you ask me.

Bob Shanteau

[Neal]

Hello Bob Boyce and All,

Another night crash with dark clothing ..............

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Driver+fatal+collision+with+cyclists+suing+dead+teen/9772606/story.html

[John S. Allen]

It's a silly law for anyone, because it establishes the requirement
to turn out based on the number of vehicles behind, an unreasonable
criterion. Three examples:

* Five or more vehicles are following another but the first one is
traveling at the speed limit, or has slowed for a reason which also
applies to the others -- traffic signal, hazard, etc. -- or the
others are incapable of greater speed, or all are traveling together
by agreement (bicycle paceline, military caravan, construction
equipment headed to a construction site, platoon of slow trucks
climbing a grade). The first vehicle is required to turn out. If more
than five are following, then the next and the next etc. are required
to turn out until only five are following. Then if one of the
remaining vehicles in line is not traveling at the speed at which the
others would like, there is still a string of vehicles following.
(Bob's example, expanded).

* A single vehicle has been following another on a winding two-lane
mountain road for 1/2 hour, and no opportunity to overtake safely has
occurred, due to restricted sight lines and oncoming traffic. The
leading driver is not required to turn out.

* Five vehicles are following another on a one-lane road or roadway.
The leading driver is not required to turn out.

In my opinion, the law should be written to require turning out after
a reasonable amount of time (which could be debated), and only if the
vehicles in line are not traveling together by agreement, and that
when a turnout is reached, vehicles incapable of traveling at the
speed limit turn out.

John S. Allen

Technical Writer/Editor, http://sheldonbrown.com

League Cycling Instructor #77-C

jsallen *at* bikexprt.com
http://bikexprt.com
http://john-s-allen.com/blog
http://bostonbiker.org/streetsmarts