Re: Bicycles Allowed Use Of Full Lane, The Million Car Challenge Campaign
Peter Smith
> BAUFL launched a bicycle awareness campaign this week athttp://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?
I'm 100% for spreading this message, but when reading their web pages
I couldn't find any info regarding whom these people are. That makes
me nervous about sending credit card info. Is this real?
Jobst Brandt
> BAUFL launched a bicycle awareness campaign this week at
> 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?
Oh, wouldn't John Forester be proud of you, (Take the lane!)
perpetuating traffic rudeness that causes harsh interactions between
motor vehicles and bicyclists, the former being the preferred mode of
transport for most citizens in industrialized nations. Don't ignore
that more people drive huge trucks now than at any previous time and
that they love their powerful monsters. They are not encouraging more
bicycle travel as you may believe:
http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg
Get real!
Jobst Brandt
Bill Sornson
Just curious. Why didn't you say your Toyota, your Saab and your van? Does
the Prius negate the carbon footprint of the other two "evil" vehicles?
Bill "as JB said, get real" S.
Neil Brooks
> Gary wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 7:30 am, Peter Smith <rpetersm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 19, 7:14 am, Gary <g...@worldcyclotour.com> wrote:
>
> >>> BAUFL launched a bicycle awareness campaign this week
> >>> 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?
>
> >> I'm 100% for spreading this message, but when reading their web pages
> >> I couldn't find any info regarding whom these people are. That makes
> >> me nervous about sending credit card info. Is this real?
>
> > Yes 100%. I just put three on my Prius,my Sabb and on my van.
>
> Just curious. Why didn't you say your Toyota, your Saab and your van? Does
> the Prius negate the carbon footprint of the other two "evil" vehicles?
>
> Bill "as JB said, get real" S.
And as _I've_ often said: Get help, Bill.
Really.
(PeteCresswell)
>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?
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.
--
PeteCresswell
Dan O
> It's not about taking the lane. Most streets in the US don't have bike
> lanes, are substandard in width and don't have shoulders. It's about
> spreading the word that bicycles do have the right by law to use the
> road, to get motorists thinking abount their actions when overtaking a
> cyclist. You're right that there are way too many people with
> disregard to cyclists driving around in huge trucks like that. The
> more reason to spread the word.
Last night I was passed by two big trucks - one right behind the other
- in the span of a few seconds. I was riding on the far right, about
a foot from the edge, in a 90° blind hairpin with a double solid
yellow center line.
The first one (a jacked up pickup with huge off-road tires), pulled
way over the center line to give me plenty of room (courteous, in a
way, though dangerous and illegal), but had to sweep back in for an
oncoming car. Then he immedaitely turned left onto to side road.
He'd saved maybe five seconds by dangerously and illegally passing me.
The second big truck, right behind the first, also dangerously and
illegally pulled way over the center line to pass me, but didn't even
make it all the way past before also turning left onto the side road.
He saved maybe a couple of seconds with that maneuver.
What's got to change is motorists sense of exclusive entitlement to
the public roads. Interestingly, I did sense more regard for me as a
valid transportation alternative when fuel prices shot way up a
couple of years ago.
A certain rabble-rouser may be a nut, with some very bad specifics in
his solutions, but he has a point sometimes. There's a certain
sensibility to turning this insane upside-down hierarchy - where cars
and trucks rule the road and everything else is just a thorn in their
side operating at its own risk - to one where the more obtrusive you
are in the public space, the less entitlement and more responsibility
you bear.
I don't believe in taking the lane - except in rare circumstances
where you can be reasonably sure the (reasonable) motorists (ha)
behind will understand what's going on. I do wish, though, that more
of them would understand it *is* my lane - and I am only on the
shoulder as a courtesy to them - when they blow by *my* shoulder at
60+ mph.
Andre Jute
family moment with his bike:
> http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg
Cute!
Andre Jute
Kitschmeister
Andre Jute
> Per Gary:
>
> >. 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.
> --
> PeteCresswell
Pete: I'm amazed at this attitude all you Americans have that every
driver is out to kill or maim every cyclist. When sensible guys like
you and Jobst want to give up your rights just so as not to antagonize
people who have no right to be antagonized, something is seriously
wrong on your roads, even in your society. -- Andre Jute
Ronko
00b8cd...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ga...@worldcyclotour.com 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?
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.
Peter Smith
> In article <997cd1ed-bf2b-4a16-8b04-
> 00b8cd31f...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> g...@worldcyclotour.com says...
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
Gary
>
> - 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.
Jobst Brandt
>> 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.
Jobst Brandt
AMuzi
>>> 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?
> Pete Cresswell wrote:
>> 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.
Jobst Brandt wrote:
> 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.
I was with you up to the slam on NRA.
What the hell do we have to do with this?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tom Sherman °_°
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Restaurant_Association>
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Frank Krygowski
What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
safely share with a passing car?
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
Tom, you're slipping. I thought you would link this:
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/nra_eagle.jpeg
Jobst Brandt
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. That's a lot
different from me deciding when the following vehicle should pass
without knowledge about the length of that vehicle, its power or how
good at this the driver is. The assumption of the OP appears to be
that they are all stupid and dangerous.
The expressed frame of mind is not lost on most drivers who pass a
"take the lane" rider. Additionally, I sense that some bicyclists are
unclear on the needs and wants of motor vehicle drivers until
transporting their MTB home in a car or truck, where they reverse
their perception of other road users. It may be that the "take the
lane" folks believe that most drivers of motor vehicles think as they
do when driving.
Jobst Brandt
Stephen Bauman
> It's
> something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists right
> to use the roads.
How's this regarding driver awareness of cyclists' rights?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAethD1Io_Y
Stephen Bauman
Jobst Brandt
> -spam-
>>>> 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.
> I was with you up to the slam on NRA.
> What the hell do we have to do with this?
A right to do something that is legal but anti social. With how many
bikies do you ride who carry handguns.
Jobst Brandt
Gary
> In article <997cd1ed-bf2b-4a16-8b04-
> 00b8cd31f...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
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.
Ozark Bicycle
> 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.
[...]
Gary
>
> - 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.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> 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.
Ronko
962e47...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, frkr...@gmail.com
says...
on and move over to the right when safe.
Dan O
> In article <c9104fc2-865a-4119-a023-
> 962e4779b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com
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.
Jay Beattie
>
> - 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.
Gary
>
> - 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?
Michael Press
Ronko <ronkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Barry
> backed up traffic to pass. My recollection is five
> vehicles staked up and you _must_ pull over. Let's
> see ...
>
>
> 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.
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> > 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.
So, if I ride either north or south out of my town by my usual routes,
I have to ride on lanes that are nine feet wide.
Where is "reasonably out of the way" in a nine foot lane? Where is it
in a 12 foot lane with three feet of potholes?
> That's a lot
> different from me deciding when the following vehicle should pass
> without knowledge about the length of that vehicle, its power or how
> good at this the driver is. The assumption of the OP appears to be
> that they are all stupid and dangerous.
My assumption is this: I know far more about this situation than
they do. That's partly because I've been passed by hundreds of
thousands of motorists; any given motorist around here has probably
passes less than a few hundred bicyclists in his life. As icing on
the cake, due to driving SAG duty regularly, I've passed hundreds of
times the cyclists that they have.
Furthermore, their bad judgment or lesser knowledge can cause me
serious harm. So I have the knowledge, and I'm more at risk. I'll
take charge, thank you.
It's no more high-handed or offensive on my part than, say, e-mailing
someone with unsolicited advice on writing style - something I would
never do, BTW.
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
>
> - Show quoted text -
In your post below, you are taking about "federal regulatory signs and
laws." I suspect that NHTSA or Federal DOT has guidlines, but I would
be surprised if they had authority to impose signage on intrastate
roadways. Perhaps you mean "uniform signs and laws" that are adopted
on a state by state basis, like the UVC.
My point was that, subject to the exceptions stated in the UVC, a
bicyclist must ride as far right as practicable. One can always argue
that the road is "too narrow" or dangerous and that the bicyclist has
the "right" to take the lane (subject to slow moving vehicle laws),
but BMUFL is supposedely "spreading a message" via signs and bumper
stickers that bikes can take the full lane, which is simply not true
most of the time.
Now, if the proposed sign is simply offered as a template that can be
used by local regulators to mark specific areas where the lane has
been designated as too narrow or local regulators have passed
ordinances requiring cyclists to take the lane (as part of traffic
calming or as a safety measure, for example), then that's perfectly
fine. It's like a million other, somewhat uniform traffic signs
telling us what to do under specific circumstances -- or warning us of
deer popping wheelies or trucks parked on wedges of cheese.
I see people everyday riding in the middle of the road at sub-traffic
speeds in downtown PDX for no particular reason. They cause the
traffic to clot, which makes it hard for me on a bike because I have
to work to get around the clot. These people apparently (and wrongly)
believe they can take the whole lane and go slowly, which drives me
nuts. I'm definitely with Jobst on this one, although I don't buy in
to the big black truck conspiracy.-- Jay Beattie
Jim A
> What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
> safely share with a passing car?
I pull over (and often stop and get my bicycle and me off the road
entirely as it's a very narrow road).
If I was all that fussed about those few seconds it takes me to do that,
I'd drive a car myself!
----
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
> > safely share with a passing car?
>
> I pull over (and often stop and get my bicycle and me off the road
> entirely as it's a very narrow road).
>
> If I was all that fussed about those few seconds it takes me to do that,
> I'd drive a car myself!
So how often do you pull over like that? Specifically, do you do it
for every car that comes up behind?
I suppose I could do it riding my usual route north. That's a
residential collector that's usually low traffic. I might need to
stop for only one car at a time, perhaps three times in the first
mile. But on the ride south, I'd normally have to wait before pulling
onto the main road for, oh, two minutes until there were no cars
within range. Then I'd stop and pull off again after about 1/4 mile
while the first convoy of cars passed. In thirty seconds to a minute,
I might be able to get back on the road and make it another quarter
mile before pulling off again. And depending where I was going, that
might continue for about a mile, maybe two or three.
Is that _really_ how you ride? Or do you just not have to deal with
narrow lanes?
- Frank Krygowski
Michael Press
"Barry" <Ba...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Only apparently. You did not try very hard.
Bicyclists are subject to the articles that I copied out.
21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway
has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions
applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division,
including, but not limited to, provisions concerning
driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or
drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section
20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with
Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section
40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section
42000), except those provisions which by their very
nature can have no application.
Infractions
40000.1. Except as otherwise provided in this article,
it is unlawful and constitutes an infraction for any
person to violate, or fail to comply with any provision
of this code, or any local ordinance adopted pursuant
to this code.
--
Michael Press
dasunt
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
> > safely share with a passing car?
>
> I pull over (and often stop and get my bicycle and me off the road
> entirely as it's a very narrow road).
>
> If I was all that fussed about those few seconds it takes me to do that,
> I'd drive a car myself!
I do that in winter.
Here, there is enough packed snow on the roads that
"taking the lane" is about the only way to safely ride, even
with studded tires.
The intersections tend to be a little wider, due to turning cars.
So if there is an automobile behind me, I try to pull over at
an intersection and wave them ahead of me.
Depending on road conditions, sometimes "taking the lane"
is necessary. Similar to how, in winter, some two lane roads
around here turn into one lane roads for automobiles.
-- Jesse
Jim A
> On Dec 20, 3:36 pm, Jim A <j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> What do you do when you're riding in a lane that's too narrow to
>>> safely share with a passing car?
>> I pull over (and often stop and get my bicycle and me off the road
>> entirely as it's a very narrow road).
>>
>> If I was all that fussed about those few seconds it takes me to do that,
>> I'd drive a car myself!
>
> So how often do you pull over like that? Specifically, do you do it
> for every car that comes up behind?
About twice a week I guess. And yes, unless I'm just reaching the end
of the narrow road anyway.
> I suppose I could do it riding my usual route north. That's a
> residential collector that's usually low traffic. I might need to
> stop for only one car at a time, perhaps three times in the first
> mile. But on the ride south, I'd normally have to wait before pulling
> onto the main road for, oh, two minutes until there were no cars
> within range. Then I'd stop and pull off again after about 1/4 mile
> while the first convoy of cars passed. In thirty seconds to a minute,
> I might be able to get back on the road and make it another quarter
> mile before pulling off again. And depending where I was going, that
> might continue for about a mile, maybe two or three.
>
> Is that _really_ how you ride?
Yes.
> Or do you just not have to deal with
> narrow lanes?
Every day. It sounds like mine has a somewhat lower volume of traffic
than yours though! :-) Some days I don't see another vehicle in either
direction.
I think I'm probably trying to compare chalk with cheese here!
--
Dan O
> In article <4b2e3...@news.x-privat.org>,
Here's one interpretation in one jurisdiction:
Michael Press
<4af70b09-d601-429b...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's one interpretation in one jurisdiction:
>
> http://stc-law.com/slowmoving.html
How does that document read?
--
Michael Press
Jay Beattie
I think Ray forgot to account for the fact that ORS 814.430(2)(c)
specifically incorporates the slow moving vehicle law, ORS 811.425.
ORS 814.430(2)(c) provides:
(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.
If ORS 811.525 did not apply to bicycles, then there would be no need
to reference it in ORS 814.430. Moreover, the Oregon Court of Appeals
rejected Ray's argument in State v. Potter 185 Or.App. 81, 86, 57 P.
3d 944 (2002) (upholding conviction of cyclist for impeding traffic,
ORS 811.130).
Ray also omits any mention of ORS 811.065 -- which may have been
adopted after he wrote the article. I remember talking to him a few
years ago about the new statute, and he may have even testified at the
legislature, so he certainly knows about it. Here's the statute:
811.065 Unsafe passing of person operating bicycle; penalty. (1) A
driver of a motor vehicle commits the offense of unsafe passing of a
person operating a bicycle if the driver violates any of the following
requirements:
(a) The driver of a motor vehicle may only pass a person
operating a bicycle by driving to the left of the bicycle at a safe
distance and returning to the lane of travel once the motor vehicle is
safely clear of the overtaken bicycle. For the purposes of this
paragraph, a “safe distance” means a distance that is sufficient to
prevent contact with the person operating the bicycle if the person
were to fall into the driver’s lane of traffic. This paragraph does
not apply to a driver operating a motor vehicle:
(A) In a lane that is separate from and adjacent to a designated
bicycle lane;
(B) At a speed not greater than 35 miles per hour; or
(C) When the driver is passing a person operating a bicycle on
the person’s right side and the person operating the bicycle is
turning left.
(b) The driver of a motor vehicle may drive to the left of the
center of a roadway to pass a person operating a bicycle proceeding in
the same direction only if the roadway to the left of the center is
unobstructed for a sufficient distance to permit the driver to pass
the person operating the bicycle safely and avoid interference with
oncoming traffic. This paragraph does not authorize driving on the
left side of the center of a roadway when prohibited under ORS
811.295, 811.300 or 811.310 to 811.325.
(c) The driver of a motor vehicle that passes a person operating
a bicycle shall return to an authorized lane of traffic as soon as
practicable.
(2) Passing a person operating a bicycle in a no passing zone in
violation of ORS 811.420 constitutes prima facie evidence of
commission of the offense described in this section, unsafe passing of
a person operating a bicycle, if the passing results in injury to or
the death of the person operating the bicycle.
(3) The offense described in this section, unsafe passing of a
person operating a bicycle, is a Class B traffic violation. [2007 c.
794 §2]
So, "the bicycle passing law" makes it clear that a car cannot cross
the center line in a no-passing zone to get around a bicycle. Since
much of Skyline is no passing, a bicycle would be treated as a slow
moving vehicle and would be required to pull off and let cars pass or
else be subject to a traffic citation for impeding traffic.
This is all hypothetical, though, since cars have been passing me on
Skyline (with and without trailers) for the last 25 years with few if
any problems. I seriously doubt that PPB or MCSD would issue a
citation to a driver who went over the center line in a no-passing
zone to get safely around a bike, so long as it was safe to do so. --
Jay Beattie.
(PeteCresswell)
>A right to do something that is legal but anti social. With how many
>bikies do you ride who carry handguns.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yfmghlm
I quit riding my bike to work in downtown Philadelphia when a
friend's practice of carrying a loaded .44 magnum in the gas tank
pouch of his motorcycle started sounding reasonable.
--
PeteCresswell
Dan O
(I've never been very comfortable with many of Ray's interpretations.)
Here's a recent applied analysis from what seems like a reasonable
fellow:
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091026/NEWS/910260307
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091109/NEWS/911090308
Jay Beattie
>
> http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091109/NEWS/9...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is right on the button, and basically what I said. A good
practical application of the law. -- Jay Beattie.
Frank Krygowski
>
> This is all hypothetical, though, since cars have been passing me on
> Skyline (with and without trailers) for the last 25 years with few if
> any problems. I seriously doubt that PPB or MCSD would issue a
> citation to a driver who went over the center line in a no-passing
> zone to get safely around a bike, so long as it was safe to do so.
The Ohio Bicycle Federation recently succeeded in giving motorists
legal permission to cross the yellow line when it was safe and
reasonable to pass a vehicle traveling less than half the speed
limit. (In Ohio, a bike is a vehicle.)
This made legal what is probably common practice everywhere. Very
sensible, I think.
- Frank Krygowski
Gary
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree, But all the more reason to get the word out to drivers.
Dan O
wrote:
> Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:14:10
> criminal assault with a deadly weapon, and cyclists are the last
> people who should be using such a phrase.
>
Don't mean to trivialize a thing, but I think "brushed back" is a
concise yet nuanced description of exactly what they're doing - not
that the hazard is trivial, but there's not harmful intent (if there
were, harm would most assuredly ensue).
If I got all bent out of shape about criminal assault and what not
every time I got "brushed back" by an arrogant motorist, I'd go
berserk or something in short order. I do regard it as a serious
problem, but there's not much I can do about it, so why make myself
crazy?
>
>
> >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.
>
> The answer is education then, isn't it?
> Like maybe with bumper stickers.
Sure, and I can't imagine I've ever argued against education motorists
to share the road, but bumper stickers aren't going to change minds
(and might even just steel some). What will change minds is
omnipresent bicycles, withdrawal of general subsidies and favoritism
for the private automobile car culture, and consistently holding road
users responsible for what they wreak.
Gary
> On Dec 27, 6:57 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:14:10
> > -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
> > >On Dec 19, 3:57 pm, Ronko <ronkreu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> In article <c9104fc2-865a-4119-a023-
> > >> 962e4779b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com
> > >> says...
>
> > >> >On Dec 19, 3:50 pm, Jobst Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >> >> Pete Cresswell wrote:
> > >> >> >> The mission is to get one million cars driving around with one
> > >> >> >> advertise the message on web sites and magazine ads. It's
> > >> >> >> something every cyclist can do to make drivers aware of cyclists
>
> > The answer is education then, isn't it?
> > Like maybe with bumper stickers.
>
> Sure, and I can't imagine I've ever argued against education motorists
> to share the road, but bumper stickers aren't going to change minds
> (and might even just steel some). What will change minds is
> for the private automobile car culture, and consistently holding road
>
> - Show quoted text -
I thought I'd reply here because your response in part doesn't make
sense. How can you say on one hand that they don't change minds and in
the same sentence that they steel minds? So lets see, they say
cyclists are allowed to use the road. it's state law and change lanes
to pass. OK lets say that in fact the campaign begins to take off and
the message is beginning to be seen everywhere "in Traffic" on cars.
Lets say it becomes common place to see these stickers and at the same
time cycling is becoming more mainstream and more and more cyclists
take to the road. Will it help? Will some people in cars get the
message? I think some will and maybe some cyclists may get a little
more safe passage because of the effort. What we're talking about is a
message on a car directed to cars.
Dan O
Imagine if you will some dickhead who feels so strongly that bicycles
don't belong on the road that he'll deliberately crowd them with his
pickup truck. Got it? Okay, now imagine this guy stuck in traffic
and already pissed off about it behind what he perceives as some tree-
hugger's Prius, when he reads the bumper sticker that says bicycles
*do* belong on the road, and in fact he has to let them have the whole
lane if they decide to take it. I imagine that - in some cases and
for some dickheads - this situation may only make him more angry and
steel his resolve against tree-hugging bicyclists.
Have we "changed his mind"? Now does my response make any sense to
you?
People put a lot of messages on bumper stickers. Many of them are
amusing and offer entertainment value. As for influencing attitudes,
though, I think they're mostly just advertisements for the owner's
attitude, usually come with a lot of context, are preaching to the
choir, and give people with opposing attitudes a target for their
anger.
> So lets see, they say
> cyclists are allowed to use the road.
Is that just what they say? (I really only got about as far as "buy
some" on your site.) That doesn't sound too antagonizing. You'd
think it might even almost go without saying.
> it's state law and change lanes
> to pass.
Is the part about changing lanes also state law? Or is that the
bumper sticker's recommendation.
Most people already either change lanes to pass (when feasible), or
give ample space.
It's a relative few that are the problem. I think they believe that
bicyclists are an intrusion and obstruction in their automotive
domain, that many of them have unresolved issues involving anger and
frustration, and they vent some of this anger with aggression directed
at bicyclists. I don't think they're likely candidates for change via
bumper stickers. (Maybe if you could work a lewd pun or something
into your message... :-)
> OK lets say that in fact the campaign begins to take off and
> the message is beginning to be seen everywhere "in Traffic" on cars.
(I saw Bush-Cheney stickers everywhere - didn't change my mind.)
> Lets say it becomes common place to see these stickers and at the same
> time cycling is becoming more mainstream and more and more cyclists
> take to the road.
Now you're talking! Yes - omnipresent bicyclists - that's the
ticket! Awareness will also become mainstream.
> Will it help?
(See above about bumper stickers.)
> Will some people in cars get the
> message?
Some people might, and there's nothing wrong with that at all; but I
don't think the ones who really need it will.
> I think some will and maybe some cyclists may get a little
> more safe passage because of the effort. What we're talking about is a
> message on a car directed to cars.
If you read all my comments in this thread I think you may see that
I'm on your side. I think I said something like "Sure, bumper
stickers - fine." (I might now add: Go ahead, knock yourself out,
good luck with that.) In my last post that didn't make sense to you,
I was just defending my comments against criticism that I was
massively trivializing "criminal assault with a deadly weapon".
Dan O
Just one more reply to clarify: I have no problem with bumper
stickers on a million cars informing and encouraging drivers to accept
and respect the bicyclist's right to use the road, and appreciate
inroads to widespread awareness and acceptance. (However, I can't
even afford to buy all the bike parts I want/need, so I don't see
myself buying any of them.)
Gary
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Dan,
I understand what your saying. The campaign will reach some and not
others, that's a givin. If your in, contact me off list.