Re: Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> On 12/7/2010 12:47 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 9:31 am, Duane Hébert<duaneheb...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2010 12:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think it's dangerous for a cyclist to ride the road's edge so as to
>>>> not displease the trucker. It's unacceptably dangerous to imply to
>>>> the trucker (or any motorist) that he's welcome to pass you with only
>>>> tiny clearance.
>>>
>>>> I feel extremely safe handling it the way I do. I'm making a big deal
>>>> of it because Duane mocked the fact that I control the trucker's
>>>> behavior.
>>>
>>> I didn't mock you. I questioned your assertion that you
>>> on a bicycle are controlling the trucker's behavior. This is
>>> only true if the trucker sees you and allows it. I've had cases
>>> where the truck didn't see me and cases where they didn't allow
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Your claim that you can control a truck that weighs several tons more
>>> than you traveling at higher speeds than you, in every case is what
>>> is dangerous here. Not cycling.
>>>
>>>> So DR, what _do_ you do in that situation? 10 foot lane, 8.5 foot
>>>> truck. Do you suddenly bail to ride the sidewalk, or do you bump
>>>> along in the gutter, or do you control the lane?
>>
>> Hmm. So staying in my narrow lane when a truck approaches from behind
>> is what's dangerous? Despite my having done so for decades with no
>> problems? Not only has it never been a safety problem, I honestly see
>> no alternative, if I'm going to ride my bike for transportation.
>
> I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying assuming that it's safe because
> you have control is incorrect. I'm saying that thinking that there
> are NO dangers is incorrect. I'm saying to practice defensive driving
> at all time instead of relying on some illusion of control or some
> statistics. Argue against that if you like but stop arguing against
> what you say that I say. This started because I said that you have
> to be aware that the truck MAY NOT STOP. You seem to be claiming
> that that isn't the case because you've never seen it and statistically
> it won't happen.
>
So is letting the truck go by with inches to spare at best safer than
taking the lane? Or will you stop where you can get off the road, and
wait for a gap in traffic before riding that section? (Where I cross an
overpass regularly with a shoulder less than 2 feet wide, this could
mean waiting for hours.)
>
>> Granted, if I were just a "drive to the bike path and ride" kind of
>> guy, I could avoid the situation. But to (say) ride to work, or to
>> the hardware store? I can't wait until they build a completely
>> segregated bike path. That will _never_ happen. I can't jump on the
>> sidewalk in many places (even if I mistakenly believed the sidewalk
>> was safer) because there are no sidewalks in many such places. And
>> I'm damned sure not going to get off my bike and stand by the side of
>> the road until some motorist goes by! Kowtowing isn't my style.
>
> I doubt if any of the people here are the kind of cyclist that you
> describe.
>
>> Controlling a narrow lane is one of the fundamental skills of
>> cycling. I really don't think those who fail to do so are competent
>> cyclists. Sorry folks, but there it is.
>>
>> Try some education. Try reading _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. Read
>> his sections on Primary and Secondary road positions. He gets it
>> right. (He's now got editions out for drive-on-left Britain and for
>> drive-on-right North America.)
>
> Try reading some links about defensive driving.
>
How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be
on a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
traffic.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Jay Beattie
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 12/7/2010 12:06 PM, Duane H bert wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12/7/2010 12:47 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I ride this virtually shoulderless bridge.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~joshuad/pics/sellwood-bridge-1.jpg Note the
"walk bicycles on sidewalk" sign, which I always took to mean "if you
use the sidewalk, you must walk your bike," although some disagreed
with that interpretation. The rule has changed
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianlattaphotography/1296132417/ --
note sign "bicycles on bridge roadway." The worst possible place you
can be is on the sidewalk -- look at the two bikes; they are about to
head-on in to each other. There is virtually no room to pass. So,
when I ride that bridge, I take the lane, but not all of it. I also
sprint to the crown and roll fast down the other side. Here is a
better look at the profile. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceciliacase/418361624/
-- Jay Beattie.
Duane Hébert
Better than having the truck run over me? Remember, we're talking about
a truck that doesn't see me or isn't going to stop. Maybe he's texting.
Frank dreamed up some scenario so that he could ridicule people and call
them cowards skulking in the ditches. I asked what he'd do if the truck
wasn't stopping. Apparently he'd stay in the center of the lane, in the
full knowledge that the truck would eventually stop because
statistically, there aren't many rear end collisions between trucks and
bikes.
What I would do is take the side of the road and throw bricks at the fucker.
>>
>>> Granted, if I were just a "drive to the bike path and ride" kind of
>>> guy, I could avoid the situation. But to (say) ride to work, or to
>>> the hardware store? I can't wait until they build a completely
>>> segregated bike path. That will _never_ happen. I can't jump on the
>>> sidewalk in many places (even if I mistakenly believed the sidewalk
>>> was safer) because there are no sidewalks in many such places. And
>>> I'm damned sure not going to get off my bike and stand by the side of
>>> the road until some motorist goes by! Kowtowing isn't my style.
>>
>> I doubt if any of the people here are the kind of cyclist that you
>> describe.
>>
>>> Controlling a narrow lane is one of the fundamental skills of
>>> cycling. I really don't think those who fail to do so are competent
>>> cyclists. Sorry folks, but there it is.
>>>
>>> Try some education. Try reading _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. Read
>>> his sections on Primary and Secondary road positions. He gets it
>>> right. (He's now got editions out for drive-on-left Britain and for
>>> drive-on-right North America.)
>>
>> Try reading some links about defensive driving.
>>
> How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be on
> a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
> traffic.
Defensive driving teaches you to assume that the other guy is going to
do the wrong thing and to be ready for it. Ignoring the speeding truck
behind you because you are in control of the lane and statistics say he
will stop is not very defensive.
DirtRoadie
> Frank dreamed up some scenario so that he could ridicule people and call
> them cowards skulking in the ditches.
Bingo! Frank Krygowski is obsessed with having one and only one answer
and/or perspective for anything - even if he has to make up the
situation, the characters and/or the facts and figures.
DR
RobertH
> How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be
> on a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
> traffic.
False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the
principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or
not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings,
watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these
principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore,
when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive
driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous
driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles.
Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being
passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing
driver.
Duane Hébert
Right. Here's a link that has some of the basic principles:
http://www.allsands.com/howto/defensivedrivin_xwv_gn.htm
Most of the suggestions make sense to me but particularly relevant to
this thread are:
5. Anticipate the mistakes or unsafe maneuvers of the other drivers.
Notice that it doesn't say "unless you are controlling the lane"
and
16. If a tailgater is following you, move to another lane if possible or
pull to the side of the road and let the tailgater pass you.
Notice that it doesn't say to stay in the center of the road and
maintain your right to be there. Nor does it say that you will be
a cowardly, subservient wimp for getting out of the way of the guy
behind you driving dangerously.
Dan O
You have to count on it. It doesn't matter what line you take.
In town, I just try to keep pace+ or keep out of the way somewhere.
Out in the countryside - where most of my miles are - there's no
keeping pace with cars, so as soon as I hear any behind, I start
scoping out (got it right this time :-) the right edge and beyond and
finding a line over that way.
Frank Krygowski
So, Robert: Of course, I know you'd be ever alert, well prepared,
extremely skillful and always taking responsibility for your own
safety, etc.
But in a 10 foot lane, curb at the right, with an 8.5 foot truck
behind you, where exactly would you ride?
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
Probably the same place he always rides, being that very few people
shift their position in the lane based on vehicles approaching from
the rear. "Oh, look, its an Escalade, better get left." "No, its
just a Prius, I should ride further right." "But wait, its a
Kenworth, better go down the center." Really, I'm riding a bike, not
a yoyo.
Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption
sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also
requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
must yield" laws. -- Jay Beattie.
James
I agree, but you don't often get car drivers showing tractor drivers the
pointy end of the stick (basically harassment). Would you pass in your
Merc within 6 inches of a bouncing tractor at 40 km/h?
JS.
DirtRoadie
And apparently Frank also assumes that the driver of an 8.5 foot truck
is unaware of the size of his vehicle and will not take it into
account if attempting to pass.
> Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
> you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
> safe (and legally required) distance.
Actually, the numbers from Frank's hypothetical pretty much mandate
that the vehicle cross the center line to pass no matter where the
cyclist is positioned. That's one of the reasons it is pretty silly.
Frank would apparently draw a dramatic distinction between a cyclist
using ~4 feet of a ten foot lane vs. a cyclist taking ~6 feet of the
same lane.
One is "invisible" and/or "inviting" the vehicle to pass, while the
other is not. Yeah, right.
> You can make that assumption
> sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
> everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
> places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do.
Sometimes it isn't even an issue of being "safe," it's the one and
only possibility.
> It also
> requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
> let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
> lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
> does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
> must yield" laws.
All good points that are largely beyond Frank's tunnel vision view.
DR
Frank Krygowski
Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?
http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/09/the-selz-case-revisited/
AFAIK, most states do not have a "slow moving vehicle must yield"
law. A few do have one, but it's restricted to situations where there
are (typically) five vehicles held behind _and_ there is a safe place
to pull over. If slow moving vehicles had to yield all the time, we
would have no right to the road, motorhomes would never make it out of
the flatlands, and commerce would become severely limited.
I'm pushing the "where would you ride" question because certain
posters were exaggerating the danger of bicycling, implying that one
can't trust motorists not to smash you. I'm trying to see who really
dives into the gutter or onto the sidewalk whenever a vehicle
approaches. I chose those dimensions because they're common in my
area, and there's no rational way to try to share that lane - at
least, not in my view nor according to any cycling instructional
material I know of.
Based on that, I would control that lane and not try to share the lane
to let the truck squeeze by. Do you agree?
- Frank Krygowski
DirtRoadie
<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I chose those dimensions because they're common in my
> area, and there's no rational way to try to share that lane - at
> least, not in my view nor according to any cycling instructional
> material I know of.
Nor any PHYSICAL way. It is not physically possible to fit an 8.5 foot
truck and a bicycle into a 10 foot lane with a curb on one side.
> Based on that, I would control that lane and not try to share the lane
> to let the truck squeeze by. Do you agree?
Stupid, stupid question.
You describe a situation where the decision is predetermined NO matter
what YOU do.
DR
James
> On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>> Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
>> you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
>> safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption
>> sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
>> everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
>> places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also
>> requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
>> let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
>> lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
>> does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
>> must yield" laws.
>
> Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
> of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?
>
> http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/09/the-selz-case-revisited/
>
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske-to-impede-or-not-to-impede-that-is-the-question_9772
>
> AFAIK, most states do not have a "slow moving vehicle must yield"
> law. A few do have one, but it's restricted to situations where there
> are (typically) five vehicles held behind _and_ there is a safe place
> to pull over. If slow moving vehicles had to yield all the time, we
> would have no right to the road, motorhomes would never make it out of
> the flatlands, and commerce would become severely limited.
Victorian Road Law.
<quote>
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver
or a pedestrian.
Penalty: 2 penalty units.
Note: Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle—see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.
(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of
another driver or a pedestrian only because—
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other
vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slow in the
circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slow
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a
length of road to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per
hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive
at that speed on the length of road.
</quote>
So a cyclist riding at 20 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and taking up the lane
would be considered to be abnormally slow. This is precisely the
circumstance on the Maroondah Hwy going over the Black Spur that I
posted a link to earlier.
JS.
fiultra5
I have a section of road near here, down to the next town, where once
I walked and cycled, decades ago. It's a main road with single narrow
lane traffic in each direction. The hard shoulder beyond the yellow
line is inches wide and in some places has crumbled away. Essentially
it is small country road outdated by three decades of intensive
development in the region beyond my little town; further on it has
been widened but there is no way for cyclists to get from here to the
wide section. Even twenty years ago cars and trucks would slow down
for you, and wait to pass when there was a break in the oncoming
traffic; there was little enough traffic for it not to be an
imposition.
Then the traffic started mounting up, and a lot of it was through
traffic, travelling about twice as fast as twenty years ago. The
police superintendent of the entire region was killed on his bicycle
on that road; I'd started refusing a while before that to go riding
there with him.
I went to where that road leaves the town and immediately narrows down
in the summer just past, to decide whether the pedalpals and I could
use it for less than a mile coming back from a longer ride, to save
making the end of our ride over some tough but much safer hills.
Traffic was hitting 100kph/62mph right there at the town speed
derestriction, and cars and trucks were too close together for hard
braking for cyclist doing even 30mph. Pedalling there at our average
on the flat of 20kph would simply be lethal. The last time I actually
rode out on that road, perhaps fifteen years ago, a passing truck
ripped my shirt -- a cotton dress shirt, but how much slack you think
there is in it, an inch, two?
There are some roads that cyclists simply shouldn't be on, regardless
of what the theory of vehicular cyclists says.
Andre Jute
Bravery and bravado are not the same thing
James
There is also this..
<quote>
253 Bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard
The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic
hazard by moving into the path of a driver or
pedestrian.
Penalty: 1 penalty unit.
</quote>
So by taking the lane, you could have been seen to be causing a traffic
hazard!
Just saying.
JS.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
In other words, let the bastards win!
Screw that; if I am driving my truck and someone is tailgating, I will
take the chance of them getting the trailer ball on my Class III hitch
through their radiator.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
What is there in "defensive driving" useful to cyclists that is not
covered under vehicular/effective cycling?
DirtRoadie
No "cult" affiliation necessary.
DR
DirtRoadie
> There are some roads that [wise] cyclists [will] simply [avoid], regardless
> of what the theory of vehicular cyclists says.
Absolutely.
DR
Jay Beattie
> On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > Probably the same place he always rides, being that very few people
> > shift their position in the lane based on vehicles approaching from
> > the rear. "Oh, look, its an Escalade, better get left." "No, its
> > just a Prius, I should ride further right." "But wait, its a
> > Kenworth, better go down the center." Really, I'm riding a bike, not
> > a yoyo.
>
> > Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
> > you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
> > safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption
> > sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
> > everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
> > places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also
> > requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
> > let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
> > lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
> > does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
> > must yield" laws.
>
> Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
> of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?
>
> http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/09/the-selz-case-revisited/
>
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/legally-speaking-with-bob...
Yes, they're wrong -- at least in Oregon. I know that because of
this:
"Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for impeding traffic,
even though defendant's conviction involved his use of bicycle and
definition of offense referred only to motor vehicles; nothing in
vehicle code provided that such offense be applied only to motor
vehicles. ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944,
185 Or.App. 81."
So, go ahead and impede traffic in Ohio, but not here. You'll get
busted. Also, if you want bicycles to be treated like vehicles, then
you can't cherry pick. That simply endorses the view of most
motorists that bicyclists see them self as the chosen ones. In fact, I
ride a bike with the arc of the covenant in a front pannier to part
traffic. That's how chosen I am.
> AFAIK, most states do not have a "slow moving vehicle must yield"
> law. A few do have one, but it's restricted to situations where there
> are (typically) five vehicles held behind _and_ there is a safe place
> to pull over. If slow moving vehicles had to yield all the time, we
> would have no right to the road, motorhomes would never make it out of
> the flatlands, and commerce would become severely limited.
In Oregon -- which is pretty standard UVC:
O.R.S. § 811.130
West's Oregon Revised Statutes Annotated Currentness
Title 59. Oregon Vehicle Code
Chapter 811. Rules of the Road for Drivers
Speed
(Impeding Traffic)
811.130. Impeding traffic; penalties
(1) A person commits the offense of impeding traffic if the person
drives a motor vehicle or a combination of motor vehicles in a manner
that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this
section if the person is proceeding in a manner needed for safe
operation.
(3) Proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation includes but is
not necessarily limited to:
(a) Momentarily stopping to allow oncoming traffic to pass before
making a right-hand or left-hand turn.
(b) Momentarily stopping in preparation of, or moving at an extremely
slow pace while, negotiating an exit from the road.
(4) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this
section if the person is proceeding as part of a funeral procession
under the direction of a funeral escort vehicle or a funeral lead
vehicle.
(5) The offense described in this section, impeding traffic, is a
Class D traffic violation.
You also have this statute:
O.R.S. § 814.430
West's Oregon Revised Statutes Annotated Currentness
Title 59. Oregon Vehicle Code
Chapter 814. Pedestrians; Passengers; Livestock; Motorized
Wheelchairs; Vehicles with Fewer Than Four Wheels
Bicycles (Refs & Annos)
814.430. Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalties
(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.
So, putting them together, you can't be in the lane if you are
impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when
necessary for safe operation, which probably does not include the
founded or unfounded belief that some car is going to pass too closely
-- because otherwise, you could ride in the middle of the lane all the
time, and the impeding traffic law would be meaningless. I could get
on my riding lawnmower and take the lane because I was afraid a truck
would pass too closely.
> I'm pushing the "where would you ride" question because certain
> posters were exaggerating the danger of bicycling, implying that one
> can't trust motorists not to smash you. I'm trying to see who really
> dives into the gutter or onto the sidewalk whenever a vehicle
> approaches. I chose those dimensions because they're common in my
> area, and there's no rational way to try to share that lane - at
> least, not in my view nor according to any cycling instructional
> material I know of.
>
> Based on that, I would control that lane and not try to share the lane
> to let the truck squeeze by. Do you agree?
This is part of my daily commute, if I take the flattish way to work.
It's a bad picture, but the cyclists are approaching a bridgeway with
no shoulder. I ride about where the second bike is, which allows cars
by in both lanes to pass (early morning traffic prevents cars from
easily changing lanes, so it becomes like a one-lane road)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31019817@N02/4858598685/
I frequently pass some dillweed who take the whole right lane --
riding smack dab in the middle to prevent cars from passing on the
bridgeway. It wreaks havoc on traffic, and it makes it hard for me to
maneuver because I have to pass him on the inside and hope he doesn't
do something stupid. He also goes slow -- going north, I'm doing
30mph in the mornings (probably a 2% down grade). Drives me nuts.--
Jay Beattie.
DirtRoadie
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> Screw that; if I am driving my truck and someone is tailgating, I will
> take the chance of them getting the trailer ball on my Class III hitch
> through their radiator.
Tom is proud to boast of his Class III balls, well, at least one.
DR
Duane Hebert
"DirtRoadie" <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:54a2ac6c-7958-4b35...@p26g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Wonder what he has on the back of his bent though.
James
> In Oregon -- which is pretty standard UVC:
>
> O.R.S. § 811.130
>
> West's Oregon Revised Statutes Annotated Currentness
> Title 59. Oregon Vehicle Code
> Chapter 811. Rules of the Road for Drivers
> Speed
> (Impeding Traffic)
> 811.130. Impeding traffic; penalties
<snip>
> (4) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this
> section if the person is proceeding as part of a funeral procession
> under the direction of a funeral escort vehicle or a funeral lead
> vehicle.
What if Frank is about to become a funeral procession?
JS.
James
DirtRoadie
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > In Oregon -- which is pretty standard UVC:
>
> > O.R.S. 811.130
>
> > West's Oregon Revised Statutes Annotated Currentness
> > Title 59. Oregon Vehicle Code
> > Chapter 811. Rules of the Road for Drivers
> > Speed
> > (Impeding Traffic)
> > 811.130. Impeding traffic; penalties
>
>
> > (4) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this
> > section if the person is proceeding as part of a funeral procession
> > under the direction of a funeral escort vehicle or a funeral lead
> > vehicle.
>
> What if Frank is about to become a funeral procession?
Good point. Maybe Frank actually has the while thing worked out. Pure
genius!
I think the hangup there though is there is the "proceeding" part.
I wonder if being a radiator shroud on an 8.5 foot wide truck meets
that requirement.
DR
----
Jay Beattie
>
> AFAIK, most states do not have a "slow moving vehicle must yield"
> law. A few do have one, but it's restricted to situations where there
> are (typically) five vehicles held behind _and_ there is a safe place
> to pull over. If slow moving vehicles had to yield all the time, we
> would have no right to the road, motorhomes would never make it out of
> the flatlands, and commerce would become severely limited.
>
> I'm pushing the "where would you ride" question because certain
> posters were exaggerating the danger of bicycling, implying that one
> can't trust motorists not to smash you. I'm trying to see who really
> dives into the gutter or onto the sidewalk whenever a vehicle
> approaches. I chose those dimensions because they're common in my
> area, and there's no rational way to try to share that lane - at
> least, not in my view nor according to any cycling instructional
> material I know of.
>
> Based on that, I would control that lane and not try to share the lane
> to let the truck squeeze by. Do you agree?
By the way, Frank, I don't necessarily disagree with your proposition
that sometimes the only safe thing to do is take the lane -- or a
larger part of it. I DO take a larger portion of the lane to prevent
busses from passing me in certain places because they will squeeze me
in to the curb, and probably with great satisfaction. There is also a
down hill, off camber turn out of down town where cars tend to hug the
inside curb, and I ride out in the lane there, although I'm usually
going about the speed of traffic. In your truck scenario, I might
ride farther out in the road if I were approaching a turn where the
truck likely would cut the curve, if only innocently. On one lane
roads, I just ride to the right but not in the gutter, and cars and
trucks seem to get by without scaring me too often. I would never
take the whole road just because some people might pass me too
closely. -- Jay Beattie.
Dan O
I carry a little picture of some holy lady that they gave me at the
bookstore - right next to my ziplock bag of bandaids.
Dan O
+1 (the whole thing)
Frank Krygowski
> On Dec 8, 4:38 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
> > of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?
>
> >http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/09/the-selz-case-revisited/
>
> >http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/legally-speaking-with-bob...
>
> Yes, they're wrong -- at least in Oregon. I know that because of
> this:
>
> "Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for impeding traffic,
> even though defendant's conviction involved his use of bicycle and
> definition of offense referred only to motor vehicles; nothing in
> vehicle code provided that such offense be applied only to motor
> vehicles. ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944,
> 185 Or.App. 81."
>
> So, go ahead and impede traffic in Ohio, but not here. You'll get
> busted.
First, I'd have thought you could talk to Mionske about this. Both of
you are in PDX, IIRC.
Second, although IANAL, we both know that there are bad decisions.
If, in the case you cite, it seems the conviction was based on a law
regarding _motor_ vehicles, it was a bad decision. There's no
guarantee that appeals at a high enough level would overturn it (even
the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions) but I expect that someone
willing to pay for appeals would have eventually gotten it reversed.
(And BTW, that would be a productive thing for your BTA to do. Or the
near-useless LAB.)
Third, the bicycle section of the Oregon law specifically permits
controlling a lane. That's in the section 2c that you quoted
yourself.
Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. I absolutely controlled
the lane many times, as always. I specifically remember doing that at
5 PM on a Friday, riding uphill on either Morrison or Taylor, for just
one example. Ditto on 23rd in the NW, etc. I didn't get busted.
Get with Mionske. See what he says. Seriously.
- Frank Krygowski
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...] even the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions [...]
When you load a court with activist Christofascists, what do you expect?
Jay Beattie
> On Dec 8, 9:00 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 4:38 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
> > > of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?
>
> > >http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/09/the-selz-case-revisited/
>
> > >http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/legally-speaking-with-bob...
>
> > Yes, they're wrong -- at least in Oregon. I know that because of
> > this:
>
> > "Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for impeding traffic,
> > even though defendant's conviction involved his use of bicycle and
> > definition of offense referred only to motor vehicles; nothing in
> > vehicle code provided that such offense be applied only to motor
> > vehicles. ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944,
> > 185 Or.App. 81."
>
> > So, go ahead and impede traffic in Ohio, but not here. You'll get
> > busted.
>
> First, I'd have thought you could talk to Mionske about this. Both of
> you are in PDX, IIRC.
Why would I? I can read statutes, in fact, I've even written a few.
>
> Second, although IANAL, we both know that there are bad decisions.
> If, in the case you cite, it seems the conviction was based on a law
> regarding _motor_ vehicles, it was a bad decision. There's no
> guarantee that appeals at a high enough level would overturn it (even
> the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions) but I expect that someone
> willing to pay for appeals would have eventually gotten it reversed.
> (And BTW, that would be a productive thing for your BTA to do. Or the
> near-useless LAB.)
A bicycle is treated identically to a motor vehicle for most purposes,
including the impeding statute. Sorry, that's the law. The opinion
was correctly decided, and there is no impetus for changing the law.
>
> Third, the bicycle section of the Oregon law specifically permits
> controlling a lane. That's in the section 2c that you quoted
> yourself.
No it doesn't. Read again, and read all the relevant sections. They
work perfectly together.
>
> Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. I absolutely controlled
> the lane many times, as always. I specifically remember doing that at
> 5 PM on a Friday, riding uphill on either Morrison or Taylor, for just
> one example. Ditto on 23rd in the NW, etc. I didn't get busted.
I do all sorts of stupid things and don't get busted. All the streets
you mentioned are narrow and slow, and typically I'm trying to get
around traffic, particularly riding east (downhill).
>
> Get with Mionske. See what he says. Seriously.
The Court of Appeals has answered the question. I don't need to talk
to Bob, and if I want an expert on bicycle law, I would talk to Ray
Thomas anyway. No offense to Bob. -- Jay Beattie.
DirtRoadie
> Second, although IANAL, we both know that there are bad decisions.
Great logic.
Yes there is little question that you are not a lawyer. we will ad
that to your lengthy resume of non-existent skills.
And of course if YOU have concluded it is bad decision, it MUST be a
bad decision.
> If, in the case you cite, it seems the conviction was based on a law
> regarding _motor_ vehicles, it was a bad decision.
Bullshit, Frank.
Is it bad law that bicycles are considered "vehicles" under the
"vehicle codes" of most states? That means both rights and
responsibilities. I would remind you that there is even a cult that
promotes "vehicular cycling." Perhaps you have heard of it?
The relevant Colorado Law:
42-4-1412. Operation of bicycles and other human-powered vehicles.
(1) Every person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle shall
have **ALL OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES APPLICABLE TO THE DRIVER OF ANY
OTHER VEHICLE UNDER THIS ARTICLE,** except as to special regulations
in this article and except as to those provisions which by their
nature can have no application. [emphasis added]
>There's no
> guarantee that appeals at a high enough level would overturn it (even
> the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions) but I expect that someone
> willing to pay for appeals would have eventually gotten it reversed.
> (And BTW, that would be a productive thing for your BTA to do. Or the
> near-useless LAB.)
>
> Third, the bicycle section of the Oregon law specifically permits
> controlling a lane. That's in the section 2c that you quoted
> yourself.
Frank we understand your obsession with "controlling a lane."
> Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. I absolutely controlled
> the lane many times, as always.
LA-DE-FRICKIN'-DA
"As always." Your words not mine.
> I specifically remember doing that at
> 5 PM on a Friday, riding uphill on either Morrison or Taylor, for just
> one example. Ditto on 23rd in the NW, etc. I didn't get busted.
So Frank did you knock off a liquor store or two while you were there?
You know it's not illegal if you don't "get busted."
> Get with Mionske. See what he says. Seriously.
He's one lawyer, with at best, one opinion. And Frank, believe it or
not, he may may not agree with you, despite YOUR impeccable legal
credentials. Seriously. Frank you're an idiot.
DR
RobertH
>
> >> How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be
> >> on a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
> >> traffic.
>
> > False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the
> > principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or
> > not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings,
> > watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these
> > principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore,
> > when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive
> > driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous
> > driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles.
> > Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being
> > passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing
> > driver.
>
> What is there in "defensive driving" useful to cyclists that is not
> covered under vehicular/effective cycling?
Sure, Tom, I'll take that one.
Defensive driving emphasizes the specific ways that _lawful_ vehicle
operators are victimized in garden-variety collisions (In terms of
cycling, a 'looked-but-failed-to-see error' by a left-turning driver
has the most serious damage x frequency vector) and teaches strategies
to avoid them. Defensive driving emphasizes the need for awareness
above and beyond simply following the rules of the road. The
foundational assumptions of defensive driving are strongly supported
by factual evidence.
Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see'
incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them.
Vehicular Cycling emphasizes assertiveness and rule-following over
defensiveness. In Vehicular Cycling, a defensive mindset is in fact
viewed as superfluous and unnecessary. Riders who express the
necessity for defensive posture in traffic are berated and ridiculed
until they go away shaking their heads in wonder and disgust at their
fellow man.
Duane Hébert
Quebec Highway code defines a bicycle as a vehicle and treats it the
same as a motor vehicle with a few restrictions.
One being that other MVs are required to allow a minimum distance when
passing and can cross the lane to do so.
The second being that a bike must take a bike lane when one is available
with exclusions for turns.
And in any case, any road can prohibit usage for any type of vehicle.
There are roads that don't allow bike (mostly autoroutes - similar to
interstates) just as 18 wheelers can be prohibited from residential areas.
So all of the obstruction laws apply.
>> Third, the bicycle section of the Oregon law specifically permits
>> controlling a lane. That's in the section 2c that you quoted
>> yourself.
>
> No it doesn't. Read again, and read all the relevant sections. They
> work perfectly together.
I couldn't find any rule that allows that here either. The only thing
that I found similar to that is the section stating that slower vehicles
need to yield to traffic. I think this is mostly intended for RVs to
pull to the side when climbing in the hills but I'm not sure.
>> Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. I absolutely controlled
>> the lane many times, as always. I specifically remember doing that at
>> 5 PM on a Friday, riding uphill on either Morrison or Taylor, for just
>> one example. Ditto on 23rd in the NW, etc. I didn't get busted.
>
> I do all sorts of stupid things and don't get busted. All the streets
> you mentioned are narrow and slow, and typically I'm trying to get
> around traffic, particularly riding east (downhill).
So do the typical Mvs where I come from. You have to pay attention to them.
Duane Hébert
Don't you find that people tend to pass you more closely when you take
the whole road and tend to give you more distance when you're somewhat
to the right? That's be my experience for the most part. The maniac
drivers trying to terrorize me are not the norm.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...]
> The second being that a bike must take a bike lane when one is available
Confined to the ghetto!
Duane Hébert
You must live in the real world Andre. Or at least
one similar to the one that I'm in...
Duane Hébert
Unless your bent has armor it's going to be tough to walk away from that.
Duane Hébert
Cool but do they make them for recumbent bikes?
Duane Hébert
Well nothing based on any of the VC literature that I've read. Only
a zealot would tell you to - sorry - imply that you should never get out
of the way.
Duane Hébert
And no head zealot required.
Duane Hébert
Right but I think that this is only with the "Vehicular Cycling as
Religious Calling" crowd. What I've read of vehicular cycling is just
suggestions on some things that CAN work for you when you're forced into
the road with cars.
For example:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/practicalcycling/VCIntro.htm
So to avoid hazardous conditions bicyclists should politely merge left,
and ride nearer the center of a vehicle lane until the hazards are past
-- just as any other driver would do. Some may think this unsafe for
bicyclists, but this is normal practice for all slow drivers: drive to
the right when it’s safe, but use a full lane when needed. The law is
the same for bicyclists precisely because this is the best and safest
way to operate a bicycle in traffic. As one police chief says, "It’s
just common sense and standard traffic rules."
This one is telling you to move left to avoid hazards, then go back to
the right. But a zealot would interpret this differently. I don't see
anywhere that tells you to not get out of the way if it's not safe.
Frank Krygowski
> On Dec 8, 9:03 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 9:00 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 8, 4:38 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
> > > > of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?
>
> > > >http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/09/the-selz-case-revisited/
>
> > > >http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/legally-speaking-with-bob...
>
> > > Yes, they're wrong -- at least in Oregon. I know that because of
> > > this:
>
> > > "Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for impeding traffic,
> > > even though defendant's conviction involved his use of bicycle and
> > > definition of offense referred only to motor vehicles; nothing in
> > > vehicle code provided that such offense be applied only to motor
> > > vehicles. ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944,
> > > 185 Or.App. 81."
>
> > > So, go ahead and impede traffic in Ohio, but not here. You'll get
> > > busted.
>
> > First, I'd have thought you could talk to Mionske about this. Both of
> > you are in PDX, IIRC.
>
> Why would I? I can read statutes, in fact, I've even written a few.
Um... perhaps because law is more complicated than that? If statutes
could be perfectly understood by only one lawyer reading and
understanding, there would never be a need to have two opposing
lawyers in court, would there?
Besides, law has many specialties. I don't know what's your area of
practice, but the lawyers I know specialize. One lawyer I know well
does a lot of attorney malpractice cases - which seems to further
indicate not all attorneys are equal!
> > Second, although IANAL, we both know that there are bad decisions.
> > If, in the case you cite, it seems the conviction was based on a law
> > regarding _motor_ vehicles, it was a bad decision. There's no
> > guarantee that appeals at a high enough level would overturn it (even
> > the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions) but I expect that someone
> > willing to pay for appeals would have eventually gotten it reversed.
> > (And BTW, that would be a productive thing for your BTA to do. Or the
> > near-useless LAB.)
>
> A bicycle is treated identically to a motor vehicle for most purposes,
> including the impeding statute. Sorry, that's the law. The opinion
> was correctly decided, and there is no impetus for changing the law.
Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong; but ISTM that you're effectively
claiming that if a cyclist can't keep up with the motor vehicles in a
narrow lane, he's not allowed to ride that road.
Correct? Because you're saying that O.R.S. § 811.130 , although it
specifically says "motor vehicle," must apply also to bicycles. And
you're saying a cyclist has to ride as far right as "practicable" even
though that statute, § 814.430, specifically grants permission to a
cyclist "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."
So by your logic, is cycling in Oregon legal only where there is
enough pavement width to share side by side with a motor vehicle, or
maybe on downhills?
> > Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. I absolutely controlled
> > the lane many times, as always. I specifically remember doing that at
> > 5 PM on a Friday, riding uphill on either Morrison or Taylor, for just
> > one example. Ditto on 23rd in the NW, etc. I didn't get busted.
>
> I do all sorts of stupid things and don't get busted. All the streets
> you mentioned are narrow and slow, and typically I'm trying to get
> around traffic, particularly riding east (downhill).
You specifically said if I impeded traffic in Oregon (i.e., controlled
a lane that was too narrow to share) I'd get busted. Sorry, Jay, I
did so many times in Oregon, and saw countless other cyclists do the
same, and nobody got busted. I have to do this at least a little on
every bike ride I take, and I never get busted.
And incidentally, the "stupid thing" would be to squeeze into a door
zone or into a gutter to let someone pass by brushing my left elbow.
> > Get with Mionske. See what he says. Seriously.
>
> The Court of Appeals has answered the question. I don't need to talk
> to Bob...
I think it would be a really good idea. If nothing else, ask him if
he controls a lane that's too narrow for safe passing. Ask him why.
You could then report back to us about what he says. It would be
interesting, don't you agree?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see'
> incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
> merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
> will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them.
Nope, that's a lie. We've been over this repeatedly.
If what you say were true, then the book _Effective Cycling_, the
pamphlet "Street Smarts" and the recognized cycling courses like Smart
Cycling by the LAB, the Florida Bicycle Association's "CycleSavvy"
course, Can-Bike's courses, and Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ wouldn't teach
things like instant turns, emergency braking and other crash avoidance
techniques.
Keep it honest, Robert.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Don't you find that people tend to pass you more closely when you take
> the whole road and tend to give you more distance when you're somewhat
> to the right? That's be my experience for the most part. The maniac
> drivers trying to terrorize me are not the norm.
Here's a graph showing the results of one study on that specific
topic. The author says the further he was left, the more clearance he
got. The closest passing happened when the cyclist was furthest to
the right, and they were all in-lane passes, i.e. people who figured
they could sqeeze by without going over the line.
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/passingplotchart.jpg
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Right but I think that this is only with the "Vehicular Cycling as
> Religious Calling" crowd. What I've read of vehicular cycling is just
> suggestions on some things that CAN work for you when you're forced into
> the road with cars.
>
> For example:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/practicalcycling/VCIntro.htm
>
> So to avoid hazardous conditions bicyclists should politely merge left,
> and ride nearer the center of a vehicle lane until the hazards are past
> -- just as any other driver would do. Some may think this unsafe for
> bicyclists, but this is normal practice for all slow drivers: drive to
> the right when it s safe, but use a full lane when needed. The law is
> the same for bicyclists precisely because this is the best and safest
> way to operate a bicycle in traffic. As one police chief says, "It s
> just common sense and standard traffic rules."
>
> This one is telling you to move left to avoid hazards, then go back to
> the right. But a zealot would interpret this differently. I don't see
> anywhere that tells you to not get out of the way if it's not safe.
I certainly don't see anywhere that it tells you "get out of the way
if a truck is behind you." Is that what you meant by "not safe"?
And did you read as far as this?: "Politely taking enough space for
your own safety is the heart and core of safely cycling in traffic.
You can't be safe unless you're willing to take some space; even if
you have to delay some cars."
- Frank Krygowski
Duane Hébert
I was curious about what the Quebec Highway code says about your
controlling the lane so I looked it up.
--First your idea about having a right to be on the road is relative:
295. The person responsible for the maintenance of a public highway may,
by means of the proper signs or signals,
(1) indicate traffic stops;
(2) prohibit U-turns at such locations as may be determined by him;
(3) lay out pedestrian walkways;
(4) reserve traffic lanes for certain manoeuvres or for the exclusive
use of bicycles, certain classes of road vehicles or road vehicles
carrying the number of passengers indicated by proper signs;
(4.1) regulate bicycle traffic in a cycle lane;
(4.2) prohibit, limit or otherwise regulate bicycle traffic in lanes
used by road vehicles or in places used by pedestrians;
-- 4.2 should be of note as far as your right to the road.
--Second, a car is not allowed to pass a bike in the same lane unless
it's safe to do so (not sure who determines safe...) and if he has to
cross a solid line he can:
341. No driver of a road vehicle may pass a bicycle within the same
traffic lane unless there is sufficient space to allow him to do so in
safety.
--<snip>
Exceptions.
344. The driver of a road vehicle may cross a line described in section
326.1 providing that he can do so in safety, to pass a farm tractor or
other farm machine, a road vehicle carrying a slow-moving vehicle sign,
a horse-drawn vehicle or a bicycle.
--And specific to your riding in the middle of the lane, it doesn't look
like it's going to get big support here:
487. Subject to section 492, every person on a bicycle must ride on the
extreme right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic,
except where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a left
turn.
491. Subject to section 479, no person may ride a bicycle on a public
highway on which the maximum speed allowed is over 50 km/h unless
(1) he uses a cycle lane separated from the roadway and specially laid
out to prevent vehicles from crossing over from the roadway to the cycle
lane or vice versa, or having that effect
(2) he is 12 years of age or over; or
(3) he is taking part in an excursion led by a person of full age.
Cycle lane.
492. Where the public highway includes a cycle lane, persons riding a
bicycle other than a power-assisted bicycle must use the cycle lane.
--I've trimmed things that didn't pertain to bikes so here's the link if
you want to read the whole thing:
I doubt that Quebec is the only place in North America that has these
laws but will you now claim that everyone riding legally in Quebec is
skulking on the "Extreme" right of the road?
Duane Hébert
Didn't ask YOU for a study, I asked the guy that I was responding to
what he felt personally.
I can google for "college professors are idiots" and get lots of hits.
Duane Hébert
> On Dec 9, 9:30 am, Duane H�bert<duaneheb...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Right but I think that this is only with the "Vehicular Cycling as
>> Religious Calling" crowd. What I've read of vehicular cycling is just
>> suggestions on some things that CAN work for you when you're forced into
>> the road with cars.
>>
>> For example:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/practicalcycling/VCIntro.htm
>>
>> So to avoid hazardous conditions bicyclists should politely merge left,
>> and ride nearer the center of a vehicle lane until the hazards are past
>> -- just as any other driver would do. Some may think this unsafe for
>> bicyclists, but this is normal practice for all slow drivers: drive to
>> the right when it s safe, but use a full lane when needed. The law is
>> the same for bicyclists precisely because this is the best and safest
>> way to operate a bicycle in traffic. As one police chief says, "It s
>> just common sense and standard traffic rules."
>>
>> This one is telling you to move left to avoid hazards, then go back to
>> the right. But a zealot would interpret this differently. I don't see
>> anywhere that tells you to not get out of the way if it's not safe.
>
> I certainly don't see anywhere that it tells you "get out of the way
> if a truck is behind you." Is that what you meant by "not safe"?
No.
> And did you read as far as this?: "Politely taking enough space for
> your own safety is the heart and core of safely cycling in traffic.
> You can't be safe unless you're willing to take some space; even if
> you have to delay some cars."
You have a different understanding of "enough space for your own safety"
than I do. Apparently you need the whole lane to prevent you from being
afraid to ride in front of a truck.
AMuzi
Is it Bettie Page?
http://www.planetbettie.com/bettiex.htm
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Duane Hébert
If not maybe it will be...
Duane Hébert
> Duane Hébert<duane...@videotron.ca> considered Wed, 08 Dec 2010
> 09:35:55 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 12/7/2010 9:35 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°> wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2010 12:06 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2010 12:47 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 7, 9:31 am, Duane Hébert<duaneheb...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/2010 12:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's dangerous for a cyclist to ride the road's edge so as to
>>>>>>> not displease the trucker. It's unacceptably dangerous to imply to
>>>>>>> the trucker (or any motorist) that he's welcome to pass you with only
>>>>>>> tiny clearance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I feel extremely safe handling it the way I do. I'm making a big deal
>>>>>>> of it because Duane mocked the fact that I control the trucker's
>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't mock you. I questioned your assertion that you
>>>>>> on a bicycle are controlling the trucker's behavior. This is
>>>>>> only true if the trucker sees you and allows it. I've had cases
>>>>>> where the truck didn't see me and cases where they didn't allow
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your claim that you can control a truck that weighs several tons more
>>>>>> than you traveling at higher speeds than you, in every case is what
>>>>>> is dangerous here. Not cycling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So DR, what _do_ you do in that situation? 10 foot lane, 8.5 foot
>>>>>>> truck. Do you suddenly bail to ride the sidewalk, or do you bump
>>>>>>> along in the gutter, or do you control the lane?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm. So staying in my narrow lane when a truck approaches from behind
>>>>> is what's dangerous? Despite my having done so for decades with no
>>>>> problems? Not only has it never been a safety problem, I honestly see
>>>>> no alternative, if I'm going to ride my bike for transportation.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying assuming that it's safe because
>>>> you have control is incorrect. I'm saying that thinking that there
>>>> are NO dangers is incorrect. I'm saying to practice defensive driving
>>>> at all time instead of relying on some illusion of control or some
>>>> statistics. Argue against that if you like but stop arguing against
>>>> what you say that I say. This started because I said that you have
>>>> to be aware that the truck MAY NOT STOP. You seem to be claiming
>>>> that that isn't the case because you've never seen it and statistically
>>>> it won't happen.
>>>>
>>> So is letting the truck go by with inches to spare at best safer than
>>> taking the lane? Or will you stop where you can get off the road, and
>>> wait for a gap in traffic before riding that section? (Where I cross an
>>> overpass regularly with a shoulder less than 2 feet wide, this could
>>> mean waiting for hours.)
>>
>> Better than having the truck run over me? Remember, we're talking about
>> a truck that doesn't see me or isn't going to stop. Maybe he's texting.
>
> If that's the case, you are going to be ground meat whichever part of
> the road you are using, since the truck will only have 9" each side in
> the lane.
In which case I'm getting out of the way.
> The fact that this kind of collision is very rare demonstrates that
> not being seen at all is also very rare. whereas being clipped and
> knocked off to the side, or being forced to dive for the shoulder (if
> there is one), pavement (sidewalk to usians) or verge is relatively
> common if you invite drivers to pass by squeezing into the side.
I'm not sure about how rare. We lost several here this year from being
rear ended. But anyway, there are all sorts of possibilities. My point
is that you can't make some arbitrary statement like Frank is making
that will always be true. It depends on the situation. I don't think
there are any newbies here. I think most of us don't have a problem
riding our bikes.
>> Frank dreamed up some scenario so that he could ridicule people and call
>> them cowards skulking in the ditches. I asked what he'd do if the truck
>> wasn't stopping. Apparently he'd stay in the center of the lane, in the
>> full knowledge that the truck would eventually stop because
>> statistically, there aren't many rear end collisions between trucks and
>> bikes.
>>
>> What I would do is take the side of the road and throw bricks at the fucker.
>>
> And if the trucker is genuinely that aggressive, that could be
> regarded as self-defence.
> But drivers who are so aggressive as to force you off the road are
> very rare.
They are fortunately very rare but unfortunately some do exist and
taking the lane isn't going to work. I posted just one example that
happened to me this season where staying in the center of the lane would
have been a bad idea.
<snip>
>> Defensive driving teaches you to assume that the other guy is going to
>> do the wrong thing and to be ready for it. Ignoring the speeding truck
>> behind you because you are in control of the lane and statistics say he
>> will stop is not very defensive.
>
> Defensive driving also teaches that putting yourself in a position to
> be seen is a considerable benefit.
Sure. Maybe you can explain to me how being a foot to the left makes
me more visible to the truck, but I agree with that. In fact, my first
response to Frank's "pop quiz" was that I would make sure that I was
visible and if not...
But it doesn't tell you that you can control anything. In fact, it
tells you to be prepared for unexpected behavior. Like don't pull
out in front of a car with his signal on until you know that he's
actually turning.
Jay Beattie
The courts frequently agree with my view of statutes, most recently:
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A138923.htm Dealing with
bicycles and the so-called "bicycle bill" : Bicycle Transp. Alliance,
Inc. v. City of Portland, By and Through 133 Or.App. 422, 891 P.2d 692
(1995). Wrongful death statute:Union Bank of California, N.A. v.
Copeland Lumber Yards, Inc.
213 Or.App. 308, 160 P.3d 1032 (2007); UCC: GPL Treatment, Ltd. v.
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.,323 Or. 116, 914 P.2d 682 (1996); Longshore
Act: Trachsel v. Rogers Terminal & Shipping Corp.597 F.3d 947 (9th
Cir. 2010). I could go on . . . and on, really. Exactly what do you
think I do for a day job? Yes, I could be wrong interpreting a
statute, but my error rate is substantially lower than arm-chair
statute readers.
> Besides, law has many specialties. I don't know what's your area of
> practice, but the lawyers I know specialize. One lawyer I know well
> does a lot of attorney malpractice cases - which seems to further
> indicate not all attorneys are equal!
Your point? "Bicycle law" is hardly a specialty -- it's just run of
the mill fender bender work from the bicyclists perspective. I do
"bicycle law" -- products work for Specialized, Trek and others, but
their products break so infrequently, I rarely get a file. I've also
done a few plaintiffs cases for bicyclists, but the injuries are
rarely significant, and most of the time, there is huge comparative
fault, at least in the cases I've handled. I'm identified with the
defense bar and do not get high profile plaintiffs' cases (too bad, I
could use a contingent fee).
> > > Second, although IANAL, we both know that there are bad decisions.
> > > If, in the case you cite, it seems the conviction was based on a law
> > > regarding _motor_ vehicles, it was a bad decision. There's no
> > > guarantee that appeals at a high enough level would overturn it (even
> > > the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions) but I expect that someone
> > > willing to pay for appeals would have eventually gotten it reversed.
> > > (And BTW, that would be a productive thing for your BTA to do. Or the
> > > near-useless LAB.)
>
> > A bicycle is treated identically to a motor vehicle for most purposes,
> > including the impeding statute. Sorry, that's the law. The opinion
> > was correctly decided, and there is no impetus for changing the law.
>
> Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong; but ISTM that you're effectively
> claiming that if a cyclist can't keep up with the motor vehicles in a
> narrow lane, he's not allowed to ride that road.
No, you ride as far right as practicable. If you want to take the
lane, then you have to be travelling at the speed of traffic. If you
cannot travel at the speed of traffic, then you have to yield, viz.,
get out of the lane or off the road.
>
> Correct? Because you're saying that O.R.S. § 811.130 , although it
> specifically says "motor vehicle," must apply also to bicycles. And
> you're saying a cyclist has to ride as far right as "practicable" even
> though that statute, § 814.430, specifically grants permission to a
> cyclist "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."
You can operate bicycles side by side so long as you do not impede
traffic: "(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."
That is really clear, but I could talk to an expert to see if it
actually means something other than the plain language.
> So by your logic, is cycling in Oregon legal only where there is
> enough pavement width to share side by side with a motor vehicle, or
> maybe on downhills?
No. One more time with emphasis. You ride as far right as is
practicable. Cars must pass at a safe distance, defined as follows:
O.R.S. § 811.065
(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.
> > > Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. I absolutely controlled
> > > the lane many times, as always. I specifically remember doing that at
> > > 5 PM on a Friday, riding uphill on either Morrison or Taylor, for just
> > > one example. Ditto on 23rd in the NW, etc. I didn't get busted.
>
> > I do all sorts of stupid things and don't get busted. All the streets
> > you mentioned are narrow and slow, and typically I'm trying to get
> > around traffic, particularly riding east (downhill).
>
> You specifically said if I impeded traffic in Oregon (i.e., controlled
> a lane that was too narrow to share) I'd get busted. Sorry, Jay, I
> did so many times in Oregon, and saw countless other cyclists do the
> same, and nobody got busted. I have to do this at least a little on
> every bike ride I take, and I never get busted.
>
> And incidentally, the "stupid thing" would be to squeeze into a door
> zone or into a gutter to let someone pass by brushing my left elbow.
I don't disagree with that, and in fact, avoiding door swing may put
you in traffic, but you're not in traffic to "control it" -- you're in
traffic to avoid getting hit by a door. The whole idea of being a
traffic hall monitor is ridiculous. You apparently have not gotten
the flip side of hall monitor activity from cars -- people who want to
cut you off or slow you down because they think you are violating the
law, which they usually do not understand anyway.
> > > Get with Mionske. See what he says. Seriously.
>
> > The Court of Appeals has answered the question. I don't need to talk
> > to Bob...
>
> I think it would be a really good idea. If nothing else, ask him if
> he controls a lane that's too narrow for safe passing. Ask him why.
> You could then report back to us about what he says. It would be
> interesting, don't you agree?
No. I could care less what he says, really. Why waste my time? I
care what the legislature and the appellate courts say. "Bob on the
law" is not a cite I can put in a brief or a trial pleading. "Your
honor, Bob Mionske says that I can block traffic." Wow, that would
win the day! I might as well cite to myself. -- Jay Beattie.
DirtRoadie
> Besides, law has many specialties. I don't know what's your area of
> practice, but the lawyers I know specialize. One lawyer I know well
> does a lot of attorney malpractice cases - which seems to further
> indicate not all attorneys are equal!
Always be sure to tell any professional you hire how bad the rest of
them are.
So, Frank, out of curiosity, what was the reason your were kicked out
of your Dale Carnegie course?
DR
Barry
As I understand, in a 10-foot wide lane (no shoulder), with an 8.5-foot wide
truck behind you, you'd ride in the middle of the lane. This would put you 5
feet from the right edge.
Where would you ride if there was no vehicle behind you?
What if instead of a big truck, it was a small car or a motorcycle behind you?
What if the lane was 14 feet wide instead of 10 feet?
In all of these cases, I think I'd ride in the same place - as far right as I
deem practicable, probably about 3 feet from the edge if there are no issues
with debris or road surface. Maybe a little closer if there's an unpaved
shoulder instead of a curb.
Duane Hébert
> Duane Hébert<duane...@videotron.ca> considered Wed, 08 Dec 2010
>
>> On 12/8/2010 11:26 AM, RobertH wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
>>>
>>>> How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be
>>>> on a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
>>>> traffic.
>>>
>>> False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the
>>> principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or
>>> not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings,
>>> watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these
>>> principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore,
>>> when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive
>>> driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous
>>> driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles.
>>> Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being
>>> passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing
>>> driver.
>>
>> http://www.allsands.com/howto/defensivedrivin_xwv_gn.htm
>>
>> Most of the suggestions make sense to me but particularly relevant to
>> this thread are:
>>
>> 5. Anticipate the mistakes or unsafe maneuvers of the other drivers.
>> Notice that it doesn't say "unless you are controlling the lane"
>
> difficult for them to make those mistakes, rather than encouraging
> them to make them.
> That is exactly what taking the lane is all about.
>>
>> and
>> 16. If a tailgater is following you, move to another lane if possible or
>
> Could you leave the goalposts in place instead of moving them around?
> Nowhere has it previously been stated that this is a tailgater.
We're talking about if the driver is driving dangerously.
Frank is saying to control the lane. Others are saying that
they would do whatever seems correct, including getting out
of the street.
>> Notice that it doesn't say to stay in the center of the road and
>> maintain your right to be there. Nor does it say that you will be
>> a cowardly, subservient wimp for getting out of the way of the guy
>> behind you driving dangerously.
>
> You missed out:
> 18, Do not drive in another driver's blind spot.
I don't see how I'm in his blind spot when I'm in front of him.
If I move to the right to let him pass, he knows where I am.
Otherwise, I'm in front of him. Being in the center of the
lane doesn't do me any good.
Remember there's not enough room to share the lane so I'm either
in front of him, letting him pass or not on the road.
> 23. Stay in the middle of your lane in between the lines.
>
> Looks like you are cherry picking.
By pointing out scenarios where "controlling the lane"
doesn't work? I guess I could say that it never works
but that would be wrong. Just as much as saying that it
always does.
DirtRoadie
> Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong; .....
Frank that has pretty much been the focus of this thread
So let's at least get the proper theme into the subject line - at your
request, of course. Everyone here HAS been correcting you, repeatedly.
We had not fully appreciated the extent of your learning disorder.
> > Correct? Because you're saying that O.R.S. § 811.130 , although it
> specifically says "motor vehicle," must apply also to bicycles. .....
Seems that O.R.S. § 814.400 covers that.
> > > Get with Mionske. See what he says. Seriously.
> > The Court of Appeals has answered the question. I don't need to talk
> > to Bob...
What Frank fails to understand is that the Court of Appeals decision
IS a complete answer. Frank can rant all day about HOW he thinks it
SHOULD be. What is clear is how it IS.
Rather than waste the time of others, Frank can set up a test case
(think Selz and a narrow 2-1 decision) if he wants or he can lobby the
Oregon legislature. Although what he describes is already addressed in
a clear and reasonable manner.
> ....
> I think it would be a really good idea. If nothing else, ask him if
> he controls a lane that's too narrow for safe passing. Ask him why.
> You could then report back to us about what he says. It would be
> interesting, don't you agree?
Frank- YOU call Bob and bend his ear. Give him a link to this thread.
Tell us what he says about the law. Not some silly carefully
constructed hypothetical, ask about the big picture of what the law
provides.
No, on second thought, have him post here himself. You have not quoted
anyone accurately yet.
DR
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> On Dec 8, 6:50 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, T m Sherm n _
>>
>>>> How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be
>>>> on a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
>>>> traffic.
>>
>>> False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the
>>> principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or
>>> not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings,
>>> watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these
>>> principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore,
>>> when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive
>>> driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous
>>> driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles.
>>> Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being
>>> passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing
>>> driver.
>>
>> covered under vehicular/effective cycling?
>
> Sure, Tom, I'll take that one.
>
> Defensive driving emphasizes the specific ways that _lawful_ vehicle
> operators are victimized in garden-variety collisions (In terms of
> cycling, a 'looked-but-failed-to-see error' by a left-turning driver
> has the most serious damage x frequency vector) and teaches strategies
> to avoid them. Defensive driving emphasizes the need for awareness
> above and beyond simply following the rules of the road. The
> foundational assumptions of defensive driving are strongly supported
> by factual evidence.
>
> incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
> merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
> will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them.
> defensiveness. In Vehicular Cycling, a defensive mindset is in fact
> viewed as superfluous and unnecessary. Riders who express the
> necessity for defensive posture in traffic are berated and ridiculed
> until they go away shaking their heads in wonder and disgust at their
> fellow man.
>
>
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
James
> James <james.e...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:12:08
> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>>> Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
>>>> you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
>>>> safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption
>>>> sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
>>>> everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
>>>> places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also
>>>> requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
>>>> let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
>>>> lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
>>>> does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
>>>> must yield" laws.
>>> of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?
>>>
>>> http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/09/the-selz-case-revisited/
>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK, most states do not have a "slow moving vehicle must yield"
>>> law. A few do have one, but it's restricted to situations where there
>>> are (typically) five vehicles held behind _and_ there is a safe place
>>> to pull over. If slow moving vehicles had to yield all the time, we
>>> would have no right to the road, motorhomes would never make it out of
>>> the flatlands, and commerce would become severely limited.
>> Victorian Road Law.
>>
>> <quote>
>> 125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
>>
>> (1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver
>> or a pedestrian.
>> Penalty: 2 penalty units.
>> Note: Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle—see the
>> definition of drive in the dictionary.
>>
>> (2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of
>> another driver or a pedestrian only because—
>> (a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
>> (b) the driver is driving more slowly than other
>> vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slow in the
>> circumstances).
>>
>> Example of a driver driving abnormally slow
>> A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a
>> length of road to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per
>> hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive
>> at that speed on the length of road.
>> </quote>
>>
>> So a cyclist riding at 20 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and taking up the lane
>> would be considered to be abnormally slow. This is precisely the
>> circumstance on the Maroondah Hwy going over the Black Spur that I
>> posted a link to earlier.
>>
> Don't be more stupid than you can help.
> The law as you state it above states quite clearly "a driver does not
> unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only
> because:
> (a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
> (b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles"
>
> and even clarifies that in the example by stating: "when there is no
> reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road."
>
> I can't think of any more persuasive reason for the driver to be
> driving at that (low) speed than that it is the maximum speed of which
> the vehicle is capable.
>
> Any other reasoning would put the statute at odds with the laws of
> physics, and would have the effect of saying that any vehicle that
> cannot travel at the speed limit is not allowed to use that stretch of
> road.
>
> So that law cannot possibly be applied if the vehicle operator is
> driving as fast as the circumstances, or his vehicle's capabilities
> (which includes his own, particularly if there is no power
> assistance), allow.
The point of the law is to require slow vehicle operators (bicycles and
tractors for example) to not unreasonably prevent the the progress of
other vehicles. The solution is to move off the road and let others
pass if you are traveling unreasonably slow, and not hog the lane.
People towing caravans and tractor drivers and most cyclists do just
this. It's common courtesy.
Are you stupid enough to crawl along in the middle of the lane and hold
up a tonne of traffic?
JS.
DirtRoadie
> Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> considered Wed, 8 Dec 2010
> 18:00:24 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
> >So, putting them together,
>
> Why put them together?
First the disclaimer that you forgot - YANAL
Second, Jay IAL.
Third:
ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944,
185 Or.App. 81.
Fourth:
814.400 reads "Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every
person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions
applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any
other vehicle concerning operating on highways, ..."
Argue your head off, the issue has been decided in Oregon and your
argument lost.
DR
DirtRoadie
> James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:12:08
> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> >>> Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
> >>> you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
> >>> safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption
> >>> sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
> >>> everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
> >>> places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also
> >>> requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
> >>> let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
> >>> lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
> >>> does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
> >>> must yield" laws.
>
> >> Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
> >> of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?
>
> >>http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/09/the-selz-case-revisited/
>
Pretty clear - YANAL.
But you are nearly as good as Krygowski at changing facts to suit your
perspective of the moment.
DR
James
I find if I wobble around a lot, look over my shoulder lots and blow my
nose toward the traffic I get more room.
(Trouble with wobbling around a lot is that it takes concentration. I
naturally ride fairly straight lines, which comes from necessity racing
over pick-a-plank bridges. Blowing my nose comes naturally, especially
in cold weather or hay fever season.)
JS.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...]
> The point of the law is to require slow vehicle operators (bicycles and
> tractors for example) to not unreasonably prevent the the progress of
> other vehicles. The solution is to move off the road and let others
> pass if you are traveling unreasonably slow, and not hog the lane.
>
Not so in the US. Or self-propelled caravans (motor homes) for that matter.
Jay Beattie
> On Dec 9, 12:46 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 9:03 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 8, 9:00 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 8, 4:38 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?
>
> > > > >http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/09/the-selz-case-revisited/
>
> > > > >http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/legally-speaking-with-bob...
>
> > > > this:
>
> > > > "Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for impeding traffic,
> > > > even though defendant's conviction involved his use of bicycle and
> > > > definition of offense referred only to motor vehicles; nothing in
> > > > vehicle code provided that such offense be applied only to motor
> > > > 185 Or.App. 81."
>
> > > > So, go ahead and impede traffic in Ohio, but not here. You'll get
> > > > busted.
>
> > > First, I'd have thought you could talk to Mionske about this. Both of
> > > you are in PDX, IIRC.
>
> > Why would I? I can read statutes, in fact, I've even written a few.
>
> Um... perhaps because law is more complicated than that? If statutes
> could be perfectly understood by only one lawyer reading and
> understanding, there would never be a need to have two opposing
> lawyers in court, would there?
>
> practice, but the lawyers I know specialize. One lawyer I know well
> does a lot of attorney malpractice cases - which seems to further
> indicate not all attorneys are equal!
>
> > > If, in the case you cite, it seems the conviction was based on a law
> > > regarding _motor_ vehicles, it was a bad decision. There's no
> > > guarantee that appeals at a high enough level would overturn it (even
> > > the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions) but I expect that someone
> > > willing to pay for appeals would have eventually gotten it reversed.
> > > (And BTW, that would be a productive thing for your BTA to do. Or the
> > > near-useless LAB.)
>
> > A bicycle is treated identically to a motor vehicle for most purposes,
> > including the impeding statute. Sorry, that's the law. The opinion
> > was correctly decided, and there is no impetus for changing the law.
>
> Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong; but ISTM that you're effectively
> claiming that if a cyclist can't keep up with the motor vehicles in a
> narrow lane, he's not allowed to ride that road.
>
> you're saying a cyclist has to ride as far right as "practicable" even
> though that statute, § 814.430, specifically grants permission to a
> cyclist "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."
>
> enough pavement width to share side by side with a motor vehicle, or
> maybe on downhills?
>
> > > the lane many times, as always. I specifically remember doing that at
> > > 5 PM on a Friday, riding uphill on either Morrison or Taylor, for just
> > > one example. Ditto on 23rd in the NW, etc. I didn't get busted.
>
> > I do all sorts of stupid things and don't get busted. All the streets
> > you mentioned are narrow and slow, and typically I'm trying to get
> > around traffic, particularly riding east (downhill).
>
> You specifically said if I impeded traffic in Oregon (i.e., controlled
> a lane that was too narrow to share) I'd get busted. Sorry, Jay, I
> did so many times in Oregon, and saw countless other cyclists do the
> same, and nobody got busted. I have to do this at least a little on
> every bike ride I take, and I never get busted.
>
> And incidentally, the "stupid thing" would be to squeeze into a door
> zone or into a gutter to let someone pass by brushing my left elbow.
>
>
> > The Court of Appeals has answered the question. I don't need to talk
> > to Bob...
>
> he controls a lane that's too narrow for safe passing. Ask him why.
> You could then report back to us about what he says. It would be
> interesting, don't you agree?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frank, I blew by your mention of the section below, thinking you were
talking about bikes riding side-by-side. So, once again, it is
permitted to ride in the lane:
(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
The statute specifically states that bicyclist are not excused from
complying with ORS 811.425, which provides:
ORS 811.425 Failure of slower driver to
yield to overtaking vehicle; penalty. (1) A
person commits the offense of failure of a
slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle
if the person is driving a vehicle and the
person fails to move the person’s vehicle off
the main traveled portion of the highway
into an area sufficient for safe turnout when:
(a) The driver of the overtaken vehicle is
proceeding at a speed less than a speed established
in ORS 811.105 as prima facie evidence
of violation of the basic speed rule;
(b) The driver of the overtaking vehicle
is proceeding at a speed in conformity with
ORS 811.105;
(c) The highway is a two directional,
two-lane highway; and
(d) There is no clear lane for passing
available to the driver of the overtaking vehicle.
(2) This section does not apply to the
driver of a vehicle in a funeral procession.
(3) The offense described in this section,
failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking
vehicle, is a Class B traffic violation.
These sections are curious when construed together -- you can take the
lane if it is too narrow for a car and a bike to ride safely side by
side, but you have to yield to overtaking vehicles. This means you
have to pull over in to a place for safe turn out. So take the road,
but be prepared to pull off when cars or trucks approach from the
rear. Makes for a long ride home.
It also begs the question of what is "safe." Like I said, I don't
disagree with you about taking the lane sometimes, I take the lane on
the Sellwood Bridge and some of the lane on Barbur Blvd as indicated
in my prior posts, but coming home this evening when all the traffic
was stopped on Barbur due to flooding (I got to ride home through
giant lakes again), I can pass cars on the right (which is legal here)
even in the narrowest portions of the road. Again, I think the better
part of discretion is staying out of the lane to the extent possible
to let vehicles pass except those vehicles with a track record of
mayhem (TriMet) or in those places where even the innocent can run you
down due to road features (the off camber, hard right turn I mentioned
in a prior post). On the twisting climbs through the West Hills, I
always just pull way over and let cars pass and do not attempt to
control traffic by riding in the middle of the road on a 10% climb at
8mph. On any narrow road downtown, I'm travelling at or above the
speed of traffic. -- Jay Beattie.
Frank Krygowski
>
> I doubt that Quebec is the only place in North America that has these
> laws but will you now claim that everyone riding legally in Quebec is
> skulking on the "Extreme" right of the road?
If those are the laws in Quebec, then (as I just said in another post)
you have my sympathy. Things are _far_ better in most US states,
including mine. A few states I've ridden in have mandatory sidepath
laws, and I've experienced the stupidity they produce, but most do
not.
So again: my sympathy to you.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On 12/9/2010 11:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > Here's a graph showing the results of one study on that specific
> > topic. The author says the further he was left, the more clearance he
> > got. The closest passing happened when the cyclist was furthest to
> > the right, and they were all in-lane passes, i.e. people who figured
> > they could sqeeze by without going over the line.
>
>
> Didn't ask YOU for a study, I asked the guy that I was responding to
> what he felt personally.
Duane, at this point, you don't have to tell me you don't want to look
at the results of a study! Of _course_ you don't want to look at the
results of a study! You've said many times you're not interested in
reading anything about the issues we discuss. I'm astonished you
bothered to look up your own laws!
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On 12/9/2010 12:37 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
>
> > If that's the case, you are going to be ground meat whichever part of
> > the road you are using, since the truck will only have 9" each side in
> > the lane.
>
> In which case I'm getting out of the way.
Onto the sidewalk again, eh?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On Dec 9, 8:23 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > First, I'd have thought you could talk to Mionske about this. Both of
> > > > you are in PDX, IIRC.
>
> > > Why would I? I can read statutes, in fact, I've even written a few.
>
> > Um... perhaps because law is more complicated than that? If statutes
> > could be perfectly understood by only one lawyer reading and
> > understanding, there would never be a need to have two opposing
> > lawyers in court, would there?
>
> > practice, but the lawyers I know specialize. One lawyer I know well
> > does a lot of attorney malpractice cases - which seems to further
> > indicate not all attorneys are equal!
>
> Your point? "Bicycle law" is hardly a specialty -- it's just run of
> the mill fender bender work from the bicyclists perspective. I do
> "bicycle law" -- products work for Specialized, Trek and others, but
> their products break so infrequently, I rarely get a file. I've also
> done a few plaintiffs cases for bicyclists, but the injuries are
> rarely significant, and most of the time, there is huge comparative
> fault, at least in the cases I've handled. I'm identified with the
> defense bar and do not get high profile plaintiffs' cases (too bad, I
> could use a contingent fee).
Again, I'm not a lawyer. But for an engineering parallel, if I were
(say) very experienced with robotics, but as part of a project had to
design a four bar linkage to produce a very specific motion, I'd be
willing to talk to someone who specialized in designing four bar
linkages. I may know the fundamentals of it, but I would never say "A
robot is a mechanism, so I'll be as good as he is."
Or to put it more succinctly, I'd be astonished if you knew as much
about bicycle law as Mionske does, or Magas does, and could interpret
the law as well.
> > Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong; but ISTM that you're effectively
> > claiming that if a cyclist can't keep up with the motor vehicles in a
> > narrow lane, he's not allowed to ride that road.
>
> No, you ride as far right as practicable. If you want to take the
> lane, then you have to be travelling at the speed of traffic. If you
> cannot travel at the speed of traffic, then you have to yield, viz.,
> get out of the lane or off the road.
The legal issue is the definition of "practicable." The consensus
among the lawyers and the law enforcement people who are my cycling
friends is that we _do_ have a right to the road, and that we are not
required to put ourselves at undue risk; and that frequently, riding
far enough out to prevent in-lane passing is a necessary tactic.
> You can operate bicycles side by side so long as you do not impede
> traffic: "(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."
>
> That is really clear, but I could talk to an expert to see if it
> actually means something other than the plain language.
I think you should. I've named a couple for you.
> > And incidentally, the "stupid thing" would be to squeeze into a door
> > zone or into a gutter to let someone pass by brushing my left elbow.
>
> I don't disagree with that, and in fact, avoiding door swing may put
> you in traffic, but you're not in traffic to "control it" -- you're in
> traffic to avoid getting hit by a door. The whole idea of being a
> traffic hall monitor is ridiculous.
Riding a bit further left to prevent close, in-lane passing is just as
justified as riding a bit further left to avoid door zones. I remain
astonished that anyone fails to understand that point.
> You apparently have not gotten
> the flip side of hall monitor activity from cars -- people who want to
> cut you off or slow you down because they think you are violating the
> law, which they usually do not understand anyway.
I've had a couple motorists yell at me because they thought I should
be further right. I've had assholes honk their horns at me when I was
driving, because they wanted me to exceed the speed limit for their
benefit. When people get to a certain level of assholeness (to coin a
word) they're best ignored.
>
> > > > Get with Mionske. See what he says. Seriously.
>
> > > The Court of Appeals has answered the question. I don't need to talk
> > > to Bob...
>
> > I think it would be a really good idea. If nothing else, ask him if
> > he controls a lane that's too narrow for safe passing. Ask him why.
> > You could then report back to us about what he says. It would be
> > interesting, don't you agree?
>
> No. I could care less what he says, really. Why waste my time?
Is learning really considered a waste of time around here?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> I have some questions for Frank.
>
> As I understand, in a 10-foot wide lane (no shoulder), with an 8.5-foot wide
> truck behind you, you'd ride in the middle of the lane. This would put you 5
> feet from the right edge.
>
> Where would you ride if there was no vehicle behind you?
>
> What if instead of a big truck, it was a small car or a motorcycle behind you?
First, if there is no vehicle behind me, my road position is
determined by other things. As mentioned, cars approaching stop signs
at my right cause me to move a bit left, for extra conspicuity and for
more emergency room should he fail to stop, even though that's
extremely rare. Absent such risk factors, my lane position is often
determined by pavement smoothness. Why not ride where it's
smoothest? If it's all perfectly smooth, I'd probably be about 3 or 4
feet from the right. Riding with another cyclist (like my wife) I'm
usually side by side in that situation, and I'm the one further left.
> What if the lane was 14 feet wide instead of 10 feet?
I think 14 feet is usually a shareable lane, assuming normal width
vehicles are passing. If so and if the pavement is good, I'd be about
three or four feet from the normal right edge of the vehicles. Even
then, I don't like to get real close to the gutter. I think it helps
safety to be a presence on the road, so to speak.
There's a part of my mind that pays attention to lane position. It's
largely automatic, but it does pay attention and adjust most of the
time.
> In all of these cases, I think I'd ride in the same place - as far right as I
> deem practicable, probably about 3 feet from the edge if there are no issues
> with debris or road surface. Maybe a little closer if there's an unpaved
> shoulder instead of a curb.
That's a good point - the specifics of what's further right affect
things. A dropoff "ledge" at the pavement's edge will push me further
left, too.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Good. And I assume you no longer think I'll "get busted" if I do that
in Oregon.
... I take the lane on
> the Sellwood Bridge and some of the lane on Barbur Blvd as indicated
> in my prior posts...
> Again, I think the better
> part of discretion is staying out of the lane to the extent possible
> to let vehicles pass except those vehicles with a track record of
> mayhem (TriMet) or in those places where even the innocent can run you
> down due to road features (the off camber, hard right turn I mentioned
> in a prior post).
There is always judgment involved. But in general, I've found (as Dan
Gutierrez showed in the graph I posted earlier) that too-close passes
happen only when I'm close to the right. I factor that in. There
still are, occasionally, times I try to share a lane that I shouldn't,
and get rewarded by an uncomfortably close pass. That's an example of
"no good deed going unpunished."
> On the twisting climbs through the West Hills, I
> always just pull way over and let cars pass and do not attempt to
> control traffic by riding in the middle of the road on a 10% climb at
> 8mph. On any narrow road downtown, I'm travelling at or above the
> speed of traffic.
Speed does make a difference, both absolute speed and relative
speed.
- Frank Krygowski
James
I don't recall mention of speed in your hypothetical. Did I miss
that?
JS.
Duane Hébert
> On 12/9/2010 4:34 PM, James Steward wrote:
> > [...]
>> The point of the law is to require slow vehicle operators (bicycles and
>> tractors for example) to not unreasonably prevent the the progress of
>> other vehicles. The solution is to move off the road and let others
>> pass if you are traveling unreasonably slow, and not hog the lane.
>>
>> People towing caravans [...] do just this. [...]
>
> Not so in the US. Or self-propelled caravans (motor homes) for that matter.
>
Ever drive in the Rockies? One RV can back up traffic for miles. There
are pullovers every so often intended to get the slower traffic out of
the way.
If the RV doesn't pull over when there's a place to do so, the cops will
force him to. Not to mention the drivers behind.
Duane Hébert
You missed the part where "YOU" was emphasized. I already know what
YOU are going to respond. I wasn't asking YOU. I was looking for an
impression from the person that I responded to.
Duane Hébert
I don't really need your sympathy. Whether it's a guaranteed right or
not, is not that important. No one is hiding in the bushes waiting to
take away my privilege of riding a bike.
Where it bothers me a little is the bit about being forced to ride in a
bike lane when one exists. I typically ride faster than the traffic in
the bike lanes so if they're crowded, I don't use them.
Like I said, at least now I know why that truck was on my ass. I was in
the wrong.
Duane Hébert
Ground meat again eh? If those are the two choices,
I know which I will take.
Duane Hébert
> On Dec 10, 12:19 am, Jay Beattie<jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>
>> Like I said, I don't
>> disagree with you about taking the lane sometimes...
>
> Good. And I assume you no longer think I'll "get busted" if I do that
> in Oregon.
>
> ... I take the lane on
>> the Sellwood Bridge and some of the lane on Barbur Blvd as indicated
>> in my prior posts...
>> Again, I think the better
>> part of discretion is staying out of the lane to the extent possible
>> to let vehicles pass except those vehicles with a track record of
>> mayhem (TriMet) or in those places where even the innocent can run you
>> down due to road features (the off camber, hard right turn I mentioned
>> in a prior post).
>
> There is always judgment involved. But in general, I've found (as Dan
> Gutierrez showed in the graph I posted earlier) that too-close passes
> happen only when I'm close to the right. I factor that in. There
If that graph showed that too-close passes happen ONLY when you're too
close to the right and then you were in the middle of the lane and
someone passed you too closely, would that be enough for you to say that
the graph was incorrect? Of would you think that you were having an out
of body experience or something?
You ask me why I don't read what you post. When I'm in the middle of
the lane on a two lane road, the car behind me is going to pass me to
the left when there's no oncoming traffic. What keeps him from passing
just as close? In fact, it seems to me that since he has to move
farther to the left, the chances are better. And if he's annoyed
because I'm in his way, he may do it intentionally. I've certainly had
them pass too close.
If you want to say that it's less likely that you will be passed too
closely when you're in the middle of the road, maybe you have a point.
But you can't say that it happens ONLY when you're close to the right.
Jay Beattie
> On Dec 10, 12:19 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Like I said, I don't
> > disagree with you about taking the lane sometimes...
>
> Good. And I assume you no longer think I'll "get busted" if I do that
> in Oregon.
No, you can and should get busted if you promenade down a street and
don't pull over when traffic stacks up behind you! The likelihood
that you will get busted is low since the police are not on every
street corner. -- Jay Beattie.
Frank Krygowski
That case was constructed so it didn't matter. There is no safe speed
for an 8.5 foot truck to pass a moving bicyclist in a ten foot wide
lane.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On 12/10/2010 1:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >> On 12/9/2010 12:37 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> >>> If that's the case, you are going to be ground meat whichever part of
> >>> the road you are using, since the truck will only have 9" each side in
> >>> the lane.
>
> >> In which case I'm getting out of the way.
>
> > Onto the sidewalk again, eh?
>
> Ground meat again eh? If those are the two choices,
> I know which I will take.
Hmm. Given your fears, I suppose Quebec must have special Ground Meat
Crews to scrape away all the dead cyclists!
- Frank Krygowski
Duane Hébert
Frank Krygowski
I'm telling you my experience, and that my experience corroborates the
data from that study. If you have contrasting data, let's see it.
Besides, if I were (say) five feet from the right edge and a passing
vehicle and a passing vehicle came too close on my left, I'd have
maneuvering room to avoid him. Just another benefit of staying a bit
further left.
Here's another benefit:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with-lane-positioning/
- Frank Krygowski
RobertH
> > Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see'
> > incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
> > merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
> > will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them.
>
> Nope, that's a lie. We've been over this repeatedly.
>
> If what you say were true, then the book _Effective Cycling_, the
> pamphlet "Street Smarts" and the recognized cycling courses like Smart
> Cycling by the LAB, the Florida Bicycle Association's "CycleSavvy"
> course, Can-Bike's courses, and Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ wouldn't teach
> things like instant turns, emergency braking and other crash avoidance
> techniques.
Anticipation and crash avoidance (eg swerving and panic stops) are two
completely different animals.
If you're swerving or panic stopping, your anticipation has failed
you.
What does VC have to say about anticipating the mistakes of other road
users?
RobertH
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 12/9/2010 12:55 AM, RobertH wrote:
>
> > On Dec 8, 6:50 pm, T m Sherm n _ <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> > $southslope.net"> wrote:
> >> On 12/8/2010 10:26 AM, RobertH wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, T m Sherm n _
>
> >>>> How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be
> >>>> on a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
> >>>> traffic.
>
> >>> False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the
> >>> principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or
> >>> not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings,
> >>> watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these
> >>> principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore,
> >>> when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive
> >>> driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous
> >>> driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles.
> >>> Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being
> >>> passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing
> >>> driver.
>
> >> What is there in "defensive driving" useful to cyclists that is not
> >> covered under vehicular/effective cycling?
>
> > Sure, Tom, I'll take that one.
>
> > Defensive driving emphasizes the specific ways that _lawful_ vehicle
> > operators are victimized in garden-variety collisions (In terms of
> > cycling, a 'looked-but-failed-to-see error' by a left-turning driver
> > has the most serious damage x frequency vector) and teaches strategies
> > to avoid them. Defensive driving emphasizes the need for awareness
> > above and beyond simply following the rules of the road. The
> > foundational assumptions of defensive driving are strongly supported
> > by factual evidence.
>
> > Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see'
> > incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
> > merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
> > will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them.
> > defensiveness. In Vehicular Cycling, a defensive mindset is in fact
> > viewed as superfluous and unnecessary. Riders who express the
> > necessity for defensive posture in traffic are berated and ridiculed
> > until they go away shaking their heads in wonder and disgust at their
> > fellow man.
>
> Which planet is it that you live on?
>
> --
> T m Sherm n - 42.435731,-83.985007
> I am a vehicular cyclist.
If you have specific objections to my characterization, express them
so we can begin to dismantle your little belief system.
Duane Hébert
No you're not. Your lecturing as if it's a fact:
"Gutierrez showed in the graph I posted earlier) that too-close passes
happen only when I'm close to the right. "
What part of the word "only" don't you understand?
DirtRoadie
> On Dec 9, 1:28 pm, "Barry" <Ba...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I have some questions for Frank.
>
> > As I understand, in a 10-foot wide lane (no shoulder), with an 8.5-foot wide
> > truck behind you, you'd ride in the middle of the lane. This would put you 5
> > feet from the right edge.
>
> > Where would you ride if there was no vehicle behind you?
>
> > What if instead of a big truck, it was a small car or a motorcycle behind you?
>
> First, if there is no vehicle behind me, my road position is
> determined by other things.
You mean that ALL the surrounding circumstances come into play?
What a concept!
> That's a good point - the specifics of what's further right affect
> things. A dropoff "ledge" at the pavement's edge will push me further
> left, too.
Again, ALL the surrounding circumstances come into play.
What was so hard about acknowledging that in the first place Frank?
Frank seemed to have great trouble with this concept when he first
proposed his hypothetical. And he had to subsequently impose a curb
and a sidewalk on all those who were pointing out that ALL the
surrounding circumstances must be taken into account.
And then he had to backpedal again and acknowledge that speed is
another one of those surrounding circumstances.
Frank is annoyingly persistent but not very consistent and not very
bright.
DR
Duane Hébert
> On Dec 9, 11:33 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 1:28 pm, "Barry"<Ba...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I have some questions for Frank.
>>
>>> As I understand, in a 10-foot wide lane (no shoulder), with an 8.5-foot wide
>>> truck behind you, you'd ride in the middle of the lane. This would put you 5
>>> feet from the right edge.
>>
>>> Where would you ride if there was no vehicle behind you?
>>
>>> What if instead of a big truck, it was a small car or a motorcycle behind you?
>>
>> First, if there is no vehicle behind me, my road position is
>> determined by other things.
>
> You mean that ALL the surrounding circumstances come into play?
> What a concept!
>
>> That's a good point - the specifics of what's further right affect
>> things. A dropoff "ledge" at the pavement's edge will push me further
>> left, too.
>
> Again, ALL the surrounding circumstances come into play.
> What was so hard about acknowledging that in the first place Frank?
>
> Frank seemed to have great trouble with this concept when he first
> proposed his hypothetical. And he had to subsequently impose a curb
> and a sidewalk on all those who were pointing out that ALL the
I think the sidewalk was installed exclusively for my benefit.
That way he can tell me what a coward I am because I would jump on the
sidewalk before being turned into ground meat.
DirtRoadie
Don't you wish you could get governmental entities to respond so
quickly with infrastructure?
The sidewalk thing is interesting, especially with the "taking into
account all surrounding circumstances" theme. There is a bridge here I
ride across regularly where the sidewalk IS the simple way to stay out
of traffic. The particular sidewalk section is also incorporated as a
portion of a 7 mile riverfront all purpose trail. And (in contrast to
the bridge JB described) it's wide enough for opposing bike/
pedestrian traffic to pass. I don't "bail out" onto the sidewalk,
that's usually where I ride.
Just a further example of how foolish Frank is with his tunnel vision
and "control" obsession.
DR
DirtRoadie
Frank, I think we have already established that it is physically
impossible "for an 8.5 foot truck to pass a moving bicyclist in a ten
foot wide lane."
DR
Duane Hébert
LOL
> The sidewalk thing is interesting, especially with the "taking into
> account all surrounding circumstances" theme. There is a bridge here I
> ride across regularly where the sidewalk IS the simple way to stay out
> of traffic. The particular sidewalk section is also incorporated as a
> portion of a 7 mile riverfront all purpose trail. And (in contrast to
> the bridge JB described) it's wide enough for opposing bike/
> pedestrian traffic to pass. I don't "bail out" onto the sidewalk,
> that's usually where I ride.
There's an overpass that I take that's quite busy in rush hour.
(the one where I had my battle with the trucker that time) There's
a sidewalk next to it but the curb is high. You'd have to get off the
bike to get on it so I stay on the street. I don't think the cops would
bother me at the particular one, even though it's not legal to
ride on the sidewalk.
My boss was using it but she doesn't wear cleats or anything so it's
easier for her to get up the curb. Anyway, she nearly got clobbered by
an oncoming "cyclist" going the wrong way so she's trying to deal with
the traffic instead.
> Just a further example of how foolish Frank is with his tunnel vision
> and "control" obsession.
I'm getting pretty tired of his asinine insults anyway. He thinks that
everyone is his student and completely Fred-like.
Duane Hébert
Even if the cyclist is not in the center.
DirtRoadie
Frank knows knows law better than lawyers or courts, trauma better
than ER doctors, bike racing better than bike racers, and statistical
studies better than their authors. And in each of these fields all the
"experts" agree with him (for that is what makes them experts). They
need not, of course, actually express their own opinions, Frank merely
adopts them as his supporters (whether they know it or not) and speaks
for them.
It amazing that he wastes any time relying on other authority at all.
DR
Duane Hébert
> James<james.e...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:34:24
> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> James<james.e...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:12:08
>>> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
>>>>>> you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
>>>>>> safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption
>>>>>> sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
>>>>>> everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
>>>>>> places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also
>>>>>> requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
>>>>>> let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
>>>>>> lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
>>>>>> does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
>>>>>> must yield" laws.
>>>>> Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
>>>>> of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/09/the-selz-case-revisited/
>>>>>
>>>>> http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske-to-impede-or-not-to-impede-that-is-the-question_9772
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAIK, most states do not have a "slow moving vehicle must yield"
>>>>> law. A few do have one, but it's restricted to situations where there
>>>>> are (typically) five vehicles held behind _and_ there is a safe place
>>>>> to pull over. If slow moving vehicles had to yield all the time, we
>>>>> would have no right to the road, motorhomes would never make it out of
>>>>> the flatlands, and commerce would become severely limited.
>>>> Victorian Road Law.
>>>>
>>>> <quote>
>>>> 125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
>>>>
>>>> (1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver
>>>> or a pedestrian.
>>>> Penalty: 2 penalty units.
>>>> Note: Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle—see the
>>>> definition of drive in the dictionary.
>>>>
>>>> (2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of
>>>> another driver or a pedestrian only because—
>>>> (a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
>>>> (b) the driver is driving more slowly than other
>>>> vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slow in the
>>>> circumstances).
>>>>
>>>> Example of a driver driving abnormally slow
>>>> A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a
>>>> length of road to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per
>>>> hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive
>>>> at that speed on the length of road.
>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> So a cyclist riding at 20 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and taking up the lane
>>>> would be considered to be abnormally slow. This is precisely the
>>>> circumstance on the Maroondah Hwy going over the Black Spur that I
>>>> posted a link to earlier.
>>>>
>>> Don't be more stupid than you can help.
>>> The law as you state it above states quite clearly "a driver does not
>>> unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only
>>> because:
>>> (a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
>>> (b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles"
>>>
>>> and even clarifies that in the example by stating: "when there is no
>>> reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road."
>>>
>>> I can't think of any more persuasive reason for the driver to be
>>> driving at that (low) speed than that it is the maximum speed of which
>>> the vehicle is capable.
>>>
>>> Any other reasoning would put the statute at odds with the laws of
>>> physics, and would have the effect of saying that any vehicle that
>>> cannot travel at the speed limit is not allowed to use that stretch of
>>> road.
>>>
>>> So that law cannot possibly be applied if the vehicle operator is
>>> driving as fast as the circumstances, or his vehicle's capabilities
>>> (which includes his own, particularly if there is no power
>>> assistance), allow.
>>
>> The point of the law is to require slow vehicle operators (bicycles and
>> tractors for example) to not unreasonably prevent the the progress of
>> other vehicles. The solution is to move off the road and let others
>> pass if you are traveling unreasonably slow, and not hog the lane.
>>
>> this. It's common courtesy.
>>
>> Are you stupid enough to crawl along in the middle of the lane and hold
>> up a tonne of traffic?
>>
> When the road conditions make passing unsafe, I will take the lane.
> I usually make it fairly obvious that I'm going as fast as I
> reasonably can, so I can get past the narrow section with the least
> delay to those vehicles behind as possible. Once I am into an area
> where it is safe for them to pass, I move over to allow them and give
> a wave of thanks for their patience. I frequently receive an
> acknowledgement.
> I'm sure the weight of traffic that has to slow behind me in some
> locations runs into hundreds of tonnes - a single articulated truck
> can be 44, and in the mile length of the main road through the village
> I live in, I could easily collect a dozen such trucks behind me, but
> I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
> My right to use the roads is not dependant on traffic conditions, and
> any delay to them is at least as much because of the size of their
> vehicles as the speed of mine (smaller vehicles could pass me without
> difficulty or danger).
> Stupid would be to give them the impression that they can safely pass
> me, or that I am expecting them to - I know perfectly well that there
> is insufficient space between pinch points for a 55ft truck to get
> past me, so I take care to avoid giving them the idea that they can.
> One thing that is clear is that far too many truck drivers dismiss
> anything they are passing as soon as their cab is level with it, and
> will move back in FAR too soon. If that happens, you have to brake
> hard, and the following traffic will then leave you blocked against
> the kerb, shaving extremely close, because many will be driving too
> close to the vehicle in front to have sufficient view along the
> kerbside to where you have been stranded.
Almost everyone here has said that they take they lane when they have
to.