"Mr. Roadshow" at the _Mercury_News_ on a Disinformation Campaign
Jym Dyer
Home-Page: http://www.trees-not-cars.org/
Organization: Trees Not Cars
--------
=v= Take a look at the "Mr. Roadshow" column, written by Gary
Richards in last Friday's _Mercury_News_:
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/3694164.htm
Though his tone improves incrementally each time he writes this
type of story, he continually leaves out a crucial fact: the
"as far to the right as practicable" clause only applies when
the road is wide enough for a bike and a car can safely travel
together side-by-side. And the faster cars will be going, of
course, the wider the road must be.
=v= Notice how he made this very same omission just last March:
http://www.topica.com/lists/sfbike/read/message.html?mid=702746414
and again last August:
http://www.topica.com/lists/sfbike/read/message.html?mid=800620549
Each of these times -- and, of course, several times before --
bicyclists sent in letters that quoted the Vehicle Code on this
specific point.
=v= A blunder of this magnitude by the author of a column who's
supposed to be an "road" expert ought to raise a few eyebrows,
but one could be charitable and forgive the mistake the first
time he did it. There's absolutely no excuse, though, for him
to keep making this same mistake, which is why it seems like a
deliberate disinformation campaign.
=v= What to do about this? The reflexive approach would be to
send letters to Richards <mrroa...@sjmercury.com> and/or to
the Editor <let...@sjmercury.com> -- though part of my point
has been that Richards gets away with ignoring this. Maybe if
100 of us sent such a letter, it would have an impact.
=v= At the very least, we should at least publicize the fact as
far and wide as possible. Feel free to forward this message,
with daring and whimsy.
<_Jym_>
P.S.: For the one or two of you who by now don't have the
relevant sections of the California Vehicle Code engrave in
your memories, I've appended them below.
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a
speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same
direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the
right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the
following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into
a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including,
but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles,
bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or
substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue
along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the
provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too
narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side
by side within the lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two
or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand
curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because
of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a
slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which
five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the
roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs
erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway,
or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order
to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this
section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a
rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the
particular time and place.
Jym Dyer
Ken Papai
"Jym Dyer" <j...@econet.org> wrote in message
news:Jym.wzbs8...@econet.org...
> =v= Take a look at the "Mr. Roadshow" column, written by Gary
> Richards in last Friday's _Mercury_News_:
>
> http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/3694164.htm
>
> Though his tone improves incrementally each time he writes this
> type of story, he continually leaves out a crucial fact: the
I see nothing wrong with the article.
The CHP is sensible and accruate as is the Road Show guy.
"The deal with bicycles is this:
A bicycle may share the road with a vehicle. If the speed limit is 25
and the bicyclist is going 25, no problem. If the limit is 25 and the
bicyclist is going slightly slower, there is no problem.
The problem occurs when a bicyclist is going
well below the speed limit and impeding traffic.
No matter if there is one car or 10 cars, a bicyclist may not do this."
Sounds fair and right to me.
Guy Chapman
>=v= Take a look at the "Mr. Roadshow" column, written by Gary
>Richards in last Friday's _Mercury_News_:
The answer seems clear:
"Cyclists are required to ride as far to the right as ``practicable''
(not ``possible''), and practicable means safe and reasonable. It's
the cyclist's call as to what is safe and reasonable, not a
motorist's.
"And under some conditions, such as a winding or hilly two-lane
country road where visibility is restricted, cars may not have room to
pass. These narrow roads are a source of conflict between motorists
and bicyclists. Better understanding by motorists of why bicyclists do
this would help to reduce the conflict."
Guy
===
Riding every day on a road near you (provided you live near Reading, England).
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and dynamic DNS permitting)
Above email is a spam-sink. Remove maker of Spam from bikeHO...@chapmanFOODScentral.com to reply by mail
Scott Munro
>=v= Take a look at the "Mr. Roadshow" column, written by Gary
>Richards in last Friday's _Mercury_News_:
>
>http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/3694164.htm
>
>Though his tone improves incrementally each time he writes this
>type of story, he continually leaves out a crucial fact: the
>"as far to the right as practicable" clause only applies when
>the road is wide enough for a bike and a car can safely travel
>together side-by-side. And the faster cars will be going, of
>course, the wider the road must be.
"But some back roads are too narrow for safe passing within the lane,
even when bicyclists ride single file. In that case, riding single
file or riding too close to the edge of the road might encourage
drivers to pass in the lane where there isn't room to do so safely....
"Cyclists are required to ride as far to the right as 'practicable'
(not 'possible'), and practicable means safe and reasonable. It's the
cyclist's call as to what is safe and reasonable, not a motorist's.
"And under some conditions, such as a winding or hilly two-lane
country road where visibility is restricted, cars may not have room to
pass. These narrow roads are a source of conflict between motorists
and bicyclists. Better understanding by motorists of why bicyclists do
this would help to reduce the conflict."
I'm not quite sure where the "disinformation" is.
--
Scott Munro
"But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the
greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness,
without tuition or restraint."
--Edmund Burke, *Reflections on the Revolution in France*
Brent P
>> http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/3694164.htm
> "The deal with bicycles is this:
> A bicycle may share the road with a vehicle. If the speed limit is 25
> and the bicyclist is going 25, no problem. If the limit is 25 and the
> bicyclist is going slightly slower, there is no problem.
> The problem occurs when a bicyclist is going
> well below the speed limit and impeding traffic.
> No matter if there is one car or 10 cars, a bicyclist may not do this."
>
> Sounds fair and right to me.
Considering the rest of the text, I am going to believe the above
segment is just poorly written.
The bicyclist should neither have to remove himself from the road or
take any action which endangers him for the sake of the passing motorist.
It is up to the passing motorist to pass safely. Not for the cyclist
to get out of his way.
Due to speed limits becoming suggested speeds a moral minimums rather than
speed limits (see my other posts on this topic) it has created this
atmosphere where anyone not doing at least the speed limit is somehow
objectionable. Now this may be true of drivers, who have large vehicles
that really do block the road and can gain speed with movement of one's
akle. But cyclists following the law are not impeding traffic, they are
traffic. They take the lane for clearly defined reasons and if over in the
right portion of the lane are simple to pass.
I've found that people do not object to things like gravel trucks
and such that are slow and often impede traffic, yet somehow these
vehicles are tolerated, along with drivers who cannot even match
bicycle levels of acceleration. It's all in the context and perception.
Bill Bushnell
> "The deal with bicycles is this:
> A bicycle may share the road with a vehicle. If the speed limit is 25
> and the bicyclist is going 25, no problem. If the limit is 25 and the
> bicyclist is going slightly slower, there is no problem.
> The problem occurs when a bicyclist is going
> well below the speed limit and impeding traffic.
> No matter if there is one car or 10 cars, a bicyclist may not do this."
> Sounds fair and right to me.
What section of the vehicle code discusses that a bicycle may never impede
traffic when traveling well below the speed limit?
How can Section 21202, subsection 3 be reconciled with the quoted
statement above?
When does Section 21656 apply?
--
--Bill Bushnell
Tom Kunich
news:EQF%8.120678$Wt3.100752@rwcrnsc53...
> In article <KME%8.154313$uw.9...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, Ken Papai
wrote:
>
> >> http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/3694164.htm
>
> > "The deal with bicycles is this:
> > A bicycle may share the road with a vehicle. If the speed limit is 25
> > and the bicyclist is going 25, no problem. If the limit is 25 and the
> > bicyclist is going slightly slower, there is no problem.
> > The problem occurs when a bicyclist is going
> > well below the speed limit and impeding traffic.
> > No matter if there is one car or 10 cars, a bicyclist may not do this."
> >
> > Sounds fair and right to me.
>
> Considering the rest of the text, I am going to believe the above
> segment is just poorly written.
>
> The bicyclist should neither have to remove himself from the road or
> take any action which endangers him for the sake of the passing motorist.
> It is up to the passing motorist to pass safely. Not for the cyclist
> to get out of his way.
Not exactly -- if you are impeding traffic to the extent that cars are
piling up behind you, you are obligated as is any vehicle to pull off the
road and allow them to pass.
Like Ken Papai, I thought that the article was a lot better than most I've
seen and I couldn't fault the writer.
Tom Kunich
news:tcG%8.3027$U3.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> In ba.bicycles Ken Papai <k...@kenpapai.com> wrote:
>
> > "The deal with bicycles is this:
> > A bicycle may share the road with a vehicle. If the speed limit is 25
> > and the bicyclist is going 25, no problem. If the limit is 25 and the
> > bicyclist is going slightly slower, there is no problem.
> > The problem occurs when a bicyclist is going
> > well below the speed limit and impeding traffic.
> > No matter if there is one car or 10 cars, a bicyclist may not do this."
>
> > Sounds fair and right to me.
>
> What section of the vehicle code discusses that a bicycle may never impede
> traffic when traveling well below the speed limit?
If the writer is a lawyer I'd complain about his wording. As probably a lard
butted beer swilling TV watching SUV driver I'd say that he did a good job.
> How can Section 21202, subsection 3 be reconciled with the quoted
> statement above?
>
> When does Section 21656 apply?
Bicycles may not impede traffic and neither may any other vehicle traveling
below the speed limit.
Ken Papai
>
> > "The deal with bicycles is this:
> > A bicycle may share the road with a vehicle. If the speed limit is 25
> > and the bicyclist is going 25, no problem. If the limit is 25 and the
> > bicyclist is going slightly slower, there is no problem.
> > The problem occurs when a bicyclist is going
> > well below the speed limit and impeding traffic.
> > No matter if there is one car or 10 cars, a bicyclist may not do this."
>
> > Sounds fair and right to me.
>
> What section of the vehicle code discusses that a bicycle may never impede
> traffic when traveling well below the speed limit?
To me and to fair-minded people that is irrelevant.
If I am in my car driving or on my bike riding
and I am impeding anyone I get the heck out of the way.
Why do we need laws to tell us the obvious and the courteous
thing to do???
> How can Section 21202, subsection 3 be reconciled with the quoted
> statement above?
>
> When does Section 21656 apply?
Who cares?
I know though technical in a car if you are impeding 5+ cars then
you need to get out of the way ASAP.
-Ken
Darin McGrew
>>> The deal with bicycles is this: A bicycle may share the road with a
>>> vehicle. If the speed limit is 25 and the bicyclist is going 25, no
>>> problem. If the limit is 25 and the bicyclist is going slightly slower,
>>> there is no problem. The problem occurs when a bicyclist is going well
>>> below the speed limit and impeding traffic. No matter if there is one
>>> car or 10 cars, a bicyclist may not do this.
Ken Papai <k...@kenpapai.com> wrote:
>> Sounds fair and right to me.
Bill Bushnell <mrb...@pobox.com> wrote:
> What section of the vehicle code discusses that a bicycle may never impede
> traffic when traveling well below the speed limit?
>
> How can Section 21202, subsection 3 be reconciled with the quoted
> statement above?
>
> When does Section 21656 apply?
Section 21656 applies whenever a vehicle "on a two-lane highway where
passing is unsafe" is impeding the progress of 5 or more vehicles. Whether
the lead vehicle is a car or a bicycle, whether the lead vehicle is driving
below the speed limit or at/above the speed limit, if the lead vehicle is
travelling "at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the
particular time and place", then it must pull over when safe to allow the
vehicles behind it to pass.
--
Darin McGrew, mcg...@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da...@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
Q: "How do I exit Windows?" A: "First, you click the 'Start' button,..."
Scott Munro
wrote:
>In article <KME%8.154313$uw.9...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, Ken Papai wrote:
>
>>> http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/3694164.htm
>
>> "The deal with bicycles is this:
>> A bicycle may share the road with a vehicle. If the speed limit is 25
>> and the bicyclist is going 25, no problem. If the limit is 25 and the
>> bicyclist is going slightly slower, there is no problem.
>> The problem occurs when a bicyclist is going
>> well below the speed limit and impeding traffic.
>> No matter if there is one car or 10 cars, a bicyclist may not do this."
>>
>> Sounds fair and right to me.
>
>Considering the rest of the text, I am going to believe the above
>segment is just poorly written.
"A bicycle may share the road with a vehicle."
I *think* that's supposed to be in the nature of setting out a
"given." In other words, "Given that a bicycle may safely share a
certain road with a vehicle, here is what a cyclist is required to do
on that road...."
Otherwise, it makes no sense, since the guy clearly understands that
some roads are too narrow for a cyclist to allow a car to pass within
a lane.
Brent P
> Not exactly -- if you are impeding traffic to the extent that cars are
> piling up behind you, you are obligated as is any vehicle to pull off the
> road and allow them to pass.
I haven't seen a slow truck do that yet. either. Nor have I seen farm
equipment do it, or street sweepers, or anything. In fact, the only vehicle
expected to do that seems to be the bicycle.
That said, it depends on what state you are in. To the best of my
knowledge, and I've looked for it, IL has no such requirement to pull off
the road and let queue of would-be passers by.
Scott Munro
wrote:
>To me and to fair-minded people that is irrelevant.
>If I am in my car driving or on my bike riding
>and I am impeding anyone I get the heck out of the way.
>
>Why do we need laws to tell us the obvious and the courteous
>thing to do???
Look, if you want to jump off the road every time a car pulls up
behind you, I really don't care (except that you're training motorists
to expect cyclists never to exercise their rights). However, it is
certainly not "obvious" that you should do this, nor does standing on
one's legal right to use the public roadways indicate a lack of
courtesy.
Personally, I like to actually get places when I'm cycling, and so I
do not move out of the way every time the driver of a motor vehicle
would otherwise be required to slow down and show some patience. I
will balance my own convenience with the inconvenience which I am
causing others, and I will never compromise my own safety in the
interests of others' convenience. If five cars back up behind me where
there is no passing possible, then I will move off the road at the
first place I can *safely* do so. That is what the law in my state
requires. In fact, being a fairly accomodating sort of person, I will
generally move aside if three cars are backed up, though I am not
required to (that is the law in the neighboring state where I
sometimes ride, but I've never been on a narrow two-lane road over
there). Even if one car is behind me and I'm not sure there's a
passing zone coming up fairly quickly, I *may* choose to move off the
road rather than delay that person for a long time.
(Of course, the issue rarely arises, since most drivers will pass
illegally and unsafely rather than slow down for a bicycle. Just
today, some stupid woman passed me directly in the face of oncoming
traffic and nearly ran a car off the road. Death before braking!)
But the notion that one somehow has a moral responsibility never to
impede anyone else's progress to any degree at all is simply wrong.
Patience is, after all, a virtue.
Bill Bushnell
> To me and to fair-minded people that is irrelevant.
> If I am in my car driving or on my bike riding
> and I am impeding anyone I get the heck out of the way.
> Why do we need laws to tell us the obvious and the courteous
> thing to do???
Laws and rules are necessary where disagreement exists as to what is
"obvious and courteous". What is being discussed is the law as applied to
bicycles and traffic.
For example: If I am riding a bicycle at, say, 25 mph on a road with a
speed limit of 35 mph where traffic regularly moves at 45 mph, and in my
judgment require the full use of the lane to safely travel a section of
road, perhaps to pass another slower bicyclist, to avoid debris or
potholes on the roadway, or to traverse a section of roadway where the
lanes are especially narrow, and assuming I move into the center of the
lane so as not to cause an immediate hazard due to traffic approaching
from the rear, am I in violation of the law if an approaching motorist
must slow down and follow me until I have passed beyond the hazard?
Does the vehicle code define "impeding traffic"?
--
--Bill Bushnell
Darin McGrew
> For example: If I am riding a bicycle at, say, 25 mph on a road with a
> speed limit of 35 mph where traffic regularly moves at 45 mph, and in my
> judgment require the full use of the lane to safely travel a section of
> road, perhaps to pass another slower bicyclist, to avoid debris or
> potholes on the roadway, or to traverse a section of roadway where the
> lanes are especially narrow, and assuming I move into the center of the
> lane so as not to cause an immediate hazard due to traffic approaching
> from the rear, am I in violation of the law if an approaching motorist
> must slow down and follow me until I have passed beyond the hazard?
No. CVC section 21656 doesn't apply until there are 5+ vehicles behind you,
and even then you are only required to pull over where there is sufficient
room to do so safely.
> Does the vehicle code define "impeding traffic"?
CVC section 21656 <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21656.htm>
doesn't actually use words like "impede" or "impeding". All it cares about
is whether you are "proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow
of traffic at the particular time and place" and whether "five or more
vehicles are formed in line" behind you.
Jym Dyer
| speed limit and impeding traffic. No matter if there is one
| car or 10 cars, a bicyclist may not do this."
>> What section of the vehicle code discusses that a bicycle
>> may never impede traffic when traveling well below the speed
>> limit?
=v= There is no such section. The above is inaccurate, and its
inaccuracy has been explained to Gary Richards several times,
hence my complaint. CVC 21656 says the bicycle must pull over
only if five or more vehicles are being slowed down.
> If the writer is a lawyer I'd complain about his wording.
=v= Except that this has already been explained to him on
numerous occasions. If he's going to set himself up as some
sort of "road" authority, he should at least figure out the
vehicle code.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> Who cares?
=v= We should *all* care when someone from the California
Highway Patrol starts misciting the law in such a way that
takes away the rights of one class of road user.
> I know though technical in [sic] a car if you are impeding 5+
> cars then you need to get out of the way ASAP.
=v= That's right, and it's exactly the same for bikes. But
that's not what the CHP officer said.
<_Jym_>
Scott Munro
I think you're misinterpreting what the cop said, but that's partly
because he didn't say it very well. It's clear from his statements
("But some back roads are too narrow for safe passing within the lane,
even when bicyclists ride single file. In that case, riding single
file or riding too close to the edge of the road might encourage
drivers to pass in the lane where there isn't room to do so safely.")
that he understands that some roads are too narrow to share. Then he
says, "The deal with bicycles is this: A bicycle may share the road
with a vehicle. If the speed limit is 25 and the bicyclist is going
25, no problem. If the limit is 25 and the bicyclist is going slightly
slower, there is no problem. The problem occurs when a bicyclist is
going well below the speed limit and impeding traffic. No matter if
there is one car or 10 cars, a bicyclist may not do this."
When he says, "A bicycle may share the road with a vehicle," he must
be setting out the condition under which his next statements apply
(that's really the only way it makes sense, given his previous
statements). In other words, *if* a cyclist can safely share the lane,
then he is not permitted to block traffic.
Personally, I think that's a fair interpretation of the "as far right
as practicable" language, and the columnist even goes on to give a
bicyclist space to point out that the cyclist must be given
significant leeway in deciding what is practicable.
Pete
"Scott Munro" <n...@nospam.not> wrote
>
> I think you're misinterpreting what the cop said, but that's partly
> because he didn't say it very well. It's clear from his statements
> ("But some back roads are too narrow for safe passing within the lane,
> even when bicyclists ride single file. In that case, riding single
> file or riding too close to the edge of the road might encourage
> drivers to pass in the lane where there isn't room to do so safely.")
> that he understands that some roads are too narrow to share. Then he
> says, "The deal with bicycles is this: A bicycle may share the road
> with a vehicle. If the speed limit is 25 and the bicyclist is going
> 25, no problem. If the limit is 25 and the bicyclist is going slightly
> slower, there is no problem. The problem occurs when a bicyclist is
> going well below the speed limit and impeding traffic. No matter if
> there is one car or 10 cars, a bicyclist may not do this."
That last line is the problem. "No matter if there is one car or 10 cars, a
bicyclist may not do this" is wrong.
A cyclist (or other slower vehicle) is NOT required to move over and let
people pass until there are 5 vehicles in line behind. And then, only when
it is safe to do so.
This varies from state to state, but the usual number (if stated) is 5.
Pete
Scott Munro
But a cyclist is also required to ride as far right as is practicable,
which means that if it is practicable to share the lane, then a
slow-moving cyclist should not be impeding traffic at all, whether
there is one car or 10 cars. I'm pretty sure that this was the cop's
point.
Only if sharing is not practicable (and if passing is illegal or
unsafe) would the rule about 5 cars apply, since then a cyclist would
be obstructing traffic.
Pete
"Scott Munro" <n...@nospam.not> wrote
>
> But a cyclist is also required to ride as far right as is practicable,
> which means that if it is practicable to share the lane, then a
> slow-moving cyclist should not be impeding traffic at all, whether
> there is one car or 10 cars. I'm pretty sure that this was the cop's
> point.
>
> Only if sharing is not practicable (and if passing is illegal or
> unsafe) would the rule about 5 cars apply, since then a cyclist would
> be obstructing traffic.
Right. You shouldn't just take the lane willynilly. There are specific
circumstances when you should. And those are usually identified in the state
vehicle law. Passing, avoiding a hazard, setting up for a left turn, the
lane is too narrow to share, among others.
Ride to the right if you can. And usually, you can. And most(?) people do
exactly that.
It all depends on the definition of "impeding traffic". Is it "nothing
should ever get in the way of a car"...or is it "riding like an idiot out in
the middle needlessly, causing several motor vehicles to pile up behind you"
?
The thoughts may differ on this, depending on who you ask.
Pete
Joshua Putnam
<vAG%8.1529$XG5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>"Brent P" <tetraet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:EQF%8.120678$Wt3.100752@rwcrnsc53...
>> The bicyclist should neither have to remove himself from the road or
>> take any action which endangers him for the sake of the passing motorist.
>> It is up to the passing motorist to pass safely. Not for the cyclist
>> to get out of his way.
>
>Not exactly -- if you are impeding traffic to the extent that cars are
>piling up behind you, you are obligated as is any vehicle to pull off the
>road and allow them to pass.
If CA law is similar to the uniform code or the laws of other
states whose laws I know, a slow-moving vehicle is only required
to pull off the road and allow delayed vehicles to pass when the
road has only one lane in each direction, and passing is unsafe
because of oncoming traffic or other hazards. That applies on
many rural roads, but in many urban areas there simply aren't
that many two-lane roads with heavy oncoming traffic.
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html>
Bill Zaumen
> > The bicyclist should neither have to remove himself from the road or
> > take any action which endangers him for the sake of the passing motorist.
> > It is up to the passing motorist to pass safely. Not for the cyclist
> > to get out of his way.
>
> Not exactly -- if you are impeding traffic to the extent that cars are
> piling up behind you, you are obligated as is any vehicle to pull off the
> road and allow them to pass.
Actually, the law that applies to vehicles requires pulling off at
the first reasonable place when 5 or more vehicles are queued up
behind you and passing is not posssible, and this only applies on
two lane highways (e.g., two lanes in opposite directions).
Basically, if 7 cars are behind you (maybe they all caught up to
you and where bunched up due to a light) but there are plenty
of chances for drivers to get by, you don't have to pull off the
road. If they would be stuck there for some time, you do as soon
as you can find a reasonable spot: you don't have to dive into
poisson oak but should take the first turnoff or other suitable
area.
Bill
--
As an anti-spam measure, my email address is only provided in a GIF
file. Please see <http://home.pacbell.net/zaumen/email.gif>.
Bill Zaumen
Munro) wrote:
> But a cyclist is also required to ride as far right as is practicable,
> which means that if it is practicable to share the lane, then a
> slow-moving cyclist should not be impeding traffic at all, whether
> there is one car or 10 cars. I'm pretty sure that this was the cop's
> point.
The law doesn't say that: you can use the full lane when it is not
safe to allow a car to pass in that lane, even if it is practicable.
If there is just enough room to let the car squeak by but not safely,
you don't have to let the car pass you without changing lanes.
You need a lane of just the wrong width for it to be unsafe for
a driver to pass but still practicable.
Scott Munro
Zaumen) wrote:
>In article <3d3f6c53...@news.icehouse.net>, n...@nospam.not (Scott
>Munro) wrote:
>
>
>> But a cyclist is also required to ride as far right as is practicable,
>> which means that if it is practicable to share the lane, then a
>> slow-moving cyclist should not be impeding traffic at all, whether
>> there is one car or 10 cars. I'm pretty sure that this was the cop's
>> point.
>
>The law doesn't say that: you can use the full lane when it is not
>safe to allow a car to pass in that lane, even if it is practicable.
I think safety is included in practicability. That is, if it isn't
safe, it isn't practicable.
>If there is just enough room to let the car squeak by but not safely,
>you don't have to let the car pass you without changing lanes.
>
>You need a lane of just the wrong width for it to be unsafe for
>a driver to pass but still practicable.
>
>Bill
>
>--
>As an anti-spam measure, my email address is only provided in a GIF
>file. Please see <http://home.pacbell.net/zaumen/email.gif>.
--
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> =v= Take a look at the "Mr. Roadshow" column, written by Gary
> Richards in last Friday's _Mercury_News_:
>
> http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/3694164.htm
>
> Though his tone improves incrementally each time he writes this
> type of story, he continually leaves out a crucial fact: the
> "as far to the right as practicable" clause only applies when
> the road is wide enough for a bike and a car can safely travel
> together side-by-side.
The VC (which you quote later in your post) doesn't say
that. _I_ don't believe it's accurate.
--
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
Ed Swierk
> Jym Dyer wrote:
>
> > Though his tone improves incrementally each time he writes this
> > type of story, he continually leaves out a crucial fact: the
> > "as far to the right as practicable" clause only applies when
> > the road is wide enough for a bike and a car can safely travel
> > together side-by-side.
>
> The VC (which you quote later in your post) doesn't say
> that. _I_ don't believe it's accurate.
CVC 21202(a)(3) says exactly that: one of the exceptions to the "as far to
the right as practicable" clause is a substandard width lane, defined as
"a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely
side by side within the lane."
What's not to believe?
--Ed
--
Ed Swierk
eswierk...@cs.stanford.edu
Jym Dyer
=v= IF AND ONLY IF the road is wide enough for a bike and car
to safely travel side by side. Otherwise the bike can take the
whole lane (and probably should).
<_Jym_>
Eric Murray
Brent P <tetraet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Due to speed limits becoming suggested speeds a moral minimums rather than
>speed limits (see my other posts on this topic) it has created this
>atmosphere where anyone not doing at least the speed limit is somehow
>objectionable.
Even that isn't enough. I have had irate drivers honk at
me while I was riding over the speed limit, in a line of cars.
Some people just think that bicycles dont belong on
the roads, period, no matter how fast they are going.
>I've found that people do not object to things like gravel trucks
Funny how that works isn't it. I think it's a combination of
"those with the mass make the rules", most americans
belief that bicycles are toys for children not old enough
to drive, and their belief that cyclists are a) queer (the lycra
you know) and b) "enviro-weeenies".
Fortunately the majority of drivers are either polite or apathetic
and don't want to chance getting icky cyclist blood on their cars...
Eric
Brent P
> Even that isn't enough. I have had irate drivers honk at
> me while I was riding over the speed limit, in a line of cars.
So have I. The 'drive car' guy comes to mind. He had to pass me
because I was using a bicycle. He just ended up stopped again,
behind the car I was behind. I had enough and went up towards the
light on the shoulder rather than stay within range of him.
> Some people just think that bicycles dont belong on
> the roads, period, no matter how fast they are going.
Yep. But it's also a saturation thing. I've found in the big-city
drivers are much better. They seem to realize in greater numbers
that the bicycle is at least as fast as the traffic flow.
>>I've found that people do not object to things like gravel trucks
> Funny how that works isn't it. I think it's a combination of
> "those with the mass make the rules", most americans
> belief that bicycles are toys for children not old enough
> to drive, and their belief that cyclists are a) queer (the lycra
> you know) and b) "enviro-weeenies".
In context, drivers are well behaved. If I am riding next to (in another
lane) or behind such a truck, matching it in speed, there isn't any trouble.
If I ride the same speed minus the truck (but the same overall traffic
conditions) there often is .
Of course there are times where I out-accelerated the motorized traffic
in the next lane and the person behind me was still pissed off that I
was 'slow'.
Christopher Green
I agree. "As far to the right as practicable" isn't made to be
conditional on things like the width of the lane or whether it's safe
to pass.
The driver of the bicycle is the judge of how far right is
practicable, or whether it's safe to turn out and allow traffic to
pass. The driver of the passing car is the judge of whether the road
is wide enough to pass safely. Each has to be reasonable and defensive
in his own judgment and respect the judgment and rights of the other.
Problems arise when the "far right" is littered with debris that is
dangerous to cyclists, when drivers believe that cyclists must allow
them to pass without delay whether or not it is safe, or when cyclists
believe that they are exempt from rules of the road that require
slower traffic to yield to faster.
--
Chris Green
Bill Zaumen
Munro) wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 06:37:46 GMT, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
> Zaumen) wrote:
>
> I think safety is included in practicability. That is, if it isn't
> safe, it isn't practicable.
That isn't the case: there is a general rule about staying to
the right when practicable (and when going at less than the normal
speed of traffic), and a list of exceptions that include avoiding
hazards. One of the exceptions specifically mentions lanes that are
too narrow for a bike and a car to procede safely side by side.
Bill Zaumen
And the "stay to the right rule" does not apply at all when a cyclist
is going as fast or faster than the normal speed of traffic. That
happens with some frequency in San Francisco during rush hour :-).
Joel Garry
<spam...@chapmancentral.com> wrote:
>On 24 Jul 2002 12:57:36 -0700, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
>>=v= Take a look at the "Mr. Roadshow" column, written by Gary
>>Richards in last Friday's _Mercury_News_:
>
>
>"Cyclists are required to ride as far to the right as ``practicable''
>(not ``possible''), and practicable means safe and reasonable. It's
>the cyclist's call as to what is safe and reasonable, not a
>motorist's.
Somehow, I think it's the person with the ticket book's call. And then
eventually the judge's.
jg
--
These opinions are my own.
http://www.garry.to Oracle and unix guy.
mailto:joel-...@nospam.cox.net Remove nospam to reply.
Geoff Miller
Guy Chapman <spam...@chapmancentral.com> writres:
> "And under some conditions, such as a winding or hilly two-lane
> country road where visibility is restricted, cars may not have
> room to pass. These narrow roads are a source of conflict
> between motorists and bicyclists. Better understanding by
> motorists of why bicyclists do this would help to reduce the
> conflict."
Wrong. Bicyclists' having the common courtesy (and common sense)
to avoid roads on which they can't ride without getting underfoot
would help to reduce the conflict.
Geoff
--
"Any bicyclist who gets in my way will die under my wheels.
<ka-thump!> <ka-thump!>"
David desJardins
> Wrong. Bicyclists' having the common courtesy (and common sense)
> to avoid roads on which they can't ride without getting underfoot
> would help to reduce the conflict.
Even better if cars had the common courtesy (and common sense) to avoid
roads on which they can't drive without getting slowed down by
slower-moving vehicles.
That way no one would be on the roads at all, which would have the added
advantage that we wouldn't have to pay to maintain them.
David desJardins
Geoff Miller
Scott Munro <n...@nospam.not> quotes:
[ "We're the victims of a conspiracy!" -- the spokeheads ]
> "But some back roads are too narrow for safe passing within the lane,
> even when bicyclists ride single file. In that case, riding single
> file or riding too close to the edge of the road might encourage
> drivers to pass in the lane where there isn't room to do so safely....
As a motorist, *I* will decide when and where it's safe for me to
pass, thank you very much. Any cyclist who tries to discourage
me from passing by riding farther out in the road than he belongs
will only find me forcing the issue and passing anyway, and doing
so uncomfortably close to him.
Of course, he'll still have the option of moving back to the edge
of the road, and will undoubtedly do do instinctively in the spirit
of self-preservation. He'll have to move over there anyway, in
order to stop and dismount so as to wipe the fanny-fudge out of
his silly Spandex shorts.
Mind you, it's the spokeheads' instinct of self-preservation that
keeps that advantage forever with us motorists. Quite simply, we
can raise the ante higher than you're capable of following.
ObDriving: Can anybody recommend a coin-op car wash somewhere
in the South Bay that has enough pressure to allow the effective
hosing-out of bicylists' pulverized brain tissue from the treads
of my tires?
Ben Pfaff
> As a motorist, *I* will decide when and where it's safe for me to
> pass, thank you very much.
It's not your life that's on the line, it's the cyclist's.
> Any cyclist who tries to discourage me from passing by riding
> farther out in the road than he belongs will only find me
> forcing the issue and passing anyway, and doing so
> uncomfortably close to him.
Any motorist who tries to force me off the side of the road in a
reckless manner will only find me reporting his license plate
number and personal description to the police as a murder
attempt on the spot with my mobile phone.
--
"To the engineer, the world is a toy box full of sub-optimized and
feature-poor toys."
--Scott Adams
Geoff Miller
Brent P <tetraet...@yahoo.com> ites:
> It is up to the passing motorist to pass safely. Not for the cyclist
> to get out of his way.
Wrong again, Brent. (You have quite a talent for that, I must say.
Why doesn't it surprise me to learn that you're a spokehead?)
It's the moral responsibility of any operator of a slower-moving
vehicle to get out of the way of faster-moving traffic. In the
case of a car, that means keeping to the right lanes of a multi-
lane road, or on a two-lane road, using turouts or otherwise
pulling over to let faster vehicles pass. As one of the faster-
driving residents of the Santa Cruz Mountains, I think about this
every day.
In the case of cyclists, it means staying as close to the right-
hand edge of the pavement as possible, up to and including moving
into the concrete gutter if that's what it takes to get the
cyclist out of the way of motorized traffic and/or make him feel
safe. And ideally, it as I said before, it means avoiding roads
where they feel the only way they can ride safely is by impeding
others.
Of course, cyclists like to insist that they can't ride in the
gutter because of broken glass and storm drains. The funny
thing is, if you approach them in an unguarded moment and ask
them what they enjoy about riding, they're likely to tell you
that in addition to the exercise (and the feeling of smug self-
righteousness), they enjoy moving slowly enough and close
enough to the ground that they can see things they'd miss by
driving a car, and that this makes them feel more in touch
with he world and less isolated than motorized transportation
would.
Ironic, eh? Evidently that includes everything but storm drains
and broken glass -- which personally, I've always found quite
easy to spot from the seat of a bicycle. It seems to me that
what we have here is a mass case of selective visual acuity
coupled with a political agenda and a group inferiority complex.
> But cyclists following the law are not impeding traffic, they
> are traffic.
You folks like to repeat that like a mantra, but that won't make
it come true. It's wrong on two counts. Here's why.
First of all, your cute mantra rebuts an argument that was never
made. It's a matter of context. The word "traffic" in the phrase
"impeding traffic" refers to vehicles other than the one that's
doing the impeding. No one would ever insist that saying a person
was getting in other people's way implied that the individual wasn't
himself a person, right?
And second, since the matter came up, no, bicycles are *not*
"traffic." Traffic consists of the prevailing vehicle flow, i.e.,
cars. Some bearded, Spandex-swaddled little nitwit on a Schwinn
is *not* traffic; he's a potential (and in some places, a likely)
_impediment_ to traffic. And a potential if inadvertent corpse,
if he doesn't stay the hell out of other people's way.
> They take the lane for clearly defined reasons and if over in the
> right portion of the lane are simple to pass.
I *love* muscling my way past cyclists who try to "take" the lane,
and then giggling as I look in my mirror an see the way their
faces have become distorted into a rictus of impotent rage.
Quite a few of these people seem to have really fragile self-
esteem -- which is probably why they try to compensate by
getting into other people's way to begin with.
> I've found that people do not object to things like gravel
> trucks and such that are slow and often impede traffic, yet
> somehow these vehicles are tolerated, along with drivers who
> cannot even match bicycle levels of acceleration. It's all
> in the context and perception.
That's patently absurd. I don't know *anybody* who doesn't
hate being stuck behind a slow-moving truck or a driver who
accelerates sluggishly. As someone whose commute takes him
past a gravel pit with an endless line of trucks lumbering
out of it all day long (one of which squashed a spokehead
several years ago, to my enduring delight -- he must've
tried to "take the lane"), and who endures any number of
immigrant drivers in a given week, I'm quite conversant
with both of these scenarios.
Ed Swierk
> [stuff deleted]
http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html
Please, don't feed the trolls.
Ben Pfaff
> In article <871y9rf...@pfaff.Stanford.EDU>,
> Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) writes:
> >
> > > As a motorist, *I* will decide when and where it's safe for me to
> > > pass, thank you very much.
> >
> > It's not your life that's on the line, it's the cyclist's.
> >
> > > Any cyclist who tries to discourage me from passing by riding
> > > farther out in the road than he belongs will only find me
> > > forcing the issue and passing anyway, and doing so
> > > uncomfortably close to him.
> >
> > Any motorist who tries to force me off the side of the road in a
> > reckless manner will only find me reporting his license plate
> > number and personal description to the police as a murder
> > attempt on the spot with my mobile phone.
>
> Be sure to post about how hard they laugh at you.
Alternatively, I suppose I could just smash a side window with my
Krypto-Lok as the car goes by. "Oops! It must have slipped as
he passed me dangerously. That's what happens when motorists
can't judge a safe place to pass."
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil."
--D. E. Knuth, "Structured Programming with go to Statements"
Geoff Miller
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> writes:
> Even better if cars had the common courtesy (and common sense)
> to avoid roads on which they can't drive without getting slowed
> down by slower-moving vehicles.
Except that the bicyclists would still be the ones slowing down
others, and would therefore still be at fault. The matter of
courtesy wouldn't apply in terms of the drivers, since it's
(obviously) no skin off the cyclists' collective ass if they
slow anyone else down. They usually seem to be quite content
with somebody stuck behind them.
Not to mention the fact that the automobile is the default mode
of transportation in America, and that therefore, the needs and
convenience of drivers should (and usually do) supersede those
of cyclists. Face it: cyclists have essentially been outvoted
by the rest of society.
> That way no one would be on the roads at all, which would have
> the added advantage that we wouldn't have to pay to maintain them.
Sure -- and we could all go back to living like people did in the
Middle Ages, where in the course of their lifetimes folks would
seldom travel more than three or four miles from their place of
birth. Sounds like a real stimulating existence, all right.
Thank Ghod the Republicans are back in the White House...
(Why am I not surprised that you're a spokead, David? I've
noticed that a variety of unrelated but disagreeable views are
often "bundled" in the minds of certain people. It must have
something to do with the nature of their general outlook.
Sometimes I think entire segments of the population should be
rounded up and "pithed" like laboratory frogs for the good of
society. Personally, I'd start in Berkeley...)
Geoff Miller
Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
> It's not your life that's on the line, it's the cyclist's.
As a motorist, I make decisions on which other people's safety
depends all the time. It's part and parcel of being a driver.
Even the state recognizes this, which is why drivers, unlike
cyclists, have to be licensed. If that sticks in your craw,
then the proper way of dealing with that craw-stickage would
be either to stop riding a bike, or to do so only off-road
-- not to try and usurp a driver's prerogative out of spite
or insecurity.
> Any motorist who tries to force me off the side of the road
> in a reckless manner will only find me reporting his license
> plate number and personal description to the police as a murder
> attempt on the spot with my mobile phone.
Yeah, right. The cops would laugh in your (figurative) face.
For one thing, unless a cop actually witnessed the event, it'd
be your word against the driver's. And between that and your
not having a scratch on you, they wouldn't do squat.
And for another, if the cops took seriously every angry,
hysterical report of reckless driving that was reported as
alleged "attempted murder" they undoubtedly receive, they'd
have time for little else.
Geoff Miller
Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> postures:
> Alternatively, I suppose I could just smash a side window with my
> Krypto-Lok as the car goes by.
I'll see your Krypto-Lok and raise you a deft flick of the wrist.
I wouldn't hesitate to swerve and actually run over any cyclist
who broke one of my car's windows like that, as opposed to merely
squeezing past him. And it'd be easy to defend, too, on the basis
of (a) being startled, and (b) engaging in instinctive self-defense
against a threat that was impossible to identify in the time that
was available. For all I know, someone who pulled that stupid
stunt could have a gun. I'd certainly assume he did.
Guy Chapman
wrote:
>As a motorist, *I* will decide when and where it's safe for me to
>pass, thank you very much. Any cyclist who tries to discourage
>me from passing by riding farther out in the road than he belongs
>will only find me forcing the issue and passing anyway, and doing
>so uncomfortably close to him.
Thus breaking the law. The cyclist is right, and you are wrong, and
the law agrees. The word "selfish" springs to mind - is the next
traffic jam really so important you can't wait thirty seconds?
Guy
===
Riding every day on a road near you (provided you live near Reading, England).
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and dynamic DNS permitting)
Above email is a spam-sink. Remove maker of Spam from bikeHO...@chapmanFOODScentral.com to reply by mail
Guy Chapman
Garry) wrote:
>Somehow, I think it's the person with the ticket book's call. And then
>eventually the judge's.
Since neither of these are likely to have recent experience riding on
the road, who are they going to call as an expert witness? John
Forester?
Guy Chapman
wrote:
>Wrong. Bicyclists' having the common courtesy (and common sense)
>to avoid roads on which they can't ride without getting underfoot
>would help to reduce the conflict.
Wrong. Motorists failing to appreciate that bicycles are trafic and
have a right to ride ont he roads for which they campaigned would help
reduce the conflict.
Guy Chapman
wrote:
>Except that the bicyclists would still be the ones slowing down
>others,
It takes me under 25 minutes to get the 7.5 miles to work by bicycle,
and over 30 minutes by car. My average speed drops by 1.5mph in the
last half mile as I have to pick my way through a long tailback of
traffic. Who's holding who up here?
David desJardins
> Except that the bicyclists would still be the ones slowing down
> others, and would therefore still be at fault.
That's the fault of whoever built the roads without bike lanes,
actually.
> Not to mention the fact that the automobile is the default mode
> of transportation in America
Walking is the "default mode of transportation in America". On average,
people spend considerably more time each day walking than driving or
riding in cars.
> Why am I not surprised that you're a spokead, David?
Why am I not surprised that you're a moron?
David desJardins
terry morse
> As one of the faster-
> driving residents of the Santa Cruz Mountains, I think about this
> every day.
Drives with excessive speed, lives and drives in the Santa Cruz
Mountains. So noted.
> Some bearded, Spandex-swaddled little nitwit on a Schwinn
> is *not* traffic; he's a potential (and in some places, a likely)
> _impediment_ to traffic. And a potential if inadvertent corpse,
> if he doesn't stay the hell out of other people's way.
A revelation of Mr. Miller's state of mind towards cyclists. Also
noted. (BTW, who is that guy with the dark beard that I see on Stevens
Canyon? He's fast, but I'm sure he doesn't ride a Schwinn.)
> I *love* muscling my way past cyclists who try to "take" the lane,
> and then giggling as I look in my mirror an see the way their
> faces have become distorted into a rictus of impotent rage.
Admission of dangerous and illegal behavior, and of possible intent.
> As someone whose commute takes him
> past a gravel pit with an endless line of trucks lumbering
> out of it all day long
Commutes on Stevens Canyon Road...
>(one of which squashed a spokehead
> several years ago, to my enduring delight -- he must've
> tried to "take the lane"),
A glaring admission of Mr. Miller's state of mind regarding cyclists.
This article has been stored and may be used as evidence of prior
intent. Should the worst happen, the sentence against Mr. Miller would
likely be longer than the one year against Jon Nisby (the truck driver
who murdered Jeff Steinwedel on Stevens Canyon road, referred to
above). In Nisby's case, there was no evidence of prior intent, only a
callous disregard for safety.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/
Jym Dyer
>> not a motorist's.
=v= Exactly. Safety is the first priority, and differences of
opinion must comply with that.
> Somehow, I think it's the person with the ticket book's call.
> And then eventually the judge's.
=v= When police ticket a certain group of people on spurious
grounds (such as the ones under discussion), they're violating
the 14th Amendment and setting themselves up for a civil rights
lawsuit. I know people who have sued over this and won.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
people upset, even if he has to resort to writing complete
falsehoods about the vehicle code, making threats, and guffawing
over the deaths of people some of us remember fondly. What a
pathetic individual.
<_jym_>
Brent P
> As a motorist, *I* will decide when and where it's safe for me to
> pass, thank you very much. Any cyclist who tries to discourage
> me from passing by riding farther out in the road than he belongs
> will only find me forcing the issue and passing anyway, and doing
> so uncomfortably close to him.
Would you do the same to a gravel truck? Or do you enjoy being
a bully?
Brent P
> In article <871y9rf...@pfaff.Stanford.EDU>,
>> reckless manner will only find me reporting his license plate
>> number and personal description to the police as a murder
>> attempt on the spot with my mobile phone.
> Be sure to post about how hard they laugh at you.
911 took it quite seriously when a motorist waited up ahead and
attacked me when I reached that point.
Brent P
> On 25 Jul 2002, Geoff Miller wrote:
>
>> [stuff deleted]
>
> http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html
>
> Please, don't feed the trolls.
Now you've done it. Geoff will now post 530 some lines on how the
correct term is 'troller'
Brent P
> Brent P <tetraet...@yahoo.com> ites:
>> It is up to the passing motorist to pass safely. Not for the cyclist
>> to get out of his way.
> Wrong again, Brent. (You have quite a talent for that, I must say.
> Why doesn't it surprise me to learn that you're a spokehead?)
Is this going to be another one of your 500 line posts again?
> It's the moral responsibility of any operator of a slower-moving
> vehicle to get out of the way of faster-moving traffic.
If you believe that, Geoff, feel free to take it up with all the gravel
trucks, semis, and other slow vehicles on the road that are in the
way of faster-moving traffic.
Actually, go have at it, pass those trucks real tight, with an inch or
two to spare, try and force them off the road. Have at.
> And second, since the matter came up, no, bicycles are *not*
> "traffic." Traffic consists of the prevailing vehicle flow, i.e.,
> cars.
Feel free to run the next large, slow truck, that is traveling below
the prevailing vehicle flow off the road. Ram right into it's side
push em off the road. Go for it. Or does your self-preservation kick
in?
>> They take the lane for clearly defined reasons and if over in the
>> right portion of the lane are simple to pass.
> I *love* muscling my way past cyclists who try to "take" the lane,
> and then giggling as I look in my mirror an see the way their
> faces have become distorted into a rictus of impotent rage.
> Quite a few of these people seem to have really fragile self-
> esteem -- which is probably why they try to compensate by
> getting into other people's way to begin with.
It doesn't surprise me that you act in real life just as you do on
usenet. Of course it's pretty clear self preservation kicks in and you
only bother those you think are weaker than you when you think you can
get away with it. Some day you'll choose wrong.
>> I've found that people do not object to things like gravel
>> trucks and such that are slow and often impede traffic, yet
>> somehow these vehicles are tolerated, along with drivers who
>> cannot even match bicycle levels of acceleration. It's all
>> in the context and perception.
> That's patently absurd. I don't know *anybody* who doesn't
> hate being stuck behind a slow-moving truck or a driver who
> accelerates sluggishly. As someone whose commute takes him
> past a gravel pit with an endless line of trucks lumbering
> out of it all day long (one of which squashed a spokehead
> several years ago, to my enduring delight -- he must've
> tried to "take the lane"), and who endures any number of
> immigrant drivers in a given week, I'm quite conversant
> with both of these scenarios.
Go beat up on a gravel truck. Try to run one off the road. Be
consistant. Or will your self-preservation kick in?
Richard Kaiser
>> > Any cyclist who tries to discourage me from passing by riding
>> > farther out in the road than he belongs will only find me
>> > forcing the issue and passing anyway, and doing so
>> > uncomfortably close to him.
>>
>> Any motorist who tries to force me off the side of the road in a
>> reckless manner will only find me reporting his license plate
>> number and personal description to the police as a murder
>> attempt on the spot with my mobile phone.
>
> Be sure to post about how hard they laugh at you.
>
>
>
> &Loopy&
I went to the police with the plate number from a motorist who
did a close pass. She got a phone from the police explaining that
her behavior was illegal. This was sufficient she correctly
behind me two months later. I do not know if she was cited based
on what she said (cannot be done in some states). The officer said
there is a process I could have used to procecute.
Before you assault a bicycle with a car read your state vehicle
or traffic code, expecially the sections on careless driving,
reckless driving, road rage, passing, and care to avoid an
accident.
Unless the road is very poorly designed a cyclist will only
delay a motorists a few seconds. If you read your states vehicle
or traffic code for bicyclists you will find safety of the
bicyclists is more important than convience of the motorists.
Richard Kaiser
A driver and a cyclist
Arthur L. Rubin
> CVC 21202(a)(3) says exactly that: one of the exceptions to the "as far to
> the right as practicable" clause is a substandard width lane, defined as
> "a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely
> side by side within the lane."
Well, CVC 21202(a)(3) doesn't seem to include lanes that are narrowed
due to debris, only lanes that are, in themselves, "too narrow for
a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."
--
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
John David Galt
> It's the moral responsibility of any operator of a slower-moving
> vehicle to get out of the way of faster-moving traffic. In the
> case of a car, that means keeping to the right lanes of a multi-
> lane road, or on a two-lane road, using turouts or otherwise
> pulling over to let faster vehicles pass.
Precisely.
Some people on this group need this fact engraved on their foreheads
in tread marks.
John David Galt
> Unless the road is very poorly designed a cyclist will only
> delay a motorists a few seconds. If you read your states vehicle
> or traffic code for bicyclists you will find safety of the
> bicyclists is more important than convience of the motorists.
Restitution is always more important than the safety of the thief.
John David Galt
I would if I safely could. The fact that he's big enough to get away with
stealing from me and you are not does not imply that I'm wrong to defend
my rights against you.
Brent P
When was the last time you pulled over on to the shoulder to let a
faster driver by?
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <ahqpk7$i...@u1.netgate.net>, Geoff Miller wrote:
>> > As a motorist, *I* will decide when and where it's safe for me to
>> > pass, thank you very much. Any cyclist who tries to discourage
>> > me from passing by riding farther out in the road than he belongs
>> > will only find me forcing the issue and passing anyway, and doing
>> > so uncomfortably close to him.
>> Would you do the same to a gravel truck?
> I would if I safely could.
In other words you don't have the balls to do it. You are a coward, a
bully, who picks on those smaller than him and cowers in fear of those
bigger.
> The fact that he's big enough to get away with
> stealing from me and you are not does not imply that I'm wrong to defend
> my rights against you.
I haven't seen any public roads that have signs claiming them to be the
personal property of you or anyone else. When was the last time you
pulled off the road for a faster driver galt?
Brent P
Not at all. But yet's take another event. I was passed close and
tight by a corvette driver who told me to get off the road. He had
nice talk with the officer that was behind him and me.
Brent P
> I drive fast enough that that isn't usually a problem. HOWEVER, the last
> time I pulled over to let a faster driver by was the last time a faster
> driver came up behind me.
I was asking galt. Who is known in r.a.d. for his rather one sided ideas
of driving. He demands people get out of his way but does not get out
of the way of others.
Brent P
> I have a 4x4 truck. I drive it quickly, but when a Porsche or BMW or
> whatever comes up behind me, I pull over ASAP and let them buy. If
> there's not room immediately, I put on my right blinker and wave them
> past me.
You pull off the road and stop?
> Are you telling everyone that YOU don't do that?
Again I was asking galt. Galt believes that letting any one by him
is some sort of sin given my interpetation of his posts over a
considerable length of time.
Nobody pulls over on to the shoulder and stops to let me by when I am
driving faster and would like to pass around here. (chicago) Few will
even move right on multi-lane roads.
There is nothing in the vehicle code of IL that demands any vehicle
operator do so that I have yet found. All there is calls for slower
drivers to keep right. There certainly isn't anything that demands
I risk property damage or injury geting off the road.
Of course I always drive keep right except to pass. But I am not
going to put expensive Z-rated tires of my car on to the debris strewn and
unpaved shoulder of a two lane road or risking a fall on the bicycle
doing the same If they want to pass, I won't stop them from doing so at
the next legal opportunity regardless of the vehicle I am driving.
That said, I've never had trouble passing a legally riding cyclist, even
if he was taking the lane at the time. I drive in very crowded traffic
conditions yet usually can give a cyclist a full lane change and slow
no more than 5mph for a couple seconds. It makes me wonder about what
must be a poor level of driving skills amung those who get 'trapped'
behind cyclists.
Scott Munro
wrote:
>That said, I've never had trouble passing a legally riding cyclist, even
>if he was taking the lane at the time. I drive in very crowded traffic
>conditions yet usually can give a cyclist a full lane change and slow
>no more than 5mph for a couple seconds. It makes me wonder about what
>must be a poor level of driving skills amung those who get 'trapped'
>behind cyclists.
Don't you have any two-lane roads where passing is illegal?
--
Scott Munro
"But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the
greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness,
without tuition or restraint."
--Edmund Burke, *Reflections on the Revolution in France*
Joel Garry
>On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:54:20 GMT, tetraet...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>
>>That said, I've never had trouble passing a legally riding cyclist, even
>>if he was taking the lane at the time. I drive in very crowded traffic
>>conditions yet usually can give a cyclist a full lane change and slow
>>no more than 5mph for a couple seconds. It makes me wonder about what
>>must be a poor level of driving skills amung those who get 'trapped'
>>behind cyclists.
>
>Don't you have any two-lane roads where passing is illegal?
Not to mention two-lane roads where passing is illegal packed by several
hundred cyclists slowly plugging uphill, "behinding" each other 4 across and
panting a lot.
jg
--
These opinions are my own.
http://www.garry.to Oracle and unix guy.
mailto:joel-...@nospam.cox.net Remove nospam to reply.
Joel Garry
Sam Wasterson is just an actor, Law and Order is just a TV show. Even
if they play it six times a day, it isn't real. And you're no Sam
Wasterson. Your post just comes off as stupid.
John David Galt
> When was the last time you pulled over on to the shoulder to let a
> faster driver by?
Wednesday night, on CA-12 near Suisun City. How 'bout you?
Brent P
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:54:20 GMT, tetraet...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>That said, I've never had trouble passing a legally riding cyclist, even
>>if he was taking the lane at the time. I drive in very crowded traffic
>>conditions yet usually can give a cyclist a full lane change and slow
>>no more than 5mph for a couple seconds. It makes me wonder about what
>>must be a poor level of driving skills amung those who get 'trapped'
>>behind cyclists.
> Don't you have any two-lane roads where passing is illegal?
Drivers usually care not one bit when passing me when I am cycling
about the legality of their pass.
However the roads are not always no-passing, nor do they always require
the cyclist to take the lane. Since I know this, and know where the
cyclist will need to take the lane and where he doesn't and I see
the cyclist long before reaching him I can time my pass well. Just
as on a two lane road in traffic. And note I only said usually a full
lane change as most cyclists I encounter on four lane or greater roads.
Brent P
Galt, over on the shoulder, stopped to let someone by, yeah right...
Did you have a flat tire or something?
Bill Davidson
> I wouldn't hesitate to swerve and actually run over any cyclist
> who broke one of my car's windows like that, as opposed to merely
> squeezing past him. And it'd be easy to defend, too, on the basis
> of (a) being startled, and (b) engaging in instinctive self-defense
> against a threat that was impossible to identify in the time that
> was available. For all I know, someone who pulled that stupid
> stunt could have a gun. I'd certainly assume he did.
[...]
> "Any bicyclist who gets in my way will die under my wheels.
> <ka-thump!> <ka-thump!>"
You forgot (c) your postings pulled from Google Groups and sent to
the D.A. and entered into evidence at your murder trial.
--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my email address to reply.
Bill Davidson
> Well, CVC 21202(a)(3) doesn't seem to include lanes that are narrowed
> due to debris, only lanes that are, in themselves, "too narrow for
> a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."
To quote: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same
direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable
curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
situations:
[...]
3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)
that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,
subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow
for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within
the lane.
I think "debris" could qualify under the "fixed or moving objects" portion
or as "surface hazards" for that. If they make it unsafe to keep right then
a cyclist is no longer required to keep right. Notice also the phrase:
"including, but not limited to" being used there. In other words, any
condition that makes it unsafe to keep right becomes a suitable legal exception
to keep right rule.
Bill Davidson
>I may pull over
>safely when I can behind a parked car to let them all pass. But that's my
>choice. I should not feel obligated to do it every time I get an irate
>driver in a hurry behind me. Besides, as others have said, oft-times, all
>letting the drivers pass me usually means in such cases is that they will
>get to the next red light before I do. Big deal.
I'll get out of the way whenever I can do so safely and without giving up
too much of my own time to do so. In practice, this is rarely a problem.
I rarely am in a situation where I am really in anyone's way. The thing
is, most of the time when I am and someone gets mad at me, they only lose
maybe 5 seconds on their way to the next red light. I am talking quite
literally. The other day I got honked at while using a left turn lane
and the next light after the left turn was only about 200 feet away and
red, and with hardly space for the car to get all the way through the
intersection because cars were backed up. I slowed this idiot moving
through the intersection and that was enough. He felt a need to "hurry
up and wait". His net loss of time due to me: ZERO because I got through
and went to the right and he got to park behind the row of cars and wait
for the light to turn green. He was still pissed at me that he couldn't
gun it through the intersection. Oh, and yes, he was driving a pickup
truck. 99 times out of 100 the idiots who give me grief are in pickups.
I think pickup drivers have a real problem with seeing men in lycra
shorts.
Bill Zaumen
joel-...@nospam.cox.net wrote:
> Not to mention two-lane roads where passing is illegal packed by several
> hundred cyclists slowly plugging uphill, "behinding" each other 4 across and
> panting a lot.
It is not illegal for there to be several hundred cyclists going uphill
on the same road at the same time. If there are that many and you
are following in a car, you are out of luck: they do not have to
pull over to let you pass anymore than a large number of drivers
would have to pull over to let some guy in a Farrari by.
The traffic law requiring bicyclists to ride as far to the right
as practicable does not apply when the bicyclists are riding at
the normal speed of traffic at that time. The term 'traffic'
applies to all road users, not just motor vehicles. If there are
several hundred bicycles and one car, the bicycles determine the
normal speed of traffic.
BTW, the term is "drafting" not "behinding" and drafting is not
useful when riding slowly uphill unless you have a pretty strong
headwind.
Bill
--
As an anti-spam measure, my email address is only provided in a GIF
file. Please see <http://home.pacbell.net/zaumen/email.gif>.
Scott Munro
wrote:
>In article <3d41ff46...@news.icehouse.net>, Scott Munro wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:54:20 GMT, tetraet...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>That said, I've never had trouble passing a legally riding cyclist, even
>>>if he was taking the lane at the time. I drive in very crowded traffic
>>>conditions yet usually can give a cyclist a full lane change and slow
>>>no more than 5mph for a couple seconds. It makes me wonder about what
>>>must be a poor level of driving skills amung those who get 'trapped'
>>>behind cyclists.
>
>> Don't you have any two-lane roads where passing is illegal?
>
>Drivers usually care not one bit when passing me when I am cycling
>about the legality of their pass.
Yeah, I've noticed that. I personally find that that my state's law
about slow traffic giving way rarely comes into play, since most
drivers just zoom by regardless of a no-passing stripe or opposing
traffic, apparently believing that the presence of a bycicle repeals
both the rules of the road and the laws of physics.
John David Galt
It was late at night and I was only going the speed limit. You seem to
have me confused with one of the race drivers on this group.
Měchael D. Brown
(nob...@nospam.pacbell.net) says...
>
> In article <slrnak4c90.h...@zr1.vista1.sdca.cox.net>, joel-...@nospam.cox.net wrote:
>
> > Not to mention two-lane roads where passing is illegal packed by several
> > hundred cyclists slowly plugging uphill, "behinding" each other 4 across and
> > panting a lot.
>
> It is not illegal for there to be several hundred cyclists going uphill
> on the same road at the same time. If there are that many and you
> are following in a car, you are out of luck: they do not have to
> pull over to let you pass anymore than a large number of drivers
> would have to pull over to let some guy in a Farrari by.
Doesn't the law (in California) require that the vehicle(s) in front
pull over when 5 or more vehicles are behind them? Wouldn't this
continue until all of the bicycles have pulled over and all of the
cars have passed them? Does riding in large number exempt bicycles
from the 5 vehicle requirement?
Mike
John David Galt
You're absolutely right. That requirement (Vehicle Code section 21656),
however, only applies to a road with just one lane in your direction.
If there is more than one lane in your direction, there are two sections
that apply. 21654(b) requires the bikes to stay in the right lane (or
shoulder) -- notice that passing is not an exception, unlike 21654(a).
And 21753 requires them to move into the right lane when you signal that
you want to pass (if there isn't a clear lane to pass them in -- this
temporary blockage makes passing on the right illegal (per 21755) and
thus activates 21753). Neither of these requires five cars to trigger
it; one is sufficient.
Finally, it is a misdemeanor to deliberately block the use of a road as
a road (Penal Code section 370). "Critical Mass" should be prosecuted
strongly under this section.
Here are the sections referenced, on the state's own official site:
ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/code/veh/21001-22000/21650-21664
ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/code/veh/21001-22000/21750-21759
ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/code/pen/00001-01000/369a-402c
And my petition to the state to have the law enforced against Critical
Mass:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/srbd01/
John David Galt
Brent P
The comment has nothing to do with speed or 'race drivers'. It has to
do with your constantly demonstrated selfish behaviors.
By your own logic, such a driver is a thief by making you loose time
by pulling over. It's a constant theme in your posts. So I don't believe
you would ever let anyone in front of you, ever, if you had any power
to prevent it.
John David Galt
Not if I'm trying to go fast. And I show the same respect to those who
are trying to go fast when I'm not.
Bill Zaumen
<j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> "Měchael D. Brown" wrote:
> >
> > In article
<nobody-2707...@adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net>, Bill
Zaumen
> > > It is not illegal for there to be several hundred cyclists going uphill
> > > on the same road at the same time. If there are that many and you
> > > are following in a car, you are out of luck: they do not have to
> > > pull over to let you pass anymore than a large number of drivers
> > > would have to pull over to let some guy in a Farrari by.
> >
> > Doesn't the law (in California) require that the vehicle(s) in front
> > pull over when 5 or more vehicles are behind them? Wouldn't this
> > continue until all of the bicycles have pulled over and all of the
> > cars have passed them? Does riding in large number exempt bicycles
> > from the 5 vehicle requirement?
>
> You're absolutely right. That requirement (Vehicle Code section 21656),
> however, only applies to a road with just one lane in your direction.
No, he *isn't* absolutely right. I've enclosed a copy of the law below
and you should read it carefully to clarify any questions. I should add
that the term "traffic" is also defined in the vehicle code and it is
broader than motor vehicles: "traffic" includes bicycles, horses, etc.
in addition to motor vehicles. You have to know those definitions
to make sense of it---you can't just use these words in their colloquial
sense.
The rule applies to "slow moving vehicles" (and bicycles as they have
all the rights and responsibilities of vehicles) *but* a slow moving
vehicle is defined for Section 21656 as one going slower than the
normal speed of traffic at that particular time and place. If there
are hundreds of bicycles and one car, the hundreds of bicycles don't
have to pull over to let the single vehicle by. If one or a few
individuals are holding up everyone else, then those individuals do
have to pull over when passing is not otherwise possible, 5 vehicles
are queued up, and when there are not additional lanes in that
direction.
------ copied from the California Vehicle Code ------
21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of
traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving
vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more
vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the
nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the
authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever
sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the
vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a
slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed
less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and
place.
--------------------
> Finally, it is a misdemeanor to deliberately block the use of a road as
> a road (Penal Code section 370). "Critical Mass" should be prosecuted
> strongly under this section.
A "critical mass" ride does not deliberately block traffic: the riders
precede to their destination at a normal speed for the conditions (lots
of bicyclists of varying levels of physical conditioning). I've seen
one go through a narrower section of road and they slowed down for
that due to the constriction but sped up afterwards: everyone seemed
to be riding at an appropriate speed for the density of traffic, which
was mostly bicycles.
It really isn't different than thousands of vehicles poring out after
a football game and clogging up Rt. 101. No one likes to get stuck
in traffic, of course, but you would be hard pressed to argue that
football is OK but riding around San Francisco to enjoy the city
is not.
Měchael D. Brown
says...
>
> In article <3D43408D...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
> > "Měchael D. Brown" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <nobody-2707...@adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net>, Bill Zaumen
>
> > > > It is not illegal for there to be several hundred cyclists going uphill
> > > > on the same road at the same time. If there are that many and you
> > > > are following in a car, you are out of luck: they do not have to
> > > > pull over to let you pass anymore than a large number of drivers
> > > > would have to pull over to let some guy in a Farrari by.
> > >
> > > Doesn't the law (in California) require that the vehicle(s) in front
> > > pull over when 5 or more vehicles are behind them? Wouldn't this
> > > continue until all of the bicycles have pulled over and all of the
> > > cars have passed them? Does riding in large number exempt bicycles
> > > from the 5 vehicle requirement?
> >
> > You're absolutely right. That requirement (Vehicle Code section 21656),
> > however, only applies to a road with just one lane in your direction.
>
> No, he *isn't* absolutely right. I've enclosed a copy of the law below
> and you should read it carefully to clarify any questions. I should add
> that the term "traffic" is also defined in the vehicle code and it is
> broader than motor vehicles: "traffic" includes bicycles, horses, etc.
> in addition to motor vehicles. You have to know those definitions
> to make sense of it---you can't just use these words in their colloquial
> sense.
Of course bicycles are traffic. That was my point. The slower traffic
in the front were impeding the faster traffic behind.
> The rule applies to "slow moving vehicles" (and bicycles as they have
> all the rights and responsibilities of vehicles) *but* a slow moving
> vehicle is defined for Section 21656 as one going slower than the
> normal speed of traffic at that particular time and place. If there
> are hundreds of bicycles and one car, the hundreds of bicycles don't
> have to pull over to let the single vehicle by. If one or a few
> individuals are holding up everyone else, then those individuals do
> have to pull over when passing is not otherwise possible, 5 vehicles
> are queued up, and when there are not additional lanes in that
> direction.
Why are you assuming that the front bicycle(s) isn't slower
traffic than the bicycles behind it? Why assume that NONE of
the bicyclists backed up behind the leaders don't want to go
faster? The fact that they are all bunched up together rather
than strung out with large gaps down the hill means that the
ones in front are impeding the ones behind.
I drove CA 74 to Elsinore a couple of weeks ago and was
about 10th in a line of about 20 cars//SUVS/vans. There were
a log of unused turn-outs. Now maybe the lead car was
ignorant of the law, maybe he was deliberately breaking the
law, or maybe he was just ASSUMING that all of the vehicles
behind him were just coincidentally driving the same speed
that he was EVEN though it was 15 to 20 MPH below the speed
limit.
Mike
John David Galt
The "normal" flow of traffic is still the cars. If traffic at that place
were *always* mostly bicycles, then "normal" would become the bicycles.
>> Finally, it is a misdemeanor to deliberately block the use of a road as
>> a road (Penal Code section 370). "Critical Mass" should be prosecuted
>> strongly under this section.
>
> A "critical mass" ride does not deliberately block traffic:
The founders have admitted that their purpose in being there is exactly that.
This is what makes it different from the traffic jam after a football game.
Being there for an illegitimate purpose makes it a crime.
CM is an outrage against the rights of drivers, and if the cops don't want
us taking vigilante action they'd better do their job and start throwing
the bastards in jail.
Bill Zaumen
<006C9A25F5A3EED5.9188E64D...@lp.airnews.net>,
mikeNosp...@cox.net (Měchael D. Brown) wrote:
> In article
<nobody-2707...@adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net>, Bill
Zaumen (nob...@nospam.pacbell.net)
> says...
> >
> > No, he *isn't* absolutely right. I've enclosed a copy of the law below
> > and you should read it carefully to clarify any questions. I should add
> > that the term "traffic" is also defined in the vehicle code and it is
> > broader than motor vehicles: "traffic" includes bicycles, horses, etc.
> > in addition to motor vehicles. You have to know those definitions
> > to make sense of it---you can't just use these words in their colloquial
> > sense.
>
> Of course bicycles are traffic. That was my point. The slower traffic
> in the front were impeding the faster traffic behind.
No, your point as stated seemed to be to mention the 5-car part of the
rule while ignoring the rest.
>
> > The rule applies to "slow moving vehicles" (and bicycles as they have
> > all the rights and responsibilities of vehicles) *but* a slow moving
> > vehicle is defined for Section 21656 as one going slower than the
> > normal speed of traffic at that particular time and place. ....
>
> Why are you assuming that the front bicycle(s) isn't slower
> traffic than the bicycles behind it? Why assume that NONE of
> the bicyclists backed up behind the leaders don't want to go
> faster? The fact that they are all bunched up together rather
> than strung out with large gaps down the hill means that the
> ones in front are impeding the ones behind.
No it doesn't mean that. First of all bicyclists frequently
bunch up because it cuts air resistance (less of an issue on a climb
unless there is a strong headwind). Second, the law would only
require the bicyclists in front to pull over if other traffic
(including bicyclists) can't pass. It is very unlikely for that
to occur: all bicyclists won't go at precisely the same speed and
you can always fit multiple bicyclists side by side in any lane
wide enough for automobiles.
I posted a full copy of the law. You should read it carefully: when
a law has multiple conditions that have to hold for it to apply,
you can't just talk about one condition in isolation of the others.
>
> I drove CA 74 to Elsinore a couple of weeks ago and was
> about 10th in a line of about 20 cars//SUVS/vans. There were
> a log of unused turn-outs. ...
I've been stuck under those circumstances too, but that is not
the case you were discussing regarding bicycles.
Rick Damiani
>Considering the rest of the text, I am going to believe the above
>segment is just poorly written.
Actually, that's what the CVC requires.
>The bicyclist should neither have to remove himself from the road or
>take any action which endangers him for the sake of the passing motorist.
>It is up to the passing motorist to pass safely. Not for the cyclist
>to get out of his way.
Actually, a slow-moving vehicle is required to leave the roadway, if
necessary, to allow other vehicles to pass. See CVC 21656, 21650(f)
and (g), and 21654.
>Due to speed limits becoming suggested speeds a moral minimums rather than
>speed limits (see my other posts on this topic) it has created this
>atmosphere where anyone not doing at least the speed limit is somehow
>objectionable. Now this may be true of drivers, who have large vehicles
>that really do block the road and can gain speed with movement of one's
>akle. But cyclists following the law are not impeding traffic, they are
>traffic. They take the lane for clearly defined reasons and if over in the
>right portion of the lane are simple to pass.
Cyclists who are moving slowly are traffic, and are required to follow
the rules. One of those rules is that they need to get out of the way
if they are holding up other traffic.
>I've found that people do not object to things like gravel trucks
>and such that are slow and often impede traffic, yet somehow these
>vehicles are tolerated, along with drivers who cannot even match
>bicycle levels of acceleration. It's all in the context and perception.
Actually, slow-moving trucks are every bit as annoying as cyclists.
The difference is that the drivers of slow-moving trucks don't assume
a holier-than-thou attitude about their lack of speed, and they take
turn-outs when they are available.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast ..................... Rick Damiani
and no one will talk to a host that's close .... ri...@nospam.paton.com
Unless the host (that isn't close) ......... ri...@nospam.earthlink.net
is busy, hung or dead ..............................NGI# T695 DoD #2659
'99 Triumph Sprint ST (Guppy) ....... '86 Yamaha Radian (Fire Breather)
Brent P
> tetraet...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>The bicyclist should neither have to remove himself from the road or
>>take any action which endangers him for the sake of the passing motorist.
>>It is up to the passing motorist to pass safely. Not for the cyclist
>>to get out of his way.
>
> Actually, a slow-moving vehicle is required to leave the roadway, if
> necessary, to allow other vehicles to pass. See CVC 21656, 21650(f)
> and (g), and 21654.
Not in my state to the best of my knowledge. And even in CA, there has
to be a minimum number of vehicles quened up.
>>Due to speed limits becoming suggested speeds a moral minimums rather than
>>speed limits (see my other posts on this topic) it has created this
>>atmosphere where anyone not doing at least the speed limit is somehow
>>objectionable. Now this may be true of drivers, who have large vehicles
>>that really do block the road and can gain speed with movement of one's
>>akle. But cyclists following the law are not impeding traffic, they are
>>traffic. They take the lane for clearly defined reasons and if over in the
>>right portion of the lane are simple to pass.
>
> Cyclists who are moving slowly are traffic, and are required to follow
> the rules. One of those rules is that they need to get out of the way
> if they are holding up other traffic.
Again, not in my state. And usually, it's the cars holding me up. Anyway
as soon as the trucks start pulling over for me when I am driving, or
riding, and as soon as the drivers who are slower than me start pulling
over and letting me by, I'll return the favor when I am on bicycle.
>>I've found that people do not object to things like gravel trucks
>>and such that are slow and often impede traffic, yet somehow these
>>vehicles are tolerated, along with drivers who cannot even match
>>bicycle levels of acceleration. It's all in the context and perception.
> Actually, slow-moving trucks are every bit as annoying as cyclists.
> The difference is that the drivers of slow-moving trucks don't assume
> a holier-than-thou attitude about their lack of speed, and they take
> turn-outs when they are available.
Not in my state. They hold up traffic. They even use the far left lane
of the interstate Illegally.
Měchael D. Brown
>
> In article <006C9A25F5A3EED5.9188E64D...@lp.airnews.net>, mikeNosp...@cox.net (Měchael D. Brown)
wrote:
>
> > In article <nobody-2707...@adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net>, Bill Zaumen (nob...@nospam.pacbell.net)
> > says...
> > >
> > > No, he *isn't* absolutely right. I've enclosed a copy of the law below
> > > and you should read it carefully to clarify any questions. I should add
> > > that the term "traffic" is also defined in the vehicle code and it is
> > > broader than motor vehicles: "traffic" includes bicycles, horses, etc.
> > > in addition to motor vehicles. You have to know those definitions
> > > to make sense of it---you can't just use these words in their colloquial
> > > sense.
> >
> > Of course bicycles are traffic. That was my point. The slower traffic
> > in the front were impeding the faster traffic behind.
>
> No, your point as stated seemed to be to mention the 5-car part of the
> rule while ignoring the rest.
If you had carefully read my original post <7C525BE42287DA24.64F84253...@lp.airnews.net>
you would know that I NEVER used the phrase "5-car". I quite clearly
said "5 or more vehicles". Isn't a bicycle a vehicle? Aren't they
required to follow the same traffic laws that all other vehicles are
required to follow for the same stretch of road?
> > > The rule applies to "slow moving vehicles" (and bicycles as they have
> > > all the rights and responsibilities of vehicles) *but* a slow moving
> > > vehicle is defined for Section 21656 as one going slower than the
> > > normal speed of traffic at that particular time and place. ....
> >
> > Why are you assuming that the front bicycle(s) isn't slower
> > traffic than the bicycles behind it? Why assume that NONE of
> > the bicyclists backed up behind the leaders don't want to go
> > faster? The fact that they are all bunched up together rather
> > than strung out with large gaps down the hill means that the
> > ones in front are impeding the ones behind.
>
> No it doesn't mean that. First of all bicyclists frequently
> bunch up because it cuts air resistance (less of an issue on a climb
> unless there is a strong headwind).
With the Tour de France on TV every day you can clearly see that
when large numbers of cyclists go up a hill they are not all
bunched up together. You see them strung out in multiple
groups and individuals with gaps in between. Sometimes large
gaps. You don't see them riding for abreast at the front with
everyone else closely bunched up behind.
> Second, the law would only
> require the bicyclists in front to pull over if other traffic
> (including bicyclists) can't pass. It is very unlikely for that
> to occur: all bicyclists won't go at precisely the same speed and
> you can always fit multiple bicyclists side by side in any lane
> wide enough for automobiles.
Since the original poster clearly stated that the cyclists
were riding 4 abreast, it is very likely that even the other
cyclists wouldn't be able to pass. Also there is no way
for the ones in front to KNOW that NONE of the cyclists
behind them want to go faster (unless of course they
all got together previously and conspired to create the
situation under discussion).
> I posted a full copy of the law. You should read it carefully: when
> a law has multiple conditions that have to hold for it to apply,
> you can't just talk about one condition in isolation of the others.
I've read the law and I am not advocating that ANY vehicle
pull over to let the faster traffic pass until it is safe for
them to do so, or that they are reqired to do so on roads with
multiple lanes in each direction, or on roads where passing
allowed, etc, etc, etc.....
> > I drove CA 74 to Elsinore a couple of weeks ago and was
> > about 10th in a line of about 20 cars//SUVS/vans. There were
> > a log of unused turn-outs. ...
>
> I've been stuck under those circumstances too, but that is not
> the case you were discussing regarding bicycles.
And why not? The descriptions of the bicycles given by the
original poster closely matched my experience with cars/SUVS/
vans. Any difference was in scale not in principle. Slower
vehicles are slower vehicles. Why would the kind of slow
moving vehicle make a difference in this discussion? Why
would a group of bicycles going slowly up a hill and not
using turn-outs be any different from any other type of
slow moving vehicles going up the same hill?
Mike /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Joel Garry
<tru...@clarityconnect.competent> wrote:
>
>LOL. This is what I meant when I said that I have a tendency to gauge the
>traffic behind me and how the drivers will behave based on things like the
>sound of their motors, the types of vehicles they drive, and the loudness
>with which they blast their music. The louder the engine, the bigger the
I saw/heard/felt a car with extremely loud music driving through a parking
lot, set off a car alarm. Annoyance begets annoyance. Cracked me up!
>vehicle, the more earsplitting the level of the music, the more abrupt
>they are with use of the gas and the brakes, the more trouble I sense I am
>likely to have with that driver treating me as if I am just an impediment
>rather than a legal road user.
Joel Garry
>In article <slrnak4c90.h...@zr1.vista1.sdca.cox.net>,
>joel-...@nospam.cox.net wrote:
>
>
>> Not to mention two-lane roads where passing is illegal packed by several
>> hundred cyclists slowly plugging uphill, "behinding" each other 4 across and
>> panting a lot.
>
>It is not illegal for there to be several hundred cyclists going uphill
>on the same road at the same time. If there are that many and you
>are following in a car, you are out of luck: they do not have to
>pull over to let you pass anymore than a large number of drivers
>would have to pull over to let some guy in a Farrari by.
>
>The traffic law requiring bicyclists to ride as far to the right
>as practicable does not apply when the bicyclists are riding at
>the normal speed of traffic at that time. The term 'traffic'
>applies to all road users, not just motor vehicles. If there are
>several hundred bicycles and one car, the bicycles determine the
>normal speed of traffic.
>
>BTW, the term is "drafting" not "behinding" and drafting is not
>useful when riding slowly uphill unless you have a pretty strong
>headwind.
I know what drafting is, but behinding is certainly more colorful and
insinuant. It certainly painted mental pictures the person that made up
that word earlier in this thread probably didn't intend.
It may not be obvious to you, but I'm pro-bike - I've got 3 semi-serious
road bikes in my basement from my younger days, before the arthritis.
However, I think some of the spokeheads here and on the road are really
counterproductive, public-relations-wise.
>
>Bill
>
>--
>As an anti-spam measure, my email address is only provided in a GIF
>file. Please see <http://home.pacbell.net/zaumen/email.gif>.
I hope you are paying royalties to the owner of the gif patent.
Bill Zaumen
<j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >
> The "normal" flow of traffic is still the cars. If traffic at that place
> were *always* mostly bicycles, then "normal" would become the bicycles.
John, I posted the actual traffic laws and it is not necessary to selectively
quote them. The law specifically mentions the normal flow of traffic
a that time and place. I.e., it refers to *both* conditions, not just
one of them.
> >> Finally, it is a misdemeanor to deliberately block the use of a road as
> >> a road (Penal Code section 370). "Critical Mass" should be prosecuted
> >> strongly under this section.
> >
> > A "critical mass" ride does not deliberately block traffic:
>
> The founders have admitted that their purpose in being there is exactly that.
> This is what makes it different from the traffic jam after a football game.
> Being there for an illegitimate purpose makes it a crime.
>
> CM is an outrage against the rights of drivers, and if the cops don't want
> us taking vigilante action they'd better do their job and start throwing
> the bastards in jail.
This is quite frankly silly. The 'critical mass' people ride at a
normal speed for the conditions (very large number and a high density
of bicycles). They basically set the normal speed of traffic and
are not purposely holding up vehicles in the sense of going slower than
they would naturally to create an obstruction.
BTW, if you try taking what you call "vigilante action," you damn
well better pray that I'm not on the jury if there is evidence beyond
a reasonable doubt that you actually did that (as opposed to simply
mouthing off on usenet).
Rick Damiani
>In article <dku8ku4mft206pgn0...@4ax.com>, Rick Damiani wrote:
>> Actually, a slow-moving vehicle is required to leave the roadway, if
>> necessary, to allow other vehicles to pass. See CVC 21656, 21650(f)
>> and (g), and 21654.
>
>Not in my state to the best of my knowledge.
I'm really not sure why Jym posted this to groups that include folks
outside of CA, since the dude he's talking about is in CA and
commenting on CA laws and CA traffic.
>And even in CA, there has
>to be a minimum number of vehicles quened up.
Only for CVC 21656. The other cited sections do not specify any
particular number of vehicles.
>> Cyclists who are moving slowly are traffic, and are required to follow
>> the rules. One of those rules is that they need to get out of the way
>> if they are holding up other traffic.
>
>Again, not in my state. And usually, it's the cars holding me up.
I'm guessing from other stuff you have written in this thread that you
are in Illinois, right? When I lived in Illinois, I noticed a distinct
lack of mountains, sheer cliffs, and extraordinarily steep city
streets. California has all of that, and they are a challenge for even
the most athletic of cyclists. Given that the speed limit on many of
the winding rural roads is 45-55MPH, I'd be quite surprised if you
found that there were any cars impeding your progress.
>Anyway
>as soon as the trucks start pulling over for me when I am driving, or
>riding, and as soon as the drivers who are slower than me start pulling
>over and letting me by, I'll return the favor when I am on bicycle.
So it's OK to - say - run red lights because everyone else is doing
it. And it's perfectly reasonable to keep running them until other
folks stop doing that. Makes perfect sense.
>> Actually, slow-moving trucks are every bit as annoying as cyclists.
>> The difference is that the drivers of slow-moving trucks don't assume
>> a holier-than-thou attitude about their lack of speed, and they take
>> turn-outs when they are available.
>
>Not in my state. They hold up traffic.
They hold up traffic here, too. And they are just as annoying as
lightweight traffic doing the same.
>They even use the far left lane of the interstate Illegally.
Sounds to me like you need to direct that complaint to your local
cops. Alternatively, you could simply ignore your state's vehicle code
and use 'everyone else does it' as your defense should you get a
ticket. Be sure to let us know how successful that is. I could always
use a good laugh.
Scott Munro
wrote:
>tetraet...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <dku8ku4mft206pgn0...@4ax.com>, Rick Damiani wrote:
>
>>> Actually, a slow-moving vehicle is required to leave the roadway, if
>>> necessary, to allow other vehicles to pass. See CVC 21656, 21650(f)
>>> and (g), and 21654.
>>
>>Not in my state to the best of my knowledge.
>
>I'm really not sure why Jym posted this to groups that include folks
>outside of CA, since the dude he's talking about is in CA and
>commenting on CA laws and CA traffic.
>
>>And even in CA, there has
>>to be a minimum number of vehicles quened up.
>
>Only for CVC 21656. The other cited sections do not specify any
>particular number of vehicles.
The other cited sections also have nothing whatever to to with
requiring slow-moving vehicles to leave the roadway.
21650 (f) *permits* slow moving vehicles to travel temporarily on the
shoulder when it is safe, in order to allow faster traffic to pass.
The word "may" indicates that this is not a requirement.
21650 (g) *permits* cyclists to travel on the shoulder. Again, it does
not require it ("does not prohibit").
21654 requires a slow-moving vehicle to be "driven in the right-hand
lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or
curb." It has nothing whatever to do with turning out or moving off
the road.
A cyclist in California (and most other states) is simply not required
to leave the road every time a car approaches from behind and cannot
immediately pass. Just cope with it.
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> Brent P <tetraet...@yahoo.com> ites:
>
> > But cyclists following the law are not impeding traffic, they
> > are traffic.
...
> And second, since the matter came up, no, bicycles are *not*
> "traffic."
Yes, they are. Although this is a minor point, and I agree
with most of the things you've said in this post, but,
"traffic" includes all users of the road, including
pedestrians.
--
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Arthur L. Rubin
> The rule applies to "slow moving vehicles" (and bicycles as they have
> all the rights and responsibilities of vehicles) *but* a slow moving
> vehicle is defined for Section 21656 as one going slower than the
> normal speed of traffic at that particular time and place.
You're absolutely ...
wrong. The definition of "normal speed of traffic" obviously cannot
include the possible offending vehicles.
> If there
> are hundreds of bicycles and one car, the hundreds of bicycles don't
> have to pull over to let the single vehicle by.
True (unless some of the bicycles in the pack want to pass). If
there are hundreds of bicycles and five cars (or faster
bicycles), the hundreds of bicycles DO have to pull over
to let the (normally faster) vehicles by.
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 07:30:30 GMT, tetraet...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3d41ff46...@news.icehouse.net>, Scott Munro wrote:
> >Drivers usually care not one bit when passing me when I am cycling
> >about the legality of their pass.
>
> Yeah, I've noticed that. I personally find that that my state's law
> about slow traffic giving way rarely comes into play, since most
> drivers just zoom by regardless of a no-passing stripe or opposing
> traffic, apparently believing that the presence of a bycicle repeals
> both the rules of the road and the laws of physics.
Agree -- but not only regarding bicycles. I've been known to drive
25 down a mountain road (because low gear only goes up to 25, and,
in my opinion, the safe speed for conditions is 25-30) and
been passed by other vehicles (including bicycles) in no-passing
zones.