Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Don't Ride in the Middle to Left Side of the Lane

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Don't Ride in the Middle to Left Side of the Lane

Old 07-09-12, 01:33 AM
  #676  
Digital_Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by hagen2456
As for the killed cyclist, I only place a very small part of the responsibility on herself, as we have pretty universal FRAP here. The overwhelming responsibility is, of course, with the driver. But that’s not the issue, really. What this - and the other example of the blind curve - tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now Mr. Forester tells me that it isn’t VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do), you put your fate in the hands of drivers to a completely unnecessary extent.

And that brings us to your reasons for feeling that VC “works”. I’m sure it does. Most of the time. After all, most drivers are reasonable people who will, albeit grudgingly, cooperate with and accept cyclists regardless of their riding style. But don’t forget, just as History is written by the “winners”, so will reports on the success of VC be told by those who survive it (and that is the vast majority). However, with VC incorporating riding like in the examples I’ve given here and elsewhere, one is allowed to be rather skeptical of claims as to its being THE safe manner of riding. In the “tour de **** you” thread, it’s quite effectively described how it’s based on presumptions about traffic which are not realist but utopian. Mr. Forester has a very inflexible and immature way of understanding traffic (and apparently language, too), which doesn’t in my eyes inspire confidence.

The reasons you give for Dutch style infrastructure not working in the USA are not really that, but reasons why it will be difficult to implement. But that’s no different in principle, but only in degree, from the situation in most of the world, including Denmark and excluding probably only Holland. You should see the comments to Danish websites discussing the exclusion of cars from more streets, or lowered speed limits etc. The same bloodthirstiness, car centricity and vengefulness that you get in English speaking countries.
Hagen,

That is good to hear. As I said, had the motorist been acting in a safe and presumably legal manner then s/he would have waited until it was safe before attempting to pass another road user. What I don’t understand is how you can put any of the blame on the female cyclist. How was she to “blame” in even the smallest way for her death? She was minding her own business riding her bike on a public road.

You say that you know the road in question, and I will accept that. But unless you were actually there and witnessed the crash you cannot say that had she been riding FRAP that day that she would still be alive. That is speculation on your part. She might still be alive today or even if she had been riding FRAP she might have been hit.

If not by the car that passed in an unsafe and presumably illegal manner then by the car that the first driver was attempting to pass. But for you to set back and “armchair Monday morning/quarterback” (as we say here in The States) and say that had she been riding FRAP she’d still be alive is pure speculation on your part.

The driver who hit and killed her is the only one who is responsible for her death. And hopefully if in your country one is able to file a wrongful death suite te family of the deceased cyclist is or has done so.

And I do understand your confusion. You are used to riding FRAP on all but the narrowest of roads so to you riding anything other than FRAP doesn’t make sense and is something to be “feared.”

Using your “logic” then given all of the new stories that I have read and heard about here in Florida (my home state) I can “logically” presume that riding in the bike lane, or the shoulder or FRAP is dangerous and unsafe. As it would appear that more cyclists are hit and killed or at least injured every year who were riding in bike lanes, or on the shoulder, or who were riding FRAP vs. those who were taking the lane.

Let me ask you this question, if the woman in your account had been riding a motorcycle, or a scooter, or a moped would she have been hit? Had she been driving a car would she have been hit? I think that you know full well that in all of those cases that she would have been hit.

And I agree with you that the vast majority of motorists do NOT want to hit anyone be it another car or a person walking down the street or a person riding a bicycle. If for no other reason then they don’t want to risk damaging their “precious” little car, or having to wait around for the police to show up and take their statement.

If one cannot implement something, then how can it work? It won’t work because as I’ve said motorists do not want to give up any of “their” roads to bicycles, nor do home/property owners want to give up any of their yard to have bicycle specific infrastructure built/installed. So as I’ve asked given that there are clear obstacles to impending it how can it possibly work?

A couple of years ago I attended both of the “town hall meetings” on what to do with the Friendship Trail Bridge connecting Tampa with St. Petersburg. A number of people stood up and said how important it is/was to them as well as how much it meant to them. But then not to surprisingly when the treasurer announced how much it took in, in donations it was only a couple of hundred per month.

It appears it was only “important” to them as long as they didn’t actually have to pay to use it. Yet, they want, expect the cities of Tampa and St. Petersburg to pay for it, or for the Military to help pay to rehab it. Anything so that they themselves do not have to pay for something that some had claimed to use on a daily basis.

The bottom line is that while I’m sure that “everyone” in America wants to see infrastructure built “just” for bicycles, they are not willing to give up any of either “their” roads or their yards to do so.

That is why the infrastructure that you are used to would not work here in America. No one would be willing to actually pay for it. That and as has been said in other threads even when it is clear that it is dedicated to the use of bicycles only we still have to contend with pedestrians wanting to use it. As after all they did pay for it as well, so why shouldn’t they be able to use it?
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-09-12, 01:42 AM
  #677  
Digital_Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by sudo bike
I felt it worthy of note to call this out as plain ad hominem. Come now, John, you're better than that. hagen has been more clear than many-a-poster here and you know this.



In the case of a hill, I don't think so. The whole problem of the hill is that they are too close before you can see them, meaning they are close by the time they are visible, meaning you shouldn't have much trouble seeing them by the time they are visible. I would think in this situation you'd want to be further right to allow the motorist to either swerve/move left in time with enough space to avoid hitting you, or give you more room to bail to the right if you need to. At the very least you're more likely to have a glancing hit.
SB,

If one is driving their car up a hill that they know has limited sight distances then it is up to them to drive slowly enough so that if anything does "just appear" in the road in front of them that they have plenty of time to stop.

On my normal route I have a number of roads with sections that have limited sight distances. These are also narrow roads with sub-substandard width lanes. On these roads because of the limited sight distance I ALWAYS take the lane.

And so far I haven't had so much as a close call with any motorist on these roads.

It might have something to do with the FIVE taillights all blinking and/or the reflective vest that I wear. But so far I have not had a close call on those roads.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-09-12, 02:01 AM
  #678  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 8,050

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 255 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
The standard for laws allowing riders to control the lane any time it's reasonably necessary was supposedly enacted to preserve the principle riders 'really didn't belong on the roads'....



wild!



even wilder! so, repealing the laws allowing bicyclists to control lanes would leave riders with a law that supposedly requires dangerous operation in many circumstances.

what a staggering contradiction. the FTR laws supposedly require bicyclists to operate dangerously. But, john - you endlessly tell the bicycling community we're supposed to fight bike laws to ride under these FTR laws.
Let me emphatically state to you right here...

I did NOT HAVE AN INTERFACE WITH THAT DEBRIS!
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 07-09-12, 02:58 AM
  #679  
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
Hagen,

That is good to hear. As I said, had the motorist been acting in a safe and presumably legal manner then s/he would have waited until it was safe before attempting to pass another road user. What I don’t understand is how you can put any of the blame on the female cyclist. How was she to “blame” in even the smallest way for her death? She was minding her own business riding her bike on a public road.

You say that you know the road in question, and I will accept that. But unless you were actually there and witnessed the crash you cannot say that had she been riding FRAP that day that she would still be alive. That is speculation on your part. She might still be alive today or even if she had been riding FRAP she might have been hit.

If not by the car that passed in an unsafe and presumably illegal manner then by the car that the first driver was attempting to pass. But for you to set back and “armchair Monday morning/quarterback” (as we say here in The States) and say that had she been riding FRAP she’d still be alive is pure speculation on your part.

The driver who hit and killed her is the only one who is responsible for her death. And hopefully if in your country one is able to file a wrongful death suite te family of the deceased cyclist is or has done so.

And I do understand your confusion. You are used to riding FRAP on all but the narrowest of roads so to you riding anything other than FRAP doesn’t make sense and is something to be “feared.”

Using your “logic” then given all of the new stories that I have read and heard about here in Florida (my home state) I can “logically” presume that riding in the bike lane, or the shoulder or FRAP is dangerous and unsafe. As it would appear that more cyclists are hit and killed or at least injured every year who were riding in bike lanes, or on the shoulder, or who were riding FRAP vs. those who were taking the lane.

Let me ask you this question, if the woman in your account had been riding a motorcycle, or a scooter, or a moped would she have been hit? Had she been driving a car would she have been hit? I think that you know full well that in all of those cases that she would have been hit.

And I agree with you that the vast majority of motorists do NOT want to hit anyone be it another car or a person walking down the street or a person riding a bicycle. If for no other reason then they don’t want to risk damaging their “precious” little car, or having to wait around for the police to show up and take their statement.

If one cannot implement something, then how can it work? It won’t work because as I’ve said motorists do not want to give up any of “their” roads to bicycles, nor do home/property owners want to give up any of their yard to have bicycle specific infrastructure built/installed. So as I’ve asked given that there are clear obstacles to impending it how can it possibly work?

A couple of years ago I attended both of the “town hall meetings” on what to do with the Friendship Trail Bridge connecting Tampa with St. Petersburg. A number of people stood up and said how important it is/was to them as well as how much it meant to them. But then not to surprisingly when the treasurer announced how much it took in, in donations it was only a couple of hundred per month.

It appears it was only “important” to them as long as they didn’t actually have to pay to use it. Yet, they want, expect the cities of Tampa and St. Petersburg to pay for it, or for the Military to help pay to rehab it. Anything so that they themselves do not have to pay for something that some had claimed to use on a daily basis.

The bottom line is that while I’m sure that “everyone” in America wants to see infrastructure built “just” for bicycles, they are not willing to give up any of either “their” roads or their yards to do so.

That is why the infrastructure that you are used to would not work here in America. No one would be willing to actually pay for it. That and as has been said in other threads even when it is clear that it is dedicated to the use of bicycles only we still have to contend with pedestrians wanting to use it. As after all they did pay for it as well, so why shouldn’t they be able to use it?
Again, I feel that I've allready answered most of your points...

With FRAP laws (that allow you "take a lane if absolutely necessary"), the cycklis in question should have been close to the roadside in that place. So she may be seen as having a smaller portion of the guilt. The driver who hit her, though, will have the full ("strict") liability, and that's fine with me! The possibility that she might have been hit even FRAP is extremely much lower, but can't be ruled out, of course.

The difference between mopeds and bikes on the one side, and motorcyclists and cars on the other, is that we have the privilege of keeping out of the way of the cars. A car or a motorcycle would certainly have been hit if they had been in the cyclist's place at that time.

I will not reject your experience or your impression that cyclists riding FRAP are more likely to be hit in Florida. However, Walker's investigation in GB seems to indicate otherwise: https://www.bhsi.org/walkerfigs.pdf. As British and American conditions for cyclists are largely similar in respect to the attitudes of drivers to cyclists, I would say that it's likely that it would count for Florida (and most of the world), too.

Bike infrastructure implementation is bound to be varying locally (as it does in the USA) as long as it's not a national issue as in Holland. That's what we see in Denmark, Sweden etc. That pedestrians will be found using it (and that you'll find parked cars, trash bins etc. on the bike paths) is a phenomenon that is rare here, where most people are accustomed to bikes, and a lot less rare in Sweden, where fewer people bike. Seems to vary with the mode share. The trouble is not in "making it work", or making people use it, but in implementing it. But most experience seems to point to the "build it and it will be used" if it is in any way build sensibly (and that it can be used for going from A to B seems to be more important than it being top class). Not from one day to the other, of course, in traffic cultures that are very car centered. Further, it's a process that can't stand alone but must be followed by other actions like "shared streets", lower speed limits in city centres, etc.

I think the important thing to remember is that it's not a sudden revolution. It's a process. And you can't deny that in some places in the USA this process has started, and in some of those seems quite succesfull.
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 07-09-12, 09:26 AM
  #680  
sudo bike
Bicikli Huszár
 
sudo bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116

Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
SB,

If one is driving their car up a hill that they know has limited sight distances then it is up to them to drive slowly enough so that if anything does "just appear" in the road in front of them that they have plenty of time to stop.
Absolutely, and I don't disagree that responsibility exists. But hagen's point seems to be that in the real world, not everyone follows their responsibilities, and it may not be prudent to plan around them doing so. Basically, that you want to plan around what motorists probably will, or at least might unfortunately do. Like how we plan around the inevitable silly things drivers pull (we all know that feeling you get when you just know that JAM is about to do something dumb ); for practical purposes, it may be wise to plan around the jerk being a jerk.
And so far I haven't had so much as a close call with any motorist on these roads.
Most people have some modicum of control of their vehicle; combined with needing the situation to coincidentally arise that they happened to reach you at the poorest point of the crest, I wouldn't expect it to be a common occurrence. But it could happen, and he makes a valid point about it being a concern.

It might have something to do with the FIVE taillights all blinking and/or the reflective vest that I wear. But so far I have not had a close call on those roads.
That always helps!
sudo bike is offline  
Old 07-09-12, 09:27 AM
  #681  
gcottay
Senior Member
 
gcottay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Green Valley AZ
Posts: 3,770

Bikes: Trice Q; Volae Century; TT 3.4

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by hagen2456
. . . .With FRAP laws (that allow you "take a lane if absolutely necessary) . . . .
Absolute necessity? Is there anywhere in the world where a law of this description exists?
gcottay is offline  
Old 07-09-12, 12:22 PM
  #682  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by gcottay
Absolute necessity? Is there anywhere in the world where a law of this description exists?
\

many of the states laws about taking the lane are tempered with not 'absolute necessity' but 'when reasonably necessary'.

That is, many states predicate a reasonable necessity, not an absolute necessity, for bicyclists. funny, eh?

And this moderation is certainly an expected standard of operating behavior, even if not statutorily dictated.

And this is at the core of the discussion of the original post - riders seemingly unnecessarily default positioned in the left tire track of (presumably rural) two lane high speed roadways.

Last edited by Bekologist; 07-09-12 at 12:26 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 07-09-12, 12:32 PM
  #683  
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gcottay
Absolute necessity? Is there anywhere in the world where a law of this description exists?
Nah. I just don't remember the exact phrasing
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 07-09-12, 04:05 PM
  #684  
Digital_Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by hagen2456
Again, I feel that I’ve already answered most of your points...

With FRAP laws (that allow you “take a lane if absolutely necessary”), the cyclist in question should have been close to the roadside in that place. So she may be seen as having a smaller portion of the guilt. The driver who hit her, though, will have the full (“strict”) liability, and that’s fine with me! The possibility that she might have been hit even FRAP is extremely much lower, but can’t be ruled out, of course.

The difference between mopeds and bikes on the one side, and motorcyclists and cars on the other, is that we have the privilege of keeping out of the way of the cars. A car or a motorcycle would certainly have been hit if they had been in the cyclist’s place at that time.

I will not reject your experience or your impression that cyclists riding FRAP are more likely to be hit in Florida. However, Walker’s investigation in GB seems to indicate otherwise: https://www.bhsi.org/walkerfigs.pdf. As British and American conditions for cyclists are largely similar in respect to the attitudes of drivers to cyclists, I would say that it’s likely that it would count for Florida (and most of the world), too.

Bike infrastructure implementation is bound to be varying locally (as it does in the USA) as long as it’s not a national issue as in Holland. That’s what we see in Denmark, Sweden etc. That pedestrians will be found using it (and that you’ll find parked cars, trash bins etc. on the bike paths) is a phenomenon that is rare here, where most people are accustomed to bikes, and a lot less rare in Sweden, where fewer people bike. Seems to vary with the mode share. The trouble is not in “making it work”, or making people use it, but in implementing it. But most experience seems to point to the “build it and it will be used” if it is in any way build sensibly (and that it can be used for going from A to B seems to be more important than it being top class). Not from one day to the other, of course, in traffic cultures that are very car centered. Further, it’s a process that can’t stand alone but must be followed by other actions like “shared streets”, lower speed limits in city centres, etc.

I think the important thing to remember is that it’s not a sudden revolution. It’s a process. And you can’t deny that in some places in the USA this process has started, and in some of those seems quite successful.
Hagen,

You still do not get it, the female cyclist does not share any of the responsibility for having been hit and killed. This is not a “strict liability case,” this is a case of an arsehole who disregarded common sense and safe road practices for their own selfish ends.

Again, unless you were actually there and witnessed the crash in question that is pure speculation on your part. She might still be alive today or she might still be just as dead as she is now.

No, the operator of EVERY vehicle on the road is responsible for NOT hitting any other road user. It was the responsibility of the motorist who hit and killed the woman on her bicycle NOT to have hit her in the first place. It was not her “responsibility” to get out of his way. It was the other driver’s responsibility NOT to have hit her, period.

You do know, do you not, that studies and the real world are often vastly different? And that just because a study says something that does not necessarily make it true.

I’m glad that it is a rare phenomenon where you live, but trust me here in The States it isn’t all that rare. In some places it is an everyday occurrence.

And as I have already said, in most US cities it is damned near next to impossible to get it implemented in the first place because motorists do not want to give up any of “their” road to cyclists and home/property owners do not want to give up any of their land to have it built. There is a phenomenon that is well known over here in the USA it’s called the “Not In My Backyard” syndrome. Mean that “everyone” wants something done to correct/fix something until it ends up in their backyard.

Then they come up with a “million” reasons why it can’t or shouldn’t be done. That sadly is what we cyclists have to deal with in most (but not all) US cities.

Yes, I do know that there are plenty of cities that have successfully integrated bicycle specific infrastructure into their traffic planning, but if I am not mistaken those cities had populations that were already open to the idea of alternate modes of transportation.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-09-12, 04:13 PM
  #685  
Digital_Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by sudo bike
Absolutely, and I don't disagree that responsibility exists. But hagen's point seems to be that in the real world, not everyone follows their responsibilities, and it may not be prudent to plan around them doing so. Basically, that you want to plan around what motorists probably will, or at least might unfortunately do. Like how we plan around the inevitable silly things drivers pull (we all know that feeling you get when you just know that JAM is about to do something dumb ); for practical purposes, it may be wise to plan around the jerk being a jerk.
Agreed, and I plan on the fact that I realize that to most motorists that for whatever reason that I am "invisible" to them that I have multiple head and taillights and vest. To increase my chances of being seen.

Originally Posted by sudo bike
Most people have some modicum of control of their vehicle; combined with needing the situation to coincidentally arise that they happened to reach you at the poorest point of the crest, I wouldn't expect it to be a common occurrence. But it could happen, and he makes a valid point about it being a concern.
Agreed, and as I said to Hagen I think that we can agree that (with the exception of a very small minority) that no one wants to hit or injure or kill anyone. They just want to go from Point A to Point B as fast as possible without having to "hit" their brake pedal.

Originally Posted by sudo bike
That always helps!
Just the other night while I was out riding I had a woman who was walking her dog compliment me on my lights. Saying that it made me look "larger" and that from behind I looked like a motorcycle.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-09-12, 04:54 PM
  #686  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,240
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4221 Post(s)
Liked 1,321 Times in 916 Posts
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
No, the operator of EVERY vehicle on the road is responsible for NOT hitting any other road user. It was the responsibility of the motorist who hit and killed the woman on her bicycle NOT to have hit her in the first place. It was not her “responsibility” to get out of his way. It was the other driver’s responsibility NOT to have hit her, period.
No, this is wrong.

It's the responsibility of every roadway user to take due care to avoid collisions. One key reason is that you can't make the other person take due care (when they, for whatever reason, fail to take due care).

This is the idea behind defensive driving.
njkayaker is online now  
Old 07-09-12, 05:22 PM
  #687  
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
Hagen,

You still do not get it, the female cyclist does not share any of the responsibility for having been hit and killed. This is not a “strict liability case,” this is a case of an arsehole who disregarded common sense and safe road practices for their own selfish ends.

Again, unless you were actually there and witnessed the crash in question that is pure speculation on your part. She might still be alive today or she might still be just as dead as she is now.

No, the operator of EVERY vehicle on the road is responsible for NOT hitting any other road user. It was the responsibility of the motorist who hit and killed the woman on her bicycle NOT to have hit her in the first place. It was not her “responsibility” to get out of his way. It was the other driver’s responsibility NOT to have hit her, period.
I haven't read the police report of that case, but it would be extremely surprising if it didn't make a note of her NOT riding FRAP. Simply because they must note every mistake or fault made by someone who's in a crash. This means that she'll be aportioned a tiny bit of the "guilt". But of course, the overwhelming guilt lies with the driver, as well as the total (strict) responsibility. And that is as it should be.

What njkayaker says sounds reasonable to me. One bloody never knows what others may do in traffic - and in the case of narrow roads, taking the lane will work fine vis-a-vis the majority of drivers, but not when you encounter the freaks. Like in the case of the woman cyclist killed on that hill. They're out there waiting to get you...
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 04-07-13, 04:45 PM
  #688  
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
This: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post15359037

Edit: Post #18. The link doesn't seem to point directly to it.
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 04-07-13, 07:44 PM
  #689  
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Posts: 1,206

Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
This appears to be an old zombie thread that was resurrected from nearly nine months in the grave by the poster above me, I have already made my position quite clear on the topic of this discussion in a number of other threads and so I will simple make my reply via. quoting some of my previous posts in other threads:



Originally Posted by turbo1889
Most all of the above is good.

On thing to add from my own experience at least on the kind of roads we have up here in Montana. You want to be either out of the main traffic lane to the right of the white fog line riding on the shoulder edge of the road or you want to be in the lane riding on the left edge of the right tire track worn into the pavement. You DO NOT want to be half way inbetween those two riding on the white line or just to the left of it. This is the "slicing zone". There is a phrase up here known as "Getting Sliced" which means a close pass so close that there is physical contact between the right side of the motor vehicle and its protrusions including (and especially) the right side mirror and the left side of the cyclist. A high speed sliding contact that can tear you up good. Stay out of the "slicing zone" and either be in the main traffic lane far enough that cars have to at least straddle the line to pass you or stay out of the main traffic lane and ride on the shoulder edge to the right of the white line far enough that no part of you is hanging out over the white line (your left elbow, left shoulder, or left end of the handlebars usually being your most left protrusion). Depending on road and traffic conditions pick one or the other and go with it until the situation changes sufficiently to change methods. Don't change back and forth rapidly between the two methods on the same road because it will make you erratic for other road users to judge your intentions.

There are hardly any marked lanes up here that are wide enough to safely share, things might be a little different where there are. If you are in a similar situation where most if not all marked lanes are not wide enough for safe sharing then you would be wise to also adopt the rule of staying out of the "slicing zone" and be either in the lane or out of it and not half way inbetween.
Originally Posted by turbo1889
Okay after scowering the net for diagrams and photo's and doing some work in MS-paint this is the best way I can explain it:






Riding in a Narrow Lane vs. Sharing a Wide Lane:





Riding in a Narrow Lane:





Sharing a Wide Lane (Minimum Acceptable Width for Sharing):





IN, OUT, & SLICE ZONE:









Examples:






Originally Posted by turbo1889
On roads where heavy vehicle traffic is moving at speeds in excess of 25-mph and especially if speeds are 45+ mph I would much prefer a road that has a beautiful wide shoulder edge like this to ride on in the "Out" position:











For in town traffic where speed limits do not exceed 25mph I find it much easier and safer to always ride "IN" or as I call it "ALL IN" and take a center lane position and ride as if I were a motorcycle:



Originally Posted by turbo1889
Yes, I understand all that. Point is Don't Make a Habit of Continuously Riding in the Slice Zone. Yes, there are times where someone passes you too closely where you have to slip over into it but you shouldn't be there in the first place and it is only to be used as an escape zone of last resort. Get "IN" or get "OUT" and only slip over to the side if you have to and when you do watch out for the guy right behind the guy who forced you over because he may try to force you over even further possibly right off the road and make you take a spill (been there). If you are riding in the "Slice Zone" and your not "OUT" but your not "IN" far enough then the close passes you get and potentially injury and death is partially your fault because your lane position is about the same as wearing a big sign on your back saying "Please pass me too closely, I'm begging you to do so."




In my mind, in a perfect world every road with heavy vehicle traffic moving at speeds over 45-mph would at the very least have a nice wide clean shoulder edge with equal quality pavement for us cyclist to ride in the "OUT" position because we don't have a chance of being able to keep up with traffic. And in all 25-mph or less speed (mainly in town) roads full integration "ALL IN" would be considered the norm since we can keep up and I have found that is the safest way to ride in that kind of low speed traffic.


It is not, however, a perfect world and there are a whole lot of numb skulls out there who always everywhere want all bicycles "OUT of their way" and do really dumb stuff like making bike lanes in door zones on in-town low speed roads where a cyclist has no trouble keeping up with heavy vehicle traffic and in truth is more often then not the traffic that is being impeded by all those big vehicles that take up so much space when they start backing up bumper to bumper. And on the other end of the spectrum there are a few nuts out there that will ride "ALL IN" center of lane never giving anything on a 65+ mph speed limit two lane road with a beautiful shoulder edge like in the picture above in heavy traffic backing people up for miles because they can't pass because of a steady stream of traffic coming the other way as well. Granted they are far less common then all the people that want bicyclists off the road and out of their way and better yet out of their sight but they do exist I've seen a couple of them in action over the years. It's a simple matter of speed differential, when there is little or no speed differential then traffic can fully integrate. When there is a large speed differential then it would be preferable for us to be able to ride out of the main flow, but on many roads that isn't possible so we have to do what we have to do to stay alive and not get "Sliced" to ribbons by high speed vehicles passing too closely.


And, yes, until you get used to it and people around your area get used to you. You will run into this kind of response from a number of motorists:


https://www.beezodogsplace.com/wp-con...76fa04df_c.jpg


It will die down after a while once people get used to you on your daily commute but it never completely goes away.

Last edited by turbo1889; 04-07-13 at 07:54 PM.
turbo1889 is offline  
Old 04-07-13, 07:50 PM
  #690  
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Posts: 1,206

Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Continued from above:

Originally Posted by turbo1889
Another Good Explanation:




Originally Posted by turbo1889
And don't get me wrong, on roads where both the posted speed limit and the speed of traffic is more then 25mph and especially if it is 45+mph I would much prefer to ride in the "Out" position and would much prefer that there exist a sufficient width of sufficiently clean pavement of sufficient quality to safely ride in that position. I don't like making people wait to pass and I do want to be courteous and not unduly inconvenience other road users. But if the shoulder is not sufficient to safely and effectively ride in the "Out" position then I'm going to ride in the "In" position on such roads.


On roads with 25-mph or less speed limit I always ride "ALL IN" except for when ascending a long steep hill that really slows me down and there is a place to safely and effectively ride in the "Out" position while I'm slowed down climbing that hill but as soon as I've conquered the hill I'm back to riding "ALL IN" as soon as I can safely merge back into the main traffic flow. I feel absolutely NO guilt doing this and as far as I'm concerned on such roads I'm actually performing a public service by helping traffic immediately around me move at a smoother pace just under or at the speed limit with no racing at 35+mph and breaking the speed limit in the process and endangering others especially pedestrians up to the next red light to hurry up and wait in boxed up clumps like a lot of cagers like to drive on such roads.


For narrow roads with a high traffic density that are 45+mph roads that have no place to safely an effectively ride in the "Out" position I certainly prefer an alternate route and will certainly take it if a better one is available. But if I have to use them I will, just try to limit that situation if possible and look for a better option.


Anyway, that is what works best for me ~ YMMV.
Originally Posted by turbo1889
Bike lanes do have a time and a place where they are appropriate if set up correctly, that is by no means everywhere or anyway:

#1 ~ When there is NOT "on street parking" to the right of the main traffic lane of any type or form.
----- ----- Bike lanes should never be built on roads with on street parking. On such roads bikes should use the main lanes and "take the lane."
----- ----- Any road with on street parking should never have a speed limit greater then 25mph for safety reasons regardless of bike presence or not.
#2 ~ On roadways where both the legal speed limit and the speed of heavy vehicle traffic normally exceeds 25mph cycle lanes do become appropriate in some situations.
----- ----- Bike lanes should never be built on roads with speeds of 25mph. or less. Bikes should use the main lanes and "take the lane" on such roads.
#3 ~ When both the legal speed limit and the speed of heavy vehicle traffic exceeds 45mph at sufficient traffic density properly set up bike lanes become highly desirable. Extra Especially on even higher speed roads or when the road has heavy full size vehicle traffic volumes and/or is windy enough or passing through hilly enough country that visibility is significantly reduced such that at the large speed differential between cycle traffic and heavy vehicle traffic, said heavy vehicles may not physically be able to see a cyclist ahead in the main traffic lane until they are so close that it would be difficult or impossible to slow down in time to avoid hitting the cyclist from the rear when rounding a curve or cresting the top of a hill.

In such cases where a bike lane is provided:

----- The bike lane(s) should NOT be the gutter.
----- The bike lane(s) should be paved and in no worse condition then any other travel lane.
----- The bike lane(s) should be at least 4-feet wide; preferably wider for a single bike lane.
----- The bike lane(s) should have a dividing zone between the bicycle lane and the main vehicle lanes consisting of two white fog lines at least a foot apart from each other to provide a little "elbow room" between the main lanes and the cycle lane. Not just a single white fog line as normal. Preferably shallow rounded edge rumble strips set down in twenty foot or so lengths with twenty foot lengths of empty space in-between them to allow cyclists to merge in and out of the cycle lane without having to ride on the rumble strips should be cut into the divider space between the two white lines. As I said these rumble strips should be cut shallow and with rounded edges so they can be ridden over without trouble by cyclists if need be, but they should be there to wake up wandering motorists who drift to the right into the cycle lane.
----- Should have a shoulder edge (does not have to be paved) to the right of the bike lane of sufficient width for stalled or wrecked heavy vehicles to be moved to without blocking the bike lane.
----- Like This (assume major high traffic 5-lane 45+mph highway + single bicycle lanes + gravel shoulder on each side):





When the bike lane is routed through a high speed U.S. type intersection:
----- The bike lane(s) should be properly routed through intersections so that straight through cycle traffic is NOT to the right of right turn only lanes and should be set up such that heavy vehicle traffic attempting to merge over into the right hand turn only lane has sufficient distance to do so safely without "right hooking" or side-swiping cyclists and pavement markings and signage should be clearly provided indicating that through traffic cyclist have right of way and right turning heavy vehicles must merge over safely and respectfully across the straight through cycle lane.
----- The bike lane(s) should be properly set up so that left turning cycle traffic may "double step, two straights with a loop in the middle on the island" a left hand turn if heavy vehicle traffic is too heavy to allow them to safely merge over into the main vehicular left hand turn lane of the intersection.
----- Like This (assume traffic light controlled intersection of two major high traffic 45+mph highways):

Originally Posted by turbo1889
Depends on conditions. Having the option to use either method and having the intersection deliberately set-up to accommodate either method so that the cyclist depending on conditions and skill level can use whichever of the two methods they choose is the ideal situation in my opinion.

What you call a "pedestrian style left" is what I refer to as a "double step, two straights with a stop-&-rotate or a loop in the middle left turn technique". When there is sufficient room to allow me to glide over to the left hand turn lane without impeding the flow of other traffic or putting myself in undue danger I most certainly do so and use the left hand turn lane like any other vehicle. But when its a double thick wall of high speed 45+ mph heavy vehicle traffic packed together like sardines in a can I don't dare try it and will go straight through the intersection and if there is no right hand turn lane I pop up on the curve and "off road ba-ha" a tight loop to put me into position to cross again with the other flow of traffic when the light changes and go straight through again and complete my left. Or in the case where there is a right hand turn lane on the opposite corner of the cross road I stop on the line between the right most straight through lane and the right hand turn lane and put my feet down and lift the bike between my legs and twist it 90-degrees and roll back slightly to put myself into position to cross as soon as the light changes. In fact there is one intersection where I have worn a loop path in the weeds on one corner because I have "off road ba-ha-ed" a loop on that corner so many times to make a left hand turn like that and I've seen a couple other cyclists use the path I wore into that corner to make the same kind of left hand turn there once I formed the path for that purpose by repeat use.

My proposed intersection layout accommodates this style of making a left hand turn by building a small loop into the right hand turn island on each corner of the intersection. If you noticed the through lines show both options available on that intersection at the cyclists discretion. Here they are separated out:







I'm not saying I've got all the answers or that anything I come up with is close to perfect but I think I could do a lot better for combined accommodation than most of the stuff I've seen them implement as supposed bicycle infrastructure. More often then not where they do build bicycle lanes is where you don't need them (low speed in town traffic areas) and using them is more dangerous then using the regular traffic lanes and where they are needed (high speed roadways where we don't have a prayer of keeping up with heavy vehicle traffic) they don't implement them or they are very poorly set-up especially as to how they are routed through the intersections.
turbo1889 is offline  
Old 04-07-13, 08:34 PM
  #691  
Chris516
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058

Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by turbo1889
Continued from above:
I disagree with the last ones' showing a four-lane road intersection w/ the green grass. I will 'take the lane', in the outside lane and cross over to the turn lane, before making a left turn. I refuse to ride on the shoulder, on a road like that.
Chris516 is offline  
Old 04-08-13, 10:01 AM
  #692  
plustax
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 222

Bikes: 90's Campione,90's trek multitrack,2005 trek 3700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
When I was on the sides of the lane I used to get buzzed by motorists or they would simply pass with inches to spare. This stopped when I was in the middle of the lane. I use my ears mirror and check my 6 when I feel it is appropriate.

Haven't had a problem doing this for over two years now. I'm not in what you'd call a bike friendly area either. Course the best plan is to avoid high traffic 60+ mph roads in the first place. If you train on em that is another story though.
plustax is offline  
Old 04-08-13, 10:39 AM
  #693  
Chris516
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058

Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by plustax
When I was on the sides of the lane I used to get buzzed by motorists or they would simply pass with inches to spare. This stopped when I was in the middle of the lane. I use my ears mirror and check my 6 when I feel it is appropriate.

Haven't had a problem doing this for over two years now. I'm not in what you'd call a bike friendly area either. Course the best plan is to avoid high traffic 60+ mph roads in the first place. If you train on em that is another story though.
+10
Chris516 is offline  
Old 04-08-13, 11:59 AM
  #694  
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Interesting. You guys COMPLETELY ignore the points I make. I give up.
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 04-08-13, 10:51 PM
  #695  
KD5NRH
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697

Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts


Not a great example; the car behind me was holding far enough back that I didn't bother with a more aggressive lane position. On the other hand, had he been closer, I would have been dead center in the lane to make it clear that it's a bad time to pass over a solid yellow, climbing a hill, in a curve. As soon as the oncoming (70mph) car was clear, I waved the one behind me through. He waved and gave me more than half the road in clearance.

FWIW, I grew up in the fields on both sides of this shot; my mom inherited the land to the right from my granddad, from about a half mile back to a half mile ahead) and my cousins own the land on the left. That innocent looking bit of curve has caused some spectacular wrecks over the years from idiots hitting it at 90+ and finding out what it means to lose downforce (from cresting a hill too fast) while trying to steer at high speed. I've seen single car wrecks that left parts strewn past the fencelines on both sides of the road, while the majority of the frame was still on the road. It's impressive what can happen when somebody vastly exceeds the capabilities of their vehicle to the point where it tears itself apart that badly.
KD5NRH is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 11:17 AM
  #696  
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.430

A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic ...
Since my moving average is in the high 20s on 30 mph speed limit (or less) arterials I almost always take the left side of the lane. If you do not approve of my taking the full vehicle lane you are free to attempt to change this law...
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 03:45 PM
  #697  
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Posts: 1,206

Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Although others on this thread may have expressed other views. The OP of the thread was specifically addressing high speed roadways (specifically 55mph roads) where cyclists were riding "a foot or two to the right of the double yellow" (obviously in the left side of the lane).

I do personally agree with part of the OP's complaint. I will agree that riding in the left tire track of a lane (apparently what he is describing) blocking traffic when you are moving at a speed which is way slow for the speed of the road for no other reason then just because you think you have a right to do so is pretty dense and dumb. A perfectly reasonable, safe and sane thing to do if you are indeed traveling at the speed of the road in question (for example doing 22-23mph on a bicycle on a road with a 25mph speed limit). I also believe that on a narrow two lane high speed roadway (my definition of "high speed roadway" = human pedal powered cyclist doesn't have a chance of even coming close to keeping up with the speed) that does not have a shoulder edge outside the white line that is a safe, sane, and effective place to ride then you as a cyclist as a matter of safety (all FRAP laws in all states have a safety exception to them) should ride in the right tire track of the main lane far enough out into the main lane that passing vehicles don't have room to try to squeeze past you in the same lane with another oncoming vehicle in the other lane. I do strongly disagree with the OP that on such narrow two lane high speed roadways the cyclist should ride in what I call "The Slice Zone" where their lane position is no different then hanging a big sign on their back begging people to pass them too closely with oncoming traffic and injure or kill them and/or cause a collision with oncoming traffic in the other lane.

On high speed roadways if there is a safe, sane, and effective spot to ride "Out" of the main traffic lane to the right of the white line then I believe the cyclist has an obligation to do so, at least in a civilized society where people are supposed to treat each other with respect. But where there isn't a safe, sane, and effective spot to ride "Out" then you need to ride "In" and in the name of safety you need to stay out of "The Slice Zone" and ride far enough in so that your lane position isn't begging people to pass you too closely. Think of it this way, you should leave enough room to your left so that a motorcycle could safely pass you in the same lane (your riding in the right tire track and him passing you in the left tire track) but a car must pass you just like they would pass another car by swinging wide. Now on low speed roads where we as cyclists can keep up, then we have absolutely no obligation to stay to the right and I prefer a middle of the lane position and when I need to make myself more visible to someone who might try to take a left across my path without yielding as required for left turning traffic crossing straight through traffic I'll slip over into the left tire track for a short period.

Long story short, on slow speed roads where we can keep up (at least with traffic that isn't trying to break the speed limit - they don't count in my opinion - I'm not going to help you break the law) we have no obligation to stay to the right to allow others to pass with ease. On high speed roads where we don't have a prayer of keeping up with traffic and road conditions allow us to safely, sanely, and effectively ride far to the right, outside of the main traffic lanes, to the right of the white line then we should most certainly do so unless we are preparing for a left turn or passing an obstruction or something along those lines. When we are on a high speed road and road conditions don't allow us to safely, sanely, or effectively ride "Out" then we have no choice but to ride "In" because of road conditions and we should do so accordingly and ride far enough "In" so that we are out of "The Slicing Zone". Anyone demanding that I ride in "The Slicing Zone" is demanding I risk my safety when the law does not require me to do so and in-fact specifically states that I am not required to do so, and at least in my own state specifically in the law states that the right side tire track is where a cyclist should ride in the main lane if the conditions of the road do not allow the cyclist to safely FRAP.




What my philosophy boils down to is:

#1 ~ Get In, or Get Out, Pick one or the other based on road conditions, don't be in the middle in-between those two extremes or your going to get "Sliced". Don't make a habit of riding in the "Slice Zone".

#2 ~ On high speed roads where you don't have a prayer of keeping up (45+mph roads unless you have a really big hill your going down), if you can safely, sanely, and effectively ride "Out" of the main flow of traffic to the right of the white line then make a habit of doing so it is the civilized and respectful thing to do for other road users.

#3 ~ On low speed roads where you can keep up (25mph or slower speed limit roads if you are an adequately strong cyclist) then you should not only ride "In" but rather you should be "All In!" and ride in traffic just as if you were riding a motor cycle. Your human powered motor is capable of keeping up so you have no reason not to consider yourself an equal and act accordingly with only a pinch of extra caution due to the fact that you don't have a cage around you and are more exposed in a collision, the same pinch of extra caution that someone riding a motorcycle would also use. You need no more then that.

#4 ~ On high speed roads where you don't have a prayer of keeping up but road conditions do not allow you to safely, sanely, and effectively ride "Out" of the main flow of traffic to the right of the white line outside of the main traffic lane. Then you have no choice but to ride "In" and you should normally ride in the right tire track. You should not try to ride on the white line or anywhere else to the right of the right tire track which is "The Slice Zone" where your lane position is encouraging, even begging, people to pass you too closely and you are putting yourself in danger when there is a specific exception to the FRAP law specifically for such situations that says you don't have to risk your own safety by riding too far to the right.

Last edited by turbo1889; 04-09-13 at 04:03 PM.
turbo1889 is offline  
Old 04-11-13, 08:21 PM
  #698  
lungdoc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Niagara Canada
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks turbo1889, those are absolutely fantastic posts, those pictures are excellent and should be seen by all cyclists in my opinion. Very well illustrated.
lungdoc is offline  
Old 04-11-13, 09:44 PM
  #699  
009jim
Senior Member
 
009jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,289

Bikes: Giant CRX3, Trek 7100

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
I'm neutral on this topic but here's something to consider:- If you are the sort of person who won't let anything prevent them from exercising their god given right to be in the middle of the lane; would you also stand in line at the bank when there is a guy behind about the rob the place whose willing to shoot anyone in his way? In other words, do people who demand their rights, always demand their rights, or only when they think they won't get hurt? Next question would be - how do you now whether you might get hurt before you get hurt?
009jim is offline  
Old 04-12-13, 08:54 AM
  #700  
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by 009jim
I'm neutral on this topic but here's something to consider:- If you are the sort of person who won't let anything prevent them from exercising their god given right to be in the middle of the lane; would you also stand in line at the bank when there is a guy behind about the rob the place whose willing to shoot anyone in his way? In other words, do people who demand their rights, always demand their rights, or only when they think they won't get hurt? Next question would be - how do you now whether you might get hurt before you get hurt?
if i am cycling significantly slower than traffic (e.g. ~10 mph) i move as far right as i deem safe.

would you also stand in line at the bank when there is a guy behind about the rob the place whose willing to shoot anyone in his way?
would you be willing to stand in line at the bank when there is a guy about the [sic] create a ludicrous strawman whose [sic] willing to make anyone in his way groan?

or only when they think they won't get hurt? Next question would be - how do you now whether you might get hurt before you get hurt?
unfortunately the tens of thousands of human beings unnecessarily slaughtered each year by motorists can no longer ask themselves this question.
spare_wheel is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.