Digital_Cowboy

That at least I/we can agree with you on. It is also Detroit's and Madison Ave's fault for "brainwashing" the American population into thinking that they are not a "whole" person unless they have the latest and greatest car sitting in their garage. And not just one, but one per every licensed driver within the household.

Do we really need to have so many cars on the road that most of them have just ONE occupant? There's another thread asking what would happen if Americans "woke up and realized" that they didn't NEED a new car. And instead went out and bought used cars.

Sadly the downside is how many car dealerships/factories would go out of business if that happened? And as a result of that how many people would be out of work?

Digital_Cowboy

+1,000

Those are all very good, and very valid questions.

Digital_Cowboy

Hmm, I could have sworn that when I pointed out that cyclists are the ones who are in the best position to determine when it is and isn't safe for them to move over that you responded that that wasn't so. And by doing so implied that motorists were somehow because they were motorists had a better idea of when and where it's safe to move over.

How does my wanting to protect my safety infer that I have some sort of "attitude?" As I said given that cyclists have the most to loose if an area that someone thinks is "safe" turns out not to be safe, how does that infer that a person has an "attitude?"

Okay, if a cyclist isn't the best person to judge when and where it's safe to pull/move over and it isn't going to be a motorist, than who is going to make the determination? You do know that the same road feels very different depending on the type of vehicle one is using to travel on it, right? A road that feels as smooth as silk to an 18-wheeler is going to be bumpy to a person in a 'Vette, and will be even worse for a cyclist, you do get that, right?

Digital_Cowboy

Again, agreed. But it's still enough that one has to shake their head and wonder. Like tonight on my home from the fireworks. I had some ass hat JAM traveling in the opposite direction to me yell at me to get on the sidewalk.

Good questions, good questions. What is it about that inside lane that "scares" some people into not changing lanes? What is it about some peoples destination that is so important that they can't take a few seconds/minutes out of their oh so busy schedule that they either can't change lanes or that it'll "kill" them to slow down behind a cyclist for a few seconds/minutes?

SweetLou

Oh, that sounds good. Then you won't mind being behind me on such roads, since you don't want me to alter my life to accommodate you.

Or do you really mean, that cyclists should accommodate motorists, but motorists are allowed to be selfish? That motorists are not being selfish when they harass a cyclists because the cyclist is in the way of the fast vehicle? I know it would be very accommodating of a cyclists to stop and start on a hill. I would rather keep any momentum I have then to start up again and again on a hill.

What works best is following the laws. It sounds like the road in question, as stated above, is used by people driving sports cars and motorcyclists for the same reason that a cyclists wants to ride this road. So you want the users of the road that accommodates the other users to have a place to go. If I am on my way to work, does that trump someone going shoe shopping? Or does the faster vehicle still trump the slower vehicle. If I have to pull over to allow the faster vehicle pass, am I not spending more time getting from point a to point b than if I just keep riding?

The last time I looked, the laws that are made to allow safe road travel to all users don't mention the speed of the vehicles when passing, except that they are not allowed to exceed the maximum speed limit. They could have easily have written that into the law instead of the first come, first serve model. They could have easily have made the law for the slow vehicle be responsible in making sure that the faster vehicle can pass safely. Instead, the made it the responsibility of passing vehicle to safely overtake the slower.

dougmc

You've highlighted a difference when there really isn't one.

Most people move over just fine for these things ... and for cyclists. It's no big deal, it's part of driving.
A small number of people make a big stink when encountering cyclists ... or these things you've listed.

Digital_Cowboy

Good question.

Again, good question. Good point.

Good questions, is it as he and Six Jours opinions that it's a numbers game or is it the destination of the traveler that matters? As you asked if the person on a bike is going to work, or to a doctor's appointment and someone else is just out shopping or on a pleasure drive does the destination of the one who is either going to work or to a doctor's appointment trump the destination of the motorist who is going shopping or out for a pleasure drive?

I don't know about other states, but in Florida it is written into the law that the vehicle being passed cannot speed up to prevent the passing vehicle from passing them.

billdsd

I have yet to hear someone say that those things shouldn't be permitted in the road.

dougmc

You've never heard anybody grumble because they had to wait for or go around somebody parallel parking?

Besides, your argument wasn't that people said "those things shouldn't be permitted in the road" -- it was "why is X acceptable and not Y" when "Y" involved a bicycle. My point was that these things *are* acceptable to most people, and only a small number of people say that they're not -- at least not to the point where they start to do stupid/dangerous/illegal things as a result.

If you really want to know why individual Z feels that X is acceptable and Y isn't, you'll need to ask them. But don't go assuming that most people feel the way your question implies they do -- because most don't, or at least don't feel strongly enough about it to act upon it.

billdsd

Did I say most people? Where did I say most people?

I'm talking about the people complaining that bicycles shouldn't be in the road. I'm talking about people who swerve at and threaten bicyclists for riding in the road. I'm even talking about people who insist that bicyclists should keep far right even in situations where the safety experts say that you are safer taking the lane.

DX-MAN

I never met your dad . . . but I love him!

pacificaslim

If I understand your scenario correctly, there were two lanes going in your direction: one left turn lane, and one other lane from which people can either go straight or turn right. Correct? If so, and you were not positioned on the very far left of the straight/right-turn lane where anyone wishing to turn right could still come up and do so, then you were indeed being a jackass. How could you not know that someone may want to turn right and then maximize your positioning to allow them to do so?

I do it on my bike and I do it in my car. It's common courtesy! If the lane is too narrow for two cars to fit and therefore the second car would just have to wait, then so be it. But it is never too narrow to fit with me on my bicycle or motorcycle so of course I would position myself where it will allow someone to turn if they want to.

Your positioning is what made cars impatient with you. They wouldn't have been impatient waiting behind, say, a big truck at that light because they would look at the situation and realize that there isn't anything the truck could do to make the situation any better. It's the same reason people don't get mad at delivery vehicles, someone parallel parking, etc. But they look at you and go, "if that jackass would just move over a little...i could get on my way," and get impatient and since you didn't give them room to go by you on the right, they went by on the left. In other words, there was something you could do to improve the situation but you chose not to. That frustrates people. Don't be like that.

Six jours

The first time it could have been passed off as lack of comprehension. Repeating it after you've been corrected makes it a lie.

Digital_Cowboy

No, you are not understanding the scenario correctly. The first car that stopped behind me did so over a car length away from me and as most Floridians are prone to, they did NOT use their turn signal. So as far as I knew they were going straight just as I was. Also at this intersection I do not know if it employs an induction loop sensor, a sensor triggered by weight, or if it some other sort of sensor. Or if it's a timed intersection and that at night they increase the red for the cross street which is the street that I was on. This is the intersection in question.

I was traveling from the east headed west. I was stopped at the stop line where the white van is stopped, and the first of the two cars (the second one was hidden behind the first car and I couldn't see it) was stopped somewhere in line with the sign post between the neighborhood marker and the fire hydrant.

Also as I said on the off chance that there was a sensor somewhere that I couldn't see I had waved to the first car to move forward so that they could hopefully trip the sensor. And again, as I said before that first car DID NOT have their turn signal on, so how am I suppose to know that they want to make a right hand turn there? Am I suppose to be a mind reader and be able to divine that they wanted to turn right?

Hell for all I know they could have gone north on 4th St. a short distance made a U-Turn, come back to the intersection and made a right on to 77th Ave. I don't know as after they both proceed to make their illegal right turns the countdown timer finally started counting down and I was able to proceed through the intersection. I had even yelled at a couple of guys who had crossed on the far side of the intersection to please hit the crosswalk button, but they didn't.

If this is a strictly timed intersection (which it appears to be) it also appears that as I said that they increase the time that the light stays red for 77/78th Ave. N. (at this intersection on the east side of the intersection the cross street is 78th Ave. N. and on the west side it's 77th Ave. N.) As during the day IF I can't get over to the left hand turn lane early enough to make my left turn I'll make a right at the intersection, do a U-Turn and cross at 77/78th Ave. and I've never had a long wait in doing that. But last night it seemed to take "forever" before the light finally turned green for 77/78th Ave.

Again, NEITHER car had it's right turn signal on (not that I would have been able to see the turn signal of the second car as it was completely hidden by the first car. So with the distance that the first car stopped behind me, as well as NOT having turned on it's turn signal how am I suppose to know what they want to do, and how does that make me the "jackass?" Doesn't it make THEM the jackass for stopping so far behind me, and for NOT signalling their turn? And also please explain to me how their time is more important than my time.

I'm glad that you apparently live in a city/town where the lanes at every intersection is wide enough for you to safely share it with a car whether your on your motorcycle, or bicycle. Sadly, around here that is not the case. As I've said most roads around me are of the substandard width variety. But you've already made it clear that it is your opinion that the cyclist should always yield to the motorist cause their time or numbers, or destination is more important than that of a cyclists.

How many times do I have to say that the first car behind me had stopped more than a cars length behind me? IF they hadn't stopped so far behind me and IF that intersection is controlled by some sort of sensor that I can't see, and that can't see me on my bike than doesn't that make the motorist the jackass for stopping so far behind me?

That first car behind me frustrated the hell out of me by not moving up behind me and helping to trip the sensor (if there is one at this intersection). In my book they were the one's being the jackass by stopping so far behind me.

If you can't see that I feel sorry for you.

And again why should we as cyclists have to be treated as second class citizens so as not to be thought bad of?

This is also occurred at 2230hrs or there abouts.

On another road that I frequent some days in order to trip the sensor I have to position myself either on the right or left side of the induction loop sensor. If I position myself in the center nothing happens. And at this intersection I've had motorists again stop a cars length or better behind me (at least well clear of the induction loop sensor) and I've had to wave them forward. Usually after both waving to them to move forward, pointing to the ground and telling them that there is an induction loop sensor they finally get the hint and move forward.

But I guess in your book because I am not attempting to make life easier on the motorist(s) that might come up behind me that I am again being a "jackass," huh?

And please as I asked before in this post explain why it is that a motorists time, destination or purpose on the road is more important that that of the cyclists? Shouldn't all of our time and destination be of equal importance regardless of the mode of transportation one chooses to use? Why is it that cyclists have to be the ones to make the sacrifice in the name of harmony? Why is it such an imposition to the motorist to be the one to make sacrifice?

Why is it that when a cyclist behaves exactly as a motorist in a given situation they're a jackass, or are being rude, or inconsiderate? Isn't that placing greater importance on the motorist, and lesser importance on the cyclist?

And again why can't people leave early enough so that if they encounter some sort of delay (I have NEVER said leave early and slow down) they can still make it to their destination on time? You do realize don't that if a person has say a doctor's appointment at say 1330hrs and it takes them a half-hour (under ideal circumstances) to get to their doctor's office from their home. That that is the cause of their being late as well as THAT is what leads to the road rage. And if they leave their home at 1305hrs, knowing that their appointment is at 1330hrs. How is it "my fault" if they encounter me on the road (a road with a substandard width lane) and I'm taking the lane for my safety, for their being late? How does that make me a "jackass?" IF they had left early enough they might never have encountered me (or another cyclist) on the road and they wouldn't have been delayed.

Even if they don't encounter me (or another cyclist) they could have a flat tire, they might find that the road that they're driving down has a tree down blocking their path. Whereas if they'd left earlier, guess what they would have been able to make a detour and still get to their appointment ON TIME.

Isn't that reasonable? Apparently not in your worldview. As you seem to be a very submissive person. Who seems to think that others rights come first.

pacificaslim

You win. Impressive strategy. No one can keep up with that volume of words.

Digital_Cowboy

Your lose as I was attempting to provide you with more details on what had happened the other night. As well as provide you with maps showing you where I was positioned and how far behind me the first vehicle was positioned.

A couple of the questions that I asked you in the post that you deemed to be "too long" is why is a motorists time and destination of more importance than that of a cyclist? Why is it that when a cyclist is behaving in the exact same manner as a motorist that the cyclist is being "rude and/or inconsiderate" and the motorist isn't? Why can't people regardless of the mode of transportation leave early enough that if they encounter delay that they're still able to make it to their appointment on time? Why is it that people how have an appointment at say 1330hrs and it takes 30mins to get there. Leave at 1305hrs and than get upset when someone on the road causes them to be "delayed" in getting there?

You do know that that is the recipe for road rage, right?

billdsd

If moving over puts me at greater risk then no, I'm not going to do it. If it doesn't put me at greater risk, then I'll have done it already.

A lot of motorists think that bicyclists can move out of the way when in fact they cannot do so safely.

DX-MAN

Pacificaslim, I read bits and pieces of your exchange with Digital Cowboy (yeah, there was a long post there, and my time online is limited); but the impression I get is that you feel no loss at abrogating your own rights to the road as a courtesy -- AND, that you have some very WIDE lanes to work with! We don't all have that... I SURE DON'T.

He wasn't being a jackass. There is NO OBLIGATION to another road user beyond using the road responsibly. That does NOT include moving out of someone else's way at a red light.

The general rule of "moving to the right" (sometimes codified as FRAP) does NOT mean "get out of the car's way"; it does NOT require "hugging the fog line", or rolling with one pedal above the curb, in the storm gutter, or any similar act. Even FRAP allows the cyclist to choose what is safe to do FOR HIM/HERSELF. If an impatient driver doesn't like it, doesn't want to share the road AS REQUIRED BY LAW IN ALL 50, then the driver can resort to:

a.) passive-aggressive swearing/venting;
b.) rude behavior (honking, yelling out the window);
c.) dangerous and illegal behavior (buzzing, sideswiping, etc.).

Moving to the left edge of a straight/right turn lane SOUNDS like a courteous thing to do, and in some cases can be; but no one is a jackass for not doing so when their own safety and travel is interfered with by doing it. AND, MOST IMPORTANT, COURTESY IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT! NO ONE IS **OWED** THAT TYPE OF COURTESY!

Before you judge, ride a mile in another's paceline.............

dougmc

But the motorist is, and other motorists will believe so. Or the cyclist isn't -- it all depends on who you ask.

A cyclist is going 20 mph down the lane in a 40 mph zone -- he's a jerk.
A motorist is going 20 mph down the lane in a 40 mph zone -- he's a jerk.

Most drivers will cut the motorist some slack (maybe he's not really a jerk, maybe I will let him live) if it's a large farm implement that probably can't go faster, but then again ... most motorists will also cut the cyclist the same slack for the same reason.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, and sadly it's not just motorists that seem to think that cyclists can safely move out of the way.

Digital_Cowboy

Bek,

Thank you, that was well said.

Digital_Cowboy

I agree with ya. And there have been plenty of times (both as a child and now as an adult) that I've seen/heard motorists laying on their horns at each other. Lot's of times it's when they've gone to a concert, fireworks, etc. where a LARGE number of people have gone and they feel that the other motorists are taking too long to pull out of the parking lot.

The irony in that situation is that it isn't the other motorists that are causing the delay, but the LEO's or event security that is directing traffic and determining how much traffic is allowed to pass through a particular "pinch point" at a particular time.

Sadly, there are apparently those who think/feel that for whatever reason that the cyclist is the one with the greater responsibility not to behave in a rude or inconsiderate manner as well as protecting their safety or exercising their rights that they're a "jackass." That's sad.

sudo bike

I don't entirely agree that any one road user's opinion should be the end all and be all of what is safe. By that token, one could argue that it should be up to the motorist to decide what constitutes a safe pass, since they have a better view and are engaging in the passing. As we know, what they deem safe isn't always so.

The truth is, the cyclist is practically the one who decides what riding position is safest for himself, because he is engaging in the activity; choosing his riding position. But that can always be challenged by authority, and to some degree that should exist. If a cyclist chooses to ride in the left tire track of a 30' lane because he feels unsafe, an officer should be able to challenge that opinion with his own (that he would be safe riding FRAP). The courtroom is where you have to actually defend your choice.

Regardless, my point really was that any vehicle can impede traffic and be cited for hindering flow, including bicycles. Thankfully, we have special laws and rulings that support our right to travel, but that doesn't mean we have no duty to facilitate roadway sharing when needed.

My experience is that most people don't especially care, and generally don't even think about cyclists when they're not on the road. But there will always be a large share of jerks... that's no excuse for shirking our duty to share the road. Respect is a two-way street, as it were.

Yes they should be pateient, and no, they shouldn't be doing those things and I'm absolutely not defending that (and in my experience, they generally don't anyway, especially when a little courtesy is extended... I even get a wave now and again). I'm merely pointing out that as equal users of the road, we have as much duty to share it as anyone, as it seems to be the implication that we have a right to the roads with no legal duty to facilitate other traffic flow.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed to a point. But as I've said given that we cyclists have the most to lose if the area that a motorist chooses for them (the cyclist) to pull over and let them (the motorist) pass turns out not to be safe. Their (the cyclists) judgment should weigh more than the motorists. And as you've said if the motorist and the LEO on the scene don't agree that is what the courts are for.

I think that most here would agree that a cyclist riding in the left tire track of a 30' wide lane is a gross violation of any states FRAP requirements (unless said cyclist was preparing to make a left hand turn). And such a cyclist should be challenged either by a LEO and/or in court.

Exactly, and exactly, I think that the case of Selz v Trotwood is one of those cases that has helped to clarify the law by stating that a cyclist traveling at a speed that is reasonable for them cannot be cited as impeding traffic as they are also part of traffic.

Sadly, I think that the highlighted part is more likely to be true as evidenced by the number of posts that we have here about cyclists who have gotten buzzed while on their rides. Exactly, sadly there will always be a large share of jerks, and they're on both sides of the roads. Exactly, respect is a two-way street and I try to be respectful to other road users.

But if it's going to place my life or safety at risk than I'm sorry but by ass/safety takes priority over being respectful.

Exactly, and those cyclists who run run red lights, stop signs, blow past pedestrians at a high rate of speed, or doing nothing to show that we can all live together safely. And also sadly as we know it's the minority who are the bad apples, and that most folks remember them and not the majority who are sharing the road with other road users.

Keith99

I have not been under 200 lbs. since college and I never got down to 5 mph on Angeles Crest highway. And anything going that slow is easy to pass. And overall there are not that many places where passing is difficuult. Passing a bike of pair of bikes that is, different for passing a car or worse a motorhome.