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

Alleged Angeles Crest Road Rage Incident Involves Cyclists

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.

Alleged Angeles Crest Road Rage Incident Involves Cyclists

Old 07-04-11, 10:41 AM
  #51  
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184

Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Sure, there is no hierarchy. But if it's one bike going slowly, and 50 cars wishing to go faster, then take that into consideration and behave in the way that maximizes the utility of the population as a whole. To do otherwise is to be selfish. If you simply don't give a **** about other people, then at least admit it: don't hide behind talk about rights or laws. Just admit that you want to behave as if no other humans exist.

All this talk about leaving earlier to give oneself time to go more slowly is ridiculous. That would be time taken from something else, something much more productive than simply traveling from A to B. It could be more time being productive at work, more leisure time with one's family, more sleep, whatever. The least amount of time society spends going from A to B, the better. We need to spend time living, not commuting. (now, if your commute by bicycle substitutes for time you'd spend exercising, then great. That's multitasking, ha! But otherwise, it's just a huge waste of time that could be spent making the world a better place. Don't waste other people's time as well by insisting upon holding them back when you could easily give up the right of way for a second and let them get by.)
__________________
Thirst is stronger than the rules. - Stars and Watercarriers, 1974
pacificaslim is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 10:45 AM
  #52  
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
Sadly, in today's world just about everyone is only looking out for themselves, and to hell with everyone else.
Said with absolutely no irony at all.
Six jours is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 10:57 AM
  #53  
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by billdsd
I see no usable shoulder and narrow lanes -- too narrow for safe lane sharing by bicycles and cars.
So the experience of countless cyclists, including me, who have ridden this road without problem is less valid than the opinion of some guy who's never actually been there, but looked at a satellite photo?

Originally Posted by billdsd
If a bicyclist is over to the far right, a considerate competent motorist will move at least a little into the opposite lane to pass. Unfortunately, far too many drivers are neither considerate nor competent. My experience riding on the roads in this situation is that riding in the middle, even when I'm alone causes almost all drivers to move entirely into the next lane, which means that they don't pass me close. This is even true of most of the idiots who honk and yell. When I ride to the far right in this situation, I get at least some cars passing me by mere inches almost every time. I like it better when they move into the next lane.
This is a bad road for "taking the lane". There are too many situations where a driver could come around a blind corner and see a cyclist too late for him to stop. (Doubtless this will be considered the driver's fault here on A&S, but out in the real world, the cyclist is still dead and the driver won't be cited.)

Originally Posted by billdsd
Yes of course. Only motorist's use of the road way matters and their time and convenience is of utmost importance. Bicyclist's use of the roads is completely unnecessary and should be banned altogether, right? The world will come to an end if a motorist has to wait a few seconds or, horror of horrors, a few minutes to find a safe place to pass.
Have you been taking "reading between the lines" lessons from Digital Cowboy?

Originally Posted by billdsd
The fact is that it is not hard to move over to pass safely, especially if the bicyclists are going really slow. 5mph is so slow that passing should be trivially easy. It must be really steep. I'm 47, asthmatic and and I ride a cheap touring bike. I'm not very fast but it generally takes a 10% or so grade to get me down to 5mph. On a much more common 6% grade I'm typically doing more like 8-10mph.
On this particular road, it can be quite dangerous to move into the oncoming lane, and safe opportunities are sometimes quite far between. OTOH, there are very few sections where single-file cyclists cannot be passed safely and politely.

Originally Posted by billdsd
You seem to have a strange definition of the word "sharing".
God, this place is an alternate reality.
Six jours is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 11:03 AM
  #54  
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
My question is that if this is such a "dangerous" and "twisting and narrow road" than why does it have such a fast speed limit that traveling at 30 - 40MPH is considered to be "slow?" That road looks like one that I think that most any cyclist would take the lane on for their safety.
It's California. We generally don't put up with low speed limits. It's also an internationally famous road for sports car and motorcycle enthusiasts. A certain amount of "over-the-limit" speed is tolerated, although the place is heavily patrolled on the weekends and really high speeds are frowned upon. And you'd be utterly insane to take the lane on the way up. I've never actually seen it. Once you're there, you instantly understand how foolish it would be. Or at least rational people do...

Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
It does seem to be that he is one of those cyclists/motorists that seems to think that the only place for cyclists to be on the road is cowering in the gutter pan/hugging the curb. And that as soon as we hear the sound of an engine behind us that we'd better vacate the road as quickly as possible. Otherwise it'll be our "fault" if we get passed too closely or run off of the road.
Ah yes, the binary world in action. If you're not a "take the lane in every situation" madman, then you must be a curb-hugging coward.
Six jours is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 11:05 AM
  #55  
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Chief
Six jours,
I can't let you have a pass on this comment.

The public roads are in fact for the enjoyment and private pursuits of all of us citizens! Unless someone has red and/or blue flashing lights on the roof, their "in-a-hurry" situation is no more important than my right to travel. It does not matter if someone is going to work or going to play, there is no hierarchy of travel.
Exactly right. By the same token, your right to travel is no more important than anyone else's - which is the point I've been trying to make.
Six jours is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 11:57 AM
  #56  
dougmc
Senior Member
 
dougmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,040

Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
Whichever state it is/was I'm glad that it didn't happen.
The snopes page I linked to does tell where it came close to happening.

As if it did happen, I would imagine that it would raise as much of a stink that the demoting of Pluto from planet status created. And the interesting thing with Pluto is that from what I've read just because one "committee" has "demoted" it doesn't mean that all "committees" have to accept it.
What does lawmakers trying to legislate pi (even indirectly) have to do with Pluto's status as a planet?

Pluto was not "demoted" by lawmakers. It was demoted by scientists with a scientific reason for doing so. Really, it was mostly about clarifying what the term "planet" meant. Planet is a word -- we decide what it means. pi is a constant -- we don't get to change it's meaning arbitrarily.

In any event, what really pushed Pluto out the "planet" business was the discovery of Eris -- it was discovered in 2005, and it's even larger than Pluto. In any event, if you want to read more about Pluto status, this might be a good place to start.
dougmc is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 12:26 PM
  #57  
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
You can still be cited in California under CVC 21656 if you refuse to turn out when safe to do so, in order to allow faster traffic to pass if there is no other way for them to pass you safely, such as another lane or lane sharing (legally only when there are five or more vehicles waiting to pass).
True, BUT the key there is when it is SAFE to do so. And it is or should be up to the CYCLIST who get's to determine when/if it is safe for them to move aside to allow the cars that are stacking up behind them to pass. NOT the motorists who have a totally different view of the road in front of them. Cause as we know the road looks very different depending if one is in an 18-wheeler, pickup truck, car, motorcycle, or bicycle. And a section of road that looks "totally safe" from the cab of an 18-wheeler, pickup truck, or car can be very unsafe for a motorcycle or bicycle.

Originally Posted by sudo bike
I agree. I think there are plenty of situations where riding side by side doesn't make much difference (if you are in a situation where you have to take the lane anyway, having two bikes side by side won't matter in terms of blocking traffic), but I would consider it rude at best, illegal at worst, to ride side by side when road sharing is safely possible. It doesn't have to be war between us and drivers... you can cooperate and share roads safely.
I agree, that it doesn't have to be a "war" between us and drivers. But at times it seems as if they're the one's who want a "war." By buzzing us, hurling insults, objects, etc. at us, as well as trying to force us off of the road.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 12:29 PM
  #58  
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
Precisely. While you should know your rights, just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you should evoke it at every opportunity just because you can.
SB,

That goes both ways you know. Just because a motorist can buzz us, force us off of the road, etc. doesn't mean that they should. If the road is unsafe to pass, AND there ISN'T a safe place for us to pull over they need to be patient and wait either for a safe opening to pass us. Or a safe area for us to pull over and allow them to pass. IS that asking too much? Apparently for some on both sides of the road it is.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 12:30 PM
  #59  
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 Chief
Six jours,
I can't let you have a pass on this comment.

The public roads are in fact for the enjoyment and private pursuits of all of us citizens! Unless someone has red and/or blue flashing lights on the roof, their "in-a-hurry" situation is no more important than my right to travel. It does not matter if someone is going to work or going to play, there is no hierarchy of travel.
+1,000
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 12:44 PM
  #60  
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184

Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Sure, but if there are two people in that car, or two cars behind you, you're being selfish to insist your rights outweigh theirs.
__________________
Thirst is stronger than the rules. - Stars and Watercarriers, 1974
pacificaslim is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 12:48 PM
  #61  
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 Six jours
I've already said what I'm saying. The only ones who think the cyclists are in danger are the A&Sers. The cyclists themselves are fine with it.
After seeing the picture of the road in question that was posted. It does NOT look as if it is safe for cyclists to ride where you think that they should be riding. As it looks like riding all the way over to the extreme right edge would just encourage close passes.

Originally Posted by Six jours
It is safe to pass, as long as the cyclists are single file.
That is your opinion, the next cyclist who travels down that road is likely to disagree with you. As is their right.

Originally Posted by Six jours
So I write that it's safe to pass cyclists on a particular road, and you interpret that to mean I support attempted murder? I can scarcely imagine what's going on in your head.
I can scarcely imagine what's going on in your head. We each get to decide for ourselves if a road is safe to share or not. Not someone who is impatient or in a hurry, because they didn't leave with enough time to get to wherever they're going.

Originally Posted by Six jours
But as it happens, it's a teachable moment. The road on which that particular incident happened is extremely popular for recreational cycling. The behavior of cyclists over the last decade or so has resulted in pure hatred from local residents and motorists. Cyclists take over the whole road, urinate on resident's lawns, and just generally behave as if the whole place is their personal playground. The road actually is wide enough that cyclists can ride two-up and still allow safe passing, but they often take the middle of the road anyway, or ride three, four, or five abreast, or just in a big loose packs, giving everyone the finger, pounding on hoods, and just generally being as obnoxious as they possibly can. Incidents like the one with the doctor, while inexcusable, are also inevitable.
That does NOT excuse the "good" doctor's behavior. That is what the police are for. Had the "good" doctor had called the police and filed complaints instead of using his car to "teach them a lesson." He wouldn't have gotten in trouble with the law himself.

And it was only "inevitable" when hot heads like that "good" doctor were involved. Anyone who has an ounce of common sense knows that you do not swoop in front of a couple of cyclists and slam on your brakes.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 12:58 PM
  #62  
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 Six jours
Yes, I am. And I don't consider any one road user more important than another. I expect cooperation, rather than the "Cyclists can do anything they want and everyone else is secondary" attitude displayed by the typical A&Ser.
Gee, that's funny by your comment:

"Beyond that, you can pretty much count on the fact that a couple of Lycra-clad prettyboys riding Angeles Crest on a weekend are out for recreation."

It sure sounds as if you're saying that because they're out for a "recreational ride" that they don't have as much right to the road as someone who is also just as likely to be out for a recreational ride in their car. As you know that most people who are inclined to go out for recreational rides in their cars are more likely to do so on the weekend, right?

Originally Posted by Six jours
I don't notice that in the real world. It's only on this thread.
What "real world" are you living in? I've talked with a number of friends who also ride and we all have our "fair share" of horror stories of our dealings with reckless/clueless motorists who have endangered our lives just because they were in a hurry and perceived us as "being in their way."
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 01:00 PM
  #63  
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184

Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
We each get to decide for ourselves if a road is safe to share or not.
I don't know where this concept came from, other than pure selfishness. I can't think of any other "right" that is enforced in such a manner. Everything else in law, and in common sense, has to comply to the generally accepted standards of the community, not the selfish judgement of one person.

Sure, there are rare situations where a cyclist really does need to take the lane on a highway like this one. But that would be very very rare. I think in 99% of situations I would answer the claim "I didn't feel it was safe to share the road because I'm likely to crash when cars pass close by me" with "then you need to learn how to ride a freakin' bicycle before coming out in public." Your rights to be a ninny do not override the rights of everyone else to carry on with their lives.
__________________
Thirst is stronger than the rules. - Stars and Watercarriers, 1974
pacificaslim is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 01:06 PM
  #64  
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 Six jours
I haven't ridden with every cyclist who has ever gone up Angeles Crest, but the hundreds that I have know have never expressed discomfort with it. The great majority, I am sure, would think ludicrous the idea that they should ride in the middle of that road. It's unbelievable to me that someone would argue poor sightlines - IOW, cliffs that block a motorists' view of the exit to a corner - justify someone riding in the middle of the road. I mean, think about it: a driver comes around a corner with the assumption, rather than the knowledge, that the road in front of him will be clear, and you want us to put a near-stationary cyclist in the middle of that road? It's insane.
Right there is the problem with both yours and many drivers "logic" on that particular road. ASSUMING that the road in front of you/them is CLEAR. I guess in your "perfect" world cars never break down, blocking the road?

Originally Posted by Six jours
If the buggy could be out of the road, then yes, it would be rude. But it can't, so it's not. The cyclists can be out of the road, at least in this scenario
According to you. I have as I am sure others here have ridden maybe not that particular road in question, but ones very similar to it and have determined that the safest position for us is to take the lane.

Last edited by Digital_Cowboy; 07-04-11 at 01:54 PM.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 01:33 PM
  #65  
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 Six jours
So the experience of countless cyclists, including me, who have ridden this road without problem is less valid than the opinion of some guy who's never actually been there, but looked at a satellite photo?
Unless I'm mistaken, we only have your word for how these "countless other" cyclists feel about this road.

Originally Posted by Six jours
This is a bad road for "taking the lane". There are too many situations where a driver could come around a blind corner and see a cyclist too late for him to stop. (Doubtless this will be considered the driver's fault here on A&S, but out in the real world, the cyclist is still dead and the driver won't be cited.)
Again, I have to ask, if this is such a "bad" road, than why is it that a speed of 30 - 40 MPH is considered to be going "slow?"

Originally Posted by Six jours
Have you been taking "reading between the lines" lessons from Digital Cowboy?



On this particular road, it can be quite dangerous to move into the oncoming lane, and safe opportunities are sometimes quite far between. OTOH, there are very few sections where single-file cyclists cannot be passed safely and politely.
Than they need to slow down until it is safe to pass, how hard is that to comprehend?

Originally Posted by Six jours
God, this place is an alternate reality.
It sounds more like the world that you live in is the one that is in the "alternate reality." One where motorists are "forgiven" for assuming that the road ahead of them is always going to remain clear.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 01:37 PM
  #66  
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 Six jours
It's California. We generally don't put up with low speed limits. It's also an internationally famous road for sports car and motorcycle enthusiasts. A certain amount of "over-the-limit" speed is tolerated, although the place is heavily patrolled on the weekends and really high speeds are frowned upon. And you'd be utterly insane to take the lane on the way up. I've never actually seen it. Once you're there, you instantly understand how foolish it would be. Or at least rational people do...
Further proof that the car and the car alone "rules" the roads.

Originally Posted by Six jours
Ah yes, the binary world in action. If you're not a "take the lane in every situation" madman, then you must be a curb-hugging coward.
I'm sorry, but that does appear to be what you are saying. That cyclists are "crazy" or "madmen" for wanting to exercise their rights to the road, and to take the road when they (and not some motorist) determine that it is the safest thing to do.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 01:39 PM
  #67  
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 Six jours
Exactly right. By the same token, your right to travel is no more important than anyone else's - which is the point I've been trying to make.
That may be the point that you are "trying to make," but it is coming across as cyclists have less rights to the roads than do motorists. And that by riding in a safe and legal manner that we are being "rude and inconsiderate."
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 01:42 PM
  #68  
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 dougmc
The snopes page I linked to does tell where it came close to happening.

What does lawmakers trying to legislate pi (even indirectly) have to do with Pluto's status as a planet?

Pluto was not "demoted" by lawmakers. It was demoted by scientists with a scientific reason for doing so. Really, it was mostly about clarifying what the term "planet" meant. Planet is a word -- we decide what it means. pi is a constant -- we don't get to change it's meaning arbitrarily.

In any event, what really pushed Pluto out the "planet" business was the discovery of Eris -- it was discovered in 2005, and it's even larger than Pluto. In any event, if you want to read more about Pluto status, this might be a good place to start.
The point was to show the outrage of a relatively small and simple act of reclassifying Pluto. Another example of the outrage over the scientific community correcting and updating things is how everyone got all "bent out of shape" over the correcting of the horoscopes. Apparently what the "average man on the street" doesn't realize is that the scientific community is constantly updating and changing things. Which is only normal as we learn more about not only the world, but the universe around us we realize that what we thought was one thing turns out to be something else altogether.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 01:44 PM
  #69  
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Paul Barnard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,843

Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2131 Post(s)
Liked 1,639 Times in 822 Posts
Riding in traffic is a balancing act. I ride, inasmuch as I can, on a not to interfere basis. I don't want to hold up motorists. I stand much to lose and nothing to gain by pissing them off. I DO NOT take the lane just because I can. If I take it, it is because I have determined it is in the best interest of my safety. If I were going up a narrow winding mountain road at slow speed, I would make opportunities for motorists to safely pass me. We both benefit from that. There may be places on that road where I would take the lane, but I would not let auto traffic stack up behind me. The state of AK has a law that requires people to pull over if more than 5 vehicles are backed up behind them. That's a good law. Whether a law or not, it's considerate. Share the road works both ways.
Paul Barnard is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 01:48 PM
  #70  
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 pacificaslim
Sure, but if there are two people in that car, or two cars behind you, you're being selfish to insist your rights outweigh theirs.
The flip side of that argument is that if there are two people in that car, or there are two cars behind a cyclist that they're being selfish to insist that their rights outweigh the cyclists.

It goes both ways. And once more (and I'm sure not the last) IF I more than a car or two behind me and IF I can SAFELY move over to allow them to SAFELY pass me, I will. However IF I cannot SAFELY move over to allow them to SAFELY pass me, than I am not going to do so.

That is NOT being either rude or inconsiderate. And IF the motorists are insisting that I do so so that they can get to their doctor's appointment than THEY are the ones who are being rude and inconsiderate, not me.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 01:54 PM
  #71  
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 pacificaslim
I don't know where this concept came from, other than pure selfishness. I can't think of any other "right" that is enforced in such a manner. Everything else in law, and in common sense, has to comply to the generally accepted standards of the community, not the selfish judgement of one person.

Sure, there are rare situations where a cyclist really does need to take the lane on a highway like this one. But that would be very very rare. I think in 99% of situations I would answer the claim "I didn't feel it was safe to share the road because I'm likely to crash when cars pass close by me" with "then you need to learn how to ride a freakin' bicycle before coming out in public." Your rights to be a ninny do not override the rights of everyone else to carry on with their lives.
Given that as cyclists we have a better view of the road ahead of us and thus can see debris, or cracked or missing pavement easier than someone in a car, does it not make sense that we are in a better position to determine what is and isn't safe for us? Or where it is or isn't safe for us to ride?

That may be how it is where you ride, but where I ride the majority of roads are too narrow for a car and a bicycle traveling in the same direction to safely pass each other. If we do not take the lane motorists will pass us with just inches between them and us. See my post in another thread about the time I had an 18-wheeler pass me trapping me between him and the curb. Had I been further out in the lane he would have had to change lanes (this is/was a road with two lanes for each direction of travel) in order to safely pass me.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 01:58 PM
  #72  
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 Paul Barnard
Riding in traffic is a balancing act. I ride, inasmuch as I can, on a not to interfere basis. I don't want to hold up motorists. I stand much to lose and nothing to gain by pissing them off. I DO NOT take the lane just because I can. If I take it, it is because I have determined it is in the best interest of my safety. If I were going up a narrow winding mountain road at slow speed, I would make opportunities for motorists to safely pass me. We both benefit from that. There may be places on that road where I would take the lane, but I would not let auto traffic stack up behind me. The state of AK has a law that requires people to pull over if more than 5 vehicles are backed up behind them. That's a good law. Whether a law or not, it's considerate. Share the road works both ways.
Exactly, and I am sure that in states that have that law on the books there is language in it that states if it is safe for the slow vehicle to do so. And I am sure that the LEOs and the courts wouldn't expect a slow moving vehicle to pull over if it wasn't safe to do so, such as on to an extremely soft shoulder, or where they might end up going over the edge of a cliff.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 03:07 PM
  #73  
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184

Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
The flip side of that argument is that if there are two people in that car, or there are two cars behind a cyclist that they're being selfish to insist that their rights outweigh the cyclists.
Absolutely not. Do the math. Whichever action maximizes overall utility for society, while not particularly harming any individual, is the action to promote and expect. To behave otherwise, is to be selfish and put your solitary "rights" over those of multiple individuals.


It goes both ways. And once more (and I'm sure not the last) IF I more than a car or two behind me and IF I can SAFELY move over to allow them to SAFELY pass me, I will. However IF I cannot SAFELY move over to allow them to SAFELY pass me, than I am not going to do so.
That's all fine and dandy and accounted for in my position (check posts above). But I still think you are wrong that you alone get to determine when it is safe. I'm pretty sure every court will apply the standard of what a reasonable cyclist (as established by an "expert" giving testimony) would find safe and not let a single individual make that call.

In other words, we have to be reasonable. And we ought to give a damn about other people. I do and it doesn't lessen my cycling experience one bit. I can see no reason not to continue on as I have been.
__________________
Thirst is stronger than the rules. - Stars and Watercarriers, 1974
pacificaslim is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 04:11 PM
  #74  
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 pacificaslim
Absolutely not. Do the math. Whichever action maximizes overall utility for society, while not particularly harming any individual, is the action to promote and expect. To behave otherwise, is to be selfish and put your solitary "rights" over those of multiple individuals.
Okay, than let's say that we have a dozen cyclists who are traveling on a particular road. It is a narrow road with little room for a car to safely pass. They are riding two abreast. There is one car behind them with two people in it.

If I read what you are saying correctly, than in that instance the cyclists needs would take priority over that of the two in the car, right?

Originally Posted by pacificaslim
That's all fine and dandy and accounted for in my position (check posts above). But I still think you are wrong that you alone get to determine when it is safe. I'm pretty sure every court will apply the standard of what a reasonable cyclist (as established by an "expert" giving testimony) would find safe and not let a single individual make that call.
And what if said "expert" has never ridden a bike on that particular road? If one is not familiar with the road in question can they really be called an "expert" on what a "reasonable" cyclist would do on said road? Or look at it like this. There is a forensic expert in Alaska who "knows" how body's decompose (in Alaska). Does that mean that they're an "expert" on how body's decompose in Florida?

Originally Posted by pacificaslim
In other words, we have to be reasonable. And we ought to give a damn about other people. I do and it doesn't lessen my cycling experience one bit. I can see no reason not to continue on as I have been.
Agreed, but it is unreasonable for a motorist who has different view of the road to determine if and/or when it is safe for a cyclist to move over and let them pass.

I was in a similar circumstance not too long ago coming home from a "town hall" meeting on what to do about the Pinellas Trail/bridge in Tampa. It was 2100hrs, it was dark, I was riding along Gandy Blvd. From about BK in Tampa to about a 1/4 mile or so from the bridge the left lane was closed.

There were several cars stacked up behind me, however there was NO safe place for me to pull over and to allow them to pass me. I was IIRC riding in the right side tire track. Not ONE driver blew their horn at me. They just patently followed until the left lane opened back up and they all calmly moved over into the left lane and went on their way.

I continued up onto the bridge and moved over into the breakdown lane and road across the bridge with no one harassing me.

But apparently according to some here I was being "rude and/or inconsiderate" because I didn't leave the road to allow the cars to pass me. Even though it would have been unsafe for me to do so.

Also according to those "self-appointed" experts when I position myself in the left most through lane at an intersection when I am going to my bank that I am again being "rude and/or inconsiderate." Even though it is the safer thing for me to do. As a block from that intersection I'll be making a left turn. If I positioned myself in the right most through lane than about a half a block or so from that intersection I'd have to cross 2 or 3 lanes of traffic.

Likewise, I guess I am being "rude and/or inconsiderate" when I am going to the pet store to get crickets to fed my spiders. I start moving over to the left turn lane about a hundred or so yards before the left turn lane starts. Instead of waiting until I am almost at the intersection and than having to "fight" the traffic to get over to the left hand turn lane. Or even going through the intersection and than waiting for the light to change green for the cross street and cross street on the opposite side of the intersection. Instead of making a left hand turn from the left turn lane just as any other road user would do.

Last edited by Digital_Cowboy; 07-04-11 at 04:20 PM.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 07-04-11, 05:14 PM
  #75  
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Six Jours: "Incidents like the one with the doctor, while inexcusable, are also inevitable."

Digital Cowboy: "That does NOT excuse the "good" doctor's behavior."

Just an example of why discussing this with you has turned out to be such a waste of time. You're seeing what you want to see and ignoring what I'm actually writing.

Of course, I'm a fool for bothering with this ridiculous forum anyway...
Six jours 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.