|
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
(Post 23031423)
Center of my lane. Does 3 lane Airline Highway look like any 20 MPH residential road you have ever seen?
|
Originally Posted by nomadmax
(Post 23031427)
and a cyclist has no way to effectively protect against it.
|
Originally Posted by GamblerGORD53
(Post 23030663)
There's NO reason for you to hog the lane for ONE car.
Just my opinion. |
Absolutely correct. There are a small contingent of posters who don't really seem to like the idea of bicycles on the road at all. I do wonder sometimes if they are actually even cyclists. Their "recommendations" would be downright dangerous and seem to revolve around always being wholly subservient to automobiles.
|
They went around you successfully (nobody died). What's the problem here? Lanes are for chumps use your brain instead.
|
Originally Posted by spclark
(Post 23031185)
Should be, yeah. But passing another motor vehicle in such a situation as the OP's described then making a right turn in front of said vehicle is patently illegal pretty much everywhere to my knowledge. Pulling out to pass, taking up the oncoming traffic's lane to do so, is also illegal.
I routinely find myself trying to cross a multi-lane hiway in town. I'm at a stop sign, sometimes far to the right, some other times in the middle of the single lane (I'm a vehicle, right? Not a pedestrian?) in the cross street. Inevitably there are vehicles in the cross-traffic who choose to stop in their respective lanes so as to 'yield right of way' for me to cross! NOT GONNA HAPPEN. I make it a practice to LOOK AWAY from traffic coming from my LEFT (be first to hit me if I proceed) so I can measure the presence of traffic coming from the RIGHT (that has the right of way at such intersections) yet traffic coming from the LEFT inevitably has a driver or two who take it upon themselves to block traffic so as to make it possible for me to cross. Even though I'm patiently waiting, at a stop sign, one or both feet planted on the pavement, for traffic to clear the intersection so I can cross when it's safe to do so. Happens a lot. Drivers uniformly don't understand the rules of the road. Cyclists must if they're going to survive mixing with motor traffic. But they're still at a considerable disadvantage in view of their exposure, their lack of protection, the relative speed difference between themselves and motor traffic and the general inattentiveness of a great majority of private motor vehicle drivers who don't acknowledge the rights of cyclists as legitimate vehicular traffic. The member my statements were aimed at made a very simple statement that essentially boiled down to we all must look out and adjust for the unexpected. However the way they worded it made it look like they blamed the cyclist for not being able to successfully anticipate the actions of the motorist in time to avoid the crash. Sure, it's great when we do, but we can't rely on that to happen 100% of the time and save us. And the situation that they were referring too wasn't even part of the OP's issue. We know there are drivers and cyclists that have no clue about the rules of the road. So yes we have to watch out for those people. But again, it doesn't make the cyclist in the described situation that is unrelated to the OP at fault just because they didn't anticipate the potential of the situation at that moment in time. |
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
(Post 23031530)
I certainly did.
|
Originally Posted by 1989Pre
(Post 23031115)
You can wax poetic all you want. A sense of order on the roads is important. Slow traffic stay right.
At an intersection approach facing a red signal indication, the reasonable & prudent speed for all traffic is 0 mph once deceleration is complete. Since the R&P speed for all users is identical, the "slower traffic keep right" rule drops out both legally and operationally. Once the signal indication is green, traffic proceeds if safe, and after the intersection sorts out into faster and slower vehicles. Note also that the slower traffic rule in most states doesn't apply if there are more than one lane in that direction (not the case here) or if the lane is too narrow for a faster motor vehicle to overtake in that same lane while providing adequate (and typically legally-defined) lateral separation (which may be the case here). The rule we teach for bicyclists is: "Lateral position by speed between intersections, lateral position by destination at intersections." |
Why not let the car pass before the braking zone? You typed up all this drama about closing speeds sooo self preservation maybe? Just stop pedaling while you approach intersection.
|
Originally Posted by DonkeyShow
(Post 23031610)
They went around you successfully (nobody died). What's the problem here? Lanes are for chumps use your brain instead.
|
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
(Post 23031687)
Nobody died is certainly the bar we want to set for our interactions.
|
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 23030996)
Isn't it the passing vehicles responsibility to ensure they have a safe distance on the vehicle they just passed before moving back over or turning in front of the vehicle they just passed?
|
Originally Posted by 1989Pre
(Post 23031451)
Okay, this guy pulled up to the left of you? That's a little bizarre. I've never had that happen, but when I notice erratic or questionable behavior from a nearby motorist, I bail out. I would have gotten off the bike, walked it to the side of the road and waited for him to leave. We can't be surprised when we see illogical decisions being actuated. You asked him what he was doing. This is good. He replied that he is "taking a right". That is just koo koo. This sounds like he was showing his objection to you in the middle of the road, and wanted to keep you to his right. It's not that that makes any sense to me logically, but it may be a description of his thought process. If you had stayed to the right, he may not have behaved in such an exaggerated manner, but with the extremity of his action, I don't think there would be any guarantees. Again, I am not defending this behavior, but riders who "take the lane" when they do not need to confuses and provokes some drivers. This is just the way things are.
|
RCMoeur, I can accept that you believe what you have been taught. Nevertheless, there are good reasons that bicycles ride on the far right, while faster traffic uses the travel (motorist) lane, and those vehicles traveling at an even-greater rate-of-speed use the passing lane(s), if-any. This is the system we have adopted long-ago, and it works well. Cyclists are even taught to defer to pedestrians by shifting left, to allow the opposing runner(s) their lane. This is the system, and changing it causes confusion to motorists, and often, when people feel confused, they feel vulnerable, and when they feel vulnerable, they react with discord. Again, when I made my original comment, I did not know that O.P. meant "opposing lane" when he said "wrong lane". I had imagined the car being on his right-hand side. The motorist's actions were bizarre, and while the cyclist's position reflects his style and approach, I would disagree with it's necessity or even usefulness.
|
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 23031747)
It doesn't seem that this driver doing the "koo koo" thing should be relied upon not to do something "koo koo" even with riding the way you think the OP should have.
|
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 23031739)
Sure, obviously,. But the actual question is what to do when they don't (like in the situation described by the OP). I doubt you put full trust in drivers doing what they are supposed to.
As I've said in all or most all my posts in this thread that are related to the one you quoted me on, we should expect the unexpected. I'd think that'd let you know that I don't put my trust in others whether they are a driver, cyclist, walker or anyone. You seem to not realize the post you quoted wasn't even addressed for the situation the OP described. It was a reply to another member that was offering opinion on another situation described in this thread by another member. |
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 23031774)
You seem to not realize the post you quoted wasn't even addressed for the situation the OP described. It was a reply to another member that was offering opinion on another situation described in this thread by another member.
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 23030996)
Originally Posted by wolfchild
(Post 23030984)
You mean the cyclist was going straight through intersection and driver made a right turn and right hooked the cyclist ??..Right hooks are totally preventable and it's mostly a cyclists responsibility to avoid being right hooked.
|
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 23031778)
No. The person you replied to was talking about what the cyclist should be doing. You seemed to think he was talking about legal responsibility.
You seem to advocate survival of the fittest. |
Originally Posted by 1989Pre
(Post 23031752)
RCMoeur, I can accept that you believe what you have been taught. Nevertheless, there are good reasons that bicycles ride on the far right, while faster traffic uses the travel (motorist) lane, and those vehicles traveling at an even-greater rate-of-speed use the passing lane(s), if-any. This is the system we have adopted long-ago, and it works well. Cyclists are even taught to defer to pedestrians by shifting left, to allow the opposing runner(s) their lane. This is the system, and changing it causes confusion to motorists, and often, when people feel confused, they feel vulnerable, and when they feel vulnerable, they react with discord. Again, when I made my original comment, I did not know that O.P. meant "opposing lane" when he said "wrong lane". I had imagined the car being on his right-hand side. The motorist's actions were bizarre, and while the cyclist's position reflects his style and approach, I would disagree with it's necessity or even usefulness.
I may be speculating here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but from your description it seems your primary concern is overtaking motor traffic. This is understandable, as it's the most common bicyclist-motor vehicle interaction and for thousands of years of human evolutionary behavior large loud objects approaching from behind have generally not been friendly. The problem is that actions taken to reduce perceived from-behind risk can increase risk of other severe and much more common crashes, including turn-across-path and angle collisions. In the classes, we understand some riders prioritize reducing from-behind risk, as such a crash can be severe or fatal, but it's not a good trade-off if the rider is at greater risk of a crash that's considerably more likely to happen in an urban or suburban environment. So we try to persuade and not scare riders and explain the trade-offs of lane positioning at intersections and how it influences actual exposure and not the perception of "feeling safe" - which can be at odds with one another. |
Originally Posted by jon c.
(Post 23031604)
Absolutely correct. There are a small contingent of posters who don't really seem to like the idea of bicycles on the road at all. I do wonder sometimes if they are actually even cyclists. Their "recommendations" would be downright dangerous and seem to revolve around always being wholly subservient to automobiles.
|
Take care of your own safety first verses expecting people to act how you think they should. Survival of the least butthurt I guess.
|
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 23031783)
So essentially you are saying the victim is at fault because they failed to properly realize the potential for a mishap. Geesh, I think that's a ludicrous position to take.
You seem to advocate survival of the fittest. That the cyclist should take care of themselves doesn't mean drivers shouldn't do what they are supposed to do.
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 23031774)
The OP did what was needed.
|
the only possible argument i can see here from a legal standpoint is the FRAP law in louisiana - the exceptions to which are paraphrased here "Bike Law Louisiana said bike riders may need to move from the edge of the road because of edge hazards, door risks, narrow lanes where a car and bike cannot safely fit side by side, and other reasons." i'm pretty sure a road that narrow would qualify as "where a car and bike cannot safely fit side by side." if he was further right, and a less-self-righteous but inattentive motorist tried to go around him to make a right turn, they'd almost certainly be over the center line, at which point a car turning right from airline (who would have a green!) would possibly hit them.
i had a similar incident in my neighborhood, a block or two from home on a 25mph, stop light/sign every block street, where a guy pulled completely into the opposite lane honking and yelling at us (me and two kids) to "ride further over where it's safe," to which i said, at the next light (he was fully next to us at this point, as with OPs experience) that the safest place was center right of the lane since it was not a safe place to pass, at which point he went on a tirade about being an off duty officer in another jurisdiction and he wanted to keep my kids and i safe on the streets. ironically a car DID approach in the oncoming lane, but we were already moving on and not involved in the honking and maneuvering that followed. |
Originally Posted by mschwett
(Post 23031794)
the only possible argument i can see here from a legal standpoint is the FRAP law in louisiana - the exceptions to which are paraphrased here "Bike Law Louisiana said bike riders may need to move from the edge of the road because of edge hazards, door risks, narrow lanes where a car and bike cannot safely fit side by side, and other reasons." i'm pretty sure a road that narrow would qualify as "where a car and bike cannot safely fit side by side." if he was further right, and a less-self-righteous but inattentive motorist tried to go around him to make a right turn, they'd almost certainly be over the center line, at which point a car turning right from airline (who would have a green!) would possibly hit them.
i had a similar incident in my neighborhood, a block or two from home on a 25mph, stop light/sign every block street, where a guy pulled completely into the opposite lane honking and yelling at us (me and two kids) to "ride further over where it's safe," to which i said, at the next light (he was fully next to us at this point, as with OPs experience) that the safest place was center right of the lane since it was not a safe place to pass, at which point he went on a tirade about being an off duty officer in another jurisdiction and he wanted to keep my kids and i safe on the streets. ironically a car DID approach in the oncoming lane, but we were already moving on and not involved in the honking and maneuvering that followed. Several years ago, a Phoenix police officer pulled me over for using the center of a travel lane. He said that a sign (on a different street several miles away) "proved" I needed to stay right at all times, and that I was disobeying a traffic control device in riding where I was. Picture of the sign legend: https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...54c2f54de4.jpg I was polite in my response. We got out ARS (easy to do now it's electronic), and I showed where the location I was riding had a 10.5' lane and was not wide enough for same-lane overtaking with anything resembling 3 ft clearance. I then discussed the sign, which was an older (late 1990s) design before we had data on just how widely the term "share" was interpreted by road users, and also noted it conflicted with the letter of the law at our location and even at the installed location (at the time of the encounter, I was chairing the technical committee advising FHWA on bicycle signing nationwide). We parted amicably, and in future encounters he would smile and wave when changing lanes to pass. A few years later, I was stopped by a different officer who would not review the statutes, insisted I had to stay on the sidewalk regardless of circumstances, and threatened me with being detained should I question his authority on the issue. Complaints to upper management were... unresponded. |
It appears we have the bicyclists and the submissives. The bicyclists ride according to the law and appropriately handle themselves at intersections. When a bicyclist such as the OP posts about a maniacal psychopath acting out toward a bicyclists. The submissives start posting about how wrong he is based upon the actions of the maniacal psychopath. The submissives then explain to the bicyclists, their method of riding at an intersection. They practice hood ornament bicycle theory. They believe if they retreat in fear at every turn they will be safer.
The actions of the motorist that is referred to in this posting are not the norm by far unless you live in Florida. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:12 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.