seypat

You got hit by a basketball player?

mcours2006

Folks like absolutes--never ride on sidewalk, never run stop sign, always take the lane, yada yada yada

Geez! I don't usually ride on sidewalks if I can avoid it. But there is one section on my commute during a two week period in the month of May when the sun is right into the drivers' eyes. I mean, if you're driving into it in the morning you are literally blinded. I'll hope hop on the adjacent sidewalk going against traffic to avoid any contact with cars going eastbound. Or, in the winter when the sidewalk on some of the major roads is better plowed, that's also a wise option. But of course I slow right down and yield to pedestrians if there are any, which there rarely are. These are arterial roads and not residential or downtown streets with pedestrian traffic.

Kai Winters

They are called side "walk" for a reason.

indyfabz

I rode on a sidewalk this morning. Got to pet a cute puppy named Daisy.

Kapusta

I think it is more a matter of some folks liking to push peoples’ buttons. They just say those things in hopes of getting a rise out of someone. I think there is a term for that.

northernjeep

On one of my routes to get into the city there is a MUP that for a short distance end in a regular sidewalk. The road beside it leads to a shopping mall and is always busy and really not a good place for a bicycle or in my case a trike. If I see a walker which these days is fairly rare I either stop or pull off on the grass to give them right of way. Although against the law to ride o the sidewalk here, I',ve never had any issues.

gpburdell

... and yet we drive on parkways and park in driveways...

qwaalodge

I avoid sidewalks as much as possible but sometimes the rush hour traffic can be so tight here in KQ, you can't even squeeze a narrow road bike between cars. The only option to keep moving is the sidewalk.

As soon as I got to the sidewalk, I keep my speeds slow, under jogging speed and will exit as soon as I spot a clearing between the cars. Where I live, the sidewalks have trees growing on the sidewalk that are equally spaced. I love trees but in the sidewalk, their roots, crack the sidewalk pavement and sometimes their roots come out of the pavement. This makes our sidewalks a pinch flat hazard for anything but MTBs and fatbikes. They are also a major tripping hazard for anyone simply walking.

LarrySellerz

don’t know why you keep on saying that the large groups are illegal. Even if they are illegal by the book, they continue to happen and will continue to happen indefinitely. There are 11 rides that I know about every week, all easily above 30 riders and maxing out over 100.

mschwett 

is that what’s being argued here?!? that’s … creative!

we have quite a few streets here with “bicyclists allowed use of full lane” sign that site a CVC section, i’ll have to check the next time i pass one but i assume they’re referring to 21202(a) but it would be interesting if they specifically reference 21202(a)(3). many of these streets also have sharrows painted right in the middle.

genejockey 

No, because it is always incumbent on the drive to only pass when it's safe.

njkayaker

It's listed in the exceptions. But, yes, it applies to a lot of situations. It also wasn't anything the other person mentioned (and he misquoted the law). Note that most states have similar wording in their traffic laws.

Mojo31

Decided to look up our laws and found this:

Persons operating bicycles on a roadway may ride two abreast.  Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway shall ride in a single lane.  Persons riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway.  Persons may not ride more than two abreast unless they are riding on a part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles.

Tx. Trans. Code 551.103

Kapusta

Well this got off topic quick.

WhyFi

Yup, two abreast and within one lane is pretty typical.

edit: though this is also typical -

"(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane;  or

(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side."

livedarklions

Larry's logic is that the non-enforcement of a law means that it is de facto the law that the requirement does not exist. That's a really stupid bit of logic for a cyclist to maintain as that safe passing law is virtually never enforced. By his logic then, it's de facto legal to do non-safe passes.

livedarklions

Hopefully, she didn't detect the tarantula meat on your breath.

GhostRider62

Exactly. Let's get rid of most laws and all lawyers.

livedarklions

genejockey can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I was being unfair in that synopsis.

I probably shouldn't do this, but I want to go on record as saying that even when I don't agree with genejockey , I think he's very civil and I enjoy talking the issues through with him. So if I am misunderstanding his argument, I apologize (I don't think I am, though).

njkayaker

The common notion of passing is something that is done and over with in a short amount of time and done fairly rarely. He's arguing that the constant reordering that goes on in a peloton is this sort of passing. It's not.

He's arguing that the constant reordering that goes on in a peloton is the sort of passing that the traffic law talks about. It's not. It's "creative" (but not in the way you are describing).

genejockey 

It's more that what I'm arguing is that under certain circumstances, there's no reason for a group of 50 cyclists to defer to a single car, because they ARE the traffic.

Generally the law requires that slow moving vehicles pull over, when it's safe, when the line behind them reaches 5 other vehicles. But, you know, I grew up in farm country where one is frequently stuck behind a tractor or a farm truck that is going much slower than the posted limit, and we just put up with it because that's how it is. It's not THAT inconvenient, and it's not all the time.

Larry's point is that the cops in Woodside and Portola Valley know exactly when the Spectrum Ride happens, where it goes, and when it's likely to be passing particular points, because the ride has been going on literally for decades. By NOT stopping it, or trying to enforce single file riding etc., the local constabulary is essentially allowing the behavior. It takes place Saturday morning, so it's not like they're disrupting rush hour or such - so, not like Critical Mass.

genejockey 

I guess it boils down to whether you think cyclist rights are inferior to drivers rights, though I would point out that cycling is a right, whereas driving is a revocable privilege. If you don't believe me, note that even if you are stopped multiple times for cycling under the influence, even if your bike is confiscated, as long as you aren't in jail, or currently inebriated, there is no provision of the law to prohibit you riding a bike on the roadways. It requires neither a license for the operator nor one for the bicycle.

genejockey 

Everyone thinks that till they're on the other side of the equation.

livedarklions

So is the consensus that large group rides on sidewalks are ok as long as we're not disturbing horses or dogs or eating tarantulas?

gpburdell

Only if you're going against traffic and not wearing a shirt.