Self Driving Vehicles

On 12/28/2019 12:02 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:46:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/27/2019 8:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 18:45:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I said that if you _do_ read the books, you might be able to discuss (or
argue) specific points they contain. I said it would be a lot more
productive than the uninformed speculation that you've been doing.

It's still true. I think you should at least get enough background
knowledge so you aren't arguing from a position of ignorance.

Well yes, perhaps I am ignorant.... but I'm smart enough to see the
danger in riding out in front of traffic traveling at four times the
speed that I can ride on a bicycle.

So lets leave it at that.
You appear to firmly believe that the way to ride a bike safely is to
ride out in front of traffic traveling four times your speed.

Drop the "ride out in front of traffic," will you? "Ride out" is an
official crash description. It normally implies suddenly jumping
directly in front of motor vehicles. I've explained many times that's
not how it's done.

Have it any way you want. The traffic is traveling at 100 kph, or
faster, which is roughly 90 ft. per second, so the guy is going to
catch up with you very shortly. And he will be doing four times your
speed.

In fact we had a case some years ago where a foreign couple were
riding, apparently side by side, on a two lane road near the Cambodian
border. A pickup truck came over a little rise behind them , the
driver said that he had dropped his cap and had reached down to
retrieve it, and hit them. Had they been riding in a single line "on
the side of the road", as the law requires here, they'd likely still
be alive.... but they had seized the lane, as you have it.

We can trade anecdotes if you like, John. I have anecdotes about riders
being hit from behind while they were riding on shoulders of rural
roads. I can tell about my nervous friend who was riding the road
shoulder and was almost taken out by a right hook. I can tell of people
I know who crashed because of pavement hazards at the road's edge.

But I'll repeat (again and again, as seems necessary with you!) that
when there is sufficient space to safely share the road and permit safe
passing, that's what I do.

Perhaps you could write that down, and review it before posting yet
another of your repetitious challenges?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, 27 December 2019 20:06:06 UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/27/2019 5:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 6:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/27/2019 3:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm adamantly pro-education. I think it's weird that we have
people who argue against it.


No one is 'against education' but many people see a line
between actual education and indoctrination. Madrassas do
their version of 'education' to inflict on the earth more
jihadis. Defend that!

Especially as to riding bicycles on public roads, many
parse situational technique from categorical dogma.

Again, I think one needs to take the course to know what's
in it. I'm not aware of any cycling course that says "Take
the lane ALL THE TIME, no matter what." I don't do that, and
never said I did.

There are times, more often than not actually, when I ride
lane center. There are other times and other places where
that's ridiculous and possibly suicidal.

And so, yet again: 10 foot lane, 8.5 foot truck. What do
_you_ do?



Bail out, jump up over the curb.
I have plenty enough steel bits in my bones already.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank will call you a scardy cat and say you shouldn't be riding on the roads in traffic if you're that scared. At least that's what he told me when I bailed off a road because three 18-wheelers were bearing down on me as I approached a very narrow lane bridge, and the third back truck had it's wheels over the fogline and none of the trucks were slowing down.

Cheers

On Saturday, 28 December 2019 09:23:21 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 12:17:16 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:


There are times, more often than not actually, when I ride
lane center. There are other times and other places where
that's ridiculous and possibly suicidal.


That is just what I and most people do: let it depend on the situation. I
often ride a 3 km stretch of a narrow road. At the end of the road there
is a company that harvest crops for the farmers so once in a while I
encounter big harvest machines or tractors on that narrow road.:

https://tinyurl.com/wxnzcj6

I take the lane if necessary but I gladly make room when I can hop on a
drive way of a house/farm to let him pass. I don't like the sound of a
roaring big engine behind me for the whole stretch. It is just an
example. This 'negotiation' happens a dozen times every ride. Every situation is different.

Lou


Although I agree with you completely any answer that remotely resembles “it
depends� will likely get a rebuke from the fanatics.

Strange since it’s likely the most correct response.

It's quite interesting how this has morphed from Frank's earlier statement that he deliberately moved further into a lane and then deliberately slowed down in order to impede a driver who had done something Frank didn't like. Nowhere in that post did Frank mention anything about how narrow the lane he took was or anything else he's since posted in order to justify his behaviour. Now he's arguing solely to promote his take the lane stance.

Cheers

On 12/28/2019 3:41 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 12:17:16 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:


There are times, more often than not actually, when I ride
lane center. There are other times and other places where
that's ridiculous and possibly suicidal.


That is just what I and most people do: let it depend on the situation. I often ride a 3 km stretch of a narrow road. At the end of the road there is a company that harvest crops for the farmers so once in a while I encounter big harvest machines or tractors on that narrow road.:

https://tinyurl.com/wxnzcj6

I take the lane if necessary but I gladly make room when I can hop on a drive way of a house/farm to let him pass. I don't like the sound of a roaring big engine behind me for the whole stretch. It is just an example. This 'negotiation' happens a dozen times every ride. Every situation is different.

Yes, and I would not hold up a harvest machine for 3 km either.

A more common example around he As it happens, east-west bike travel
is somewhat challenging within a few miles of my home, largely because
of a north-south freeway that constitutes a barrier. There is the one
major east-west 4+ lane U.S. highway that carries up to 40,000 cars per
day, and I'll ride it if necessary, but I prefer quieter roads.

One east-west two lane road would be quite nice, but it's used as a
cut-through by many impatient drivers. I usually avoid it, but sometimes
I have little choice. When I've used it at high traffic times, I have
pulled over periodically to let traffic pass.

(The road's very narrow lanes - probably nine feet - and roadside
ditches mean it would be extremely foolish to ride the road's edge and
encourage close passing.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/28/2019 9:23 AM, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 12:17:16 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:


There are times, more often than not actually, when I ride
lane center. There are other times and other places where
that's ridiculous and possibly suicidal.


That is just what I and most people do: let it depend on the situation. I
often ride a 3 km stretch of a narrow road. At the end of the road there
is a company that harvest crops for the farmers so once in a while I
encounter big harvest machines or tractors on that narrow road.:

https://tinyurl.com/wxnzcj6

I take the lane if necessary but I gladly make room when I can hop on a
drive way of a house/farm to let him pass. I don't like the sound of a
roaring big engine behind me for the whole stretch. It is just an
example. This 'negotiation' happens a dozen times every ride. Every situation is different.

Lou


Although I agree with you completely any answer that remotely resembles “it
depends� will likely get a rebuke from the fanatics.

Oh, bull****! You cannot possibly point to a post in this discussion
where anyone said a cyclist must always do one precise thing no matter
the circumstances.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/28/2019 12:56 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:39:43 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip?

Given the fact that almost all lanes are (by simple math) too narrow to
safely share, it makes sense to use a position toward center as the
default.

With long sight lines on flat-ish country roads, cars just go around when I'm riding AFRAP. I have the room I need and so do they. When riding in the sticks, sitting in the middle of the road produces closes passes and honking. Why make myself miserable?

If riding at lane center produces close passes and honking, then Oregon
is now much different than I remember. It's certainly different from
almost all the other riding I've done.

With long sight lines on flat-ish country roads, I'm almost always
within a foot of lane center. The exception is if there's a really good
shoulder - with "really good" meaning smooth and free of gravel and
other debris. Part of the reason I'm at lane center is that the center
is usually the smoothest pavement. Truck and car tires wear the pavement
in the tire tracks much sooner than the center.

The added bonus is that when I'm right in the center, it becomes obvious
to motorists from much further back. In my mirror, I see them adjust
speeds earlier. On four lanes, I see them begin merging to the next
lane. It works out better for them and for me.

The Oregon law says you can take the lane to avoid "unsafe operation" by a MV in the lane if the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. It is generally interpreted by ODOT as meaning that you can take the lane to prevent unsafe passing.

With the safe passing law, a car must pass within a "safe distance" (bicycle fall-over distance), and the law expressly allows the vehicle to cross a solid center-line to pass a bike. Assuming a empty road, a car can simply go around, and there is no risk of unsafe passing within the lane, so AFRAP is what you do. That's the ODOT handbook rule.

I'm aware of Oregon's "fall over" passing clearance rule, defining a
safe pass as one that would not hit the cyclist if he toppled over. In
effect, that mandates a bigger clearance than almost every other state,
probably six feet. By the math I gave earlier, an Oregon lane wide
enough for statutory safe passing would be about sixteen feet minimum.

So if Oregon law allows taking the lane to prevent unsafe passing, you
can ride in the center of any lane less than sixteen feet wide. That's
what the math says. So I don't understand why you're so adamant about
riding far right.

(And BTW, we haven't discussed the "P" in AFRAP.)


But like I said, if there is oncoming traffic or a congested second lane -- assuming two travel lanes in the same direction -- then I'll take the lane. I just don't sit in the middle of the lane willy-nilly as a default rule.

Also, there is an express requirement that cyclists follow the "failure to yield" law:

ORS 811.425

A person commits the offense of failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle if the person is driving a vehicle and the person fails to move the person’s vehicle off the main traveled portion of the highway into an area sufficient for safe turnout when:

(a)The driver of the overtaken vehicle is proceeding at a speed less than a speed established in ORS 811.105 (Speeds that are evidence of basic rule violation) as prima facie evidence of violation of the basic speed rule;

(b)The driver of the overtaking vehicle is proceeding at a speed in conformity with ORS 811.105 (Speeds that are evidence of basic rule violation);

(c)The highway is a two directional, two-lane highway; and

(d)There is no clear lane for passing available to the driver of the overtaking vehicle.

(2)This section does not apply to the driver of a vehicle in a funeral procession.

(3)The offense described in this section, failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §640; 1991 c.482 §16; 1995 c.383 §68; 2001 c.104 §307; 2003 c.819 §15]


On the typical one-lane each way road, you have to pull over to let cars go if there is a twisting or congested lane in the opposite direction. Sorry, but the Officious Cyclist promenading through the countryside with a car -- or ten cars -- stuck behind him would get a ticket. He would also get run-down by some ****ed-off mullet head in a pickup.

No, I don't see that "you have to pull over" in the law. And your
preferred lawyer seems to agree with me. I'll put his quotes in another
response.

But let me address a recurring straw man. You're implying yet again that
I would hold up a car or a train of cars for long distances. That's
simply false.

The longest I remember a car stuck behind me was on a club ride on quiet
country roads. There were probably ten of us being followed by an
obviously timid driver. She stayed behind us at 15 - 20 mph for at least
a mile, despite no oncoming traffic and several of us waving for her to
pass. It's _very_ unusual.

And as I've stated repeatedly, I have pulled over to let trains of cars
pass. It's a very unusual situation, a rare problem. I recall one time
when I actually felt sorry for the motorists, because the narrow road
with drop-off edges gave me no way to do it; but when a driveway
appeared, I let them by.

The common and normal situation is: two lane road, ten foot lanes, cars
approaching from the front and back. I'm lane center. The car behind me
sees what's happening and slows down. Oncoming cars go by, the car
behind me passes. It all takes less than 15 seconds or so.

I don't argue against education. I'm just tired of insufferable know-it-alls and ideologues. If it isn't the law, then its just opinion.

Hah! Well, that attitude negates math, science and engineering, doesn't it?

Is it really your opinion that "two feet plus three feet plus 8.5 feet"
is less than twelve feet?

The relevant question is "do I need to take the lane to prevent unsafe passing." Usually not. Cars just go around, crossing the center line. Again, in cramped quarters, I'll take the lane for as long as I need it, which is generally not long.

On that last bit, we agree. It doesn't take long for the situation to clear.

And, BTW, taking the lane doesn't prevent unsafe passing unless you are dealing with compliant drivers. I've been lane center and gotten passed many times within inches with on-coming traffic on narrow roads. There are many non-compliant drivers -- more in certain areas than others -- which was my point.

Well, perhaps we're differing on what "many" means. I'm sure there are
hundreds of thousands of "non-compliant drivers" in the U.S. I'm also
sure they are a tiny proportion of all drivers. Almost everyone I've
heard of who adopts prominent road position reports far, far fewer close
passes. I certainly agree with that.

But as I've pointed out, another benefit of being lane center is it
gives several feet of escape space even if an idiot does purposely skim
your elbow.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/28/2019 1:14 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:39:43 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 1:15:27 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 2:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:03:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:


So Jay, let me try yet again: If you're riding a ten foot lane in East
Toadsuck and an 8.5 foot truck approaches from behind you, exactly what
do _you_ do?

Depends on the road, traffic and speed of the truck. If I'm on an open section being approached by a truck, I'll stay AFRAP and hold a straight line.

So define AFRAP. Let's talk about that. What is "P" and how far is it?

The truck will cross the center line and pass me. If I'm in the middle of the road, it will pass me closely, honk and spew a cloud of diesel.

My experience, and the experience of almost everyone who learns and
experiences these things, is that if I'm close to the right edge, many
drivers will squeeze by with barely a foot to spare. Others will
"straddle pass," going only partly into the next lane, and do who knows
what if an oncoming car appears. But if I'm in the center of a ten foot
lane, almost all drivers will wait until passing is clear, then be
entirely in the next lane when they pass.

Here's a graphic summary of some test data:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...gplotchart.jpg
Note all the closest passes happened when the cyclist was far right.

If its tight quarters because of oncoming traffic or road conditions, I'll take the road depending on the speed and distance of the truck, among other things. That's the law.

In many if not most states, the laws state a cyclist is not required to
ride at the far right "if the lane is too narrow to safely share." The
dimensions I gave for lane and truck should make it clear that the lane
in question is indeed too narrow. So the cyclist is not required to be
at far right. _That's_ the law!

Cyclecrap says that "primary position" is the default position which is
against the law much of the time, unnecessary most of the time and
dangerous some times.

I suspect your interpretation of the law is both wrong and impractical.
For example: In a state with a three foot passing clearance law, any
lane less than 12 feet wide is "too narrow to safely share" by simple
math. (Two feet minimum for a cyclist riding with his right shoulder
vertically above the road edge, three feet clearance, and 8.5 feet for a
legal limit truck makes 13.5 feet - and that's riding the bike one foot
from the edge, which is often a bad idea given cracks, potholes, gravel,
etc.) Most traffic lanes are no wider than 12 feet, and many are ten
feet. There is even a movement to make narrower lanes the default, for
safety purposes.

Then there are situations where the road effectively narrows up ahead -
say, by parked cars. Is the cyclist forbidden to gradually move left
before he comes to the cars, even though the road is still "wide"?

Then there is the empty road situation. Yes, the letter of the law says
to be far right (as far right as "P")... but why? If the road is empty,
should a cyclist not be able to, say, ride the portion that has the
fewest pavement patches? And practically speaking, how often do cyclists
really get ticketed for not being at the right edge of an empty road?

What about approaching an intersection where a motorist is at a stop
sign at the right, peering around a parked car? Can I not be toward the
center of the roadway, so I'm visible to him as early as possible? Do I
really have to skim by the parked car, risk getting doored, and risk his
not being able to see me until its too late?

What about when the motor vehicle traffic is slow, so the cyclist can
keep up with it? Or for that matter, when it's stopped? Many states
mandate "far right" only when car traffic is faster; but even in those
that lack that detail, why should a cyclist move to a position where
he's less visible, and where some motorists would immediately move
forward to prevent him from getting back in line, even for (say) an
upcoming left turn?

Bob Mionske's book _Bicycling and the Law_ discusses a lot of this. For
the benefit of others reading this (because Jay knows it): Mionske is an
Oregon lawyer, a former Olympic cyclist, he has long written on legal
matters for bike publications. And he seems to disagree with Jay on much
of this. [Page 198: "Lanes that are too narrow to safely share mean that
cyclists must 'take the lane'..."]

BTW, Bob may be a great cyclist, but I checked the state docket, and he appears on two cases since his admission in 2001. I don't know what he does for a living. I've never seen him on a case.

Ray Thomas is someone I know, and although we disagree on some things (all things related to work), he is a far better source of commentary on Oregon law.
https://bikeportland.org/2013/12/02/...ing-laws-97747 It's basically what I've been saying, although he throws in Potter and the impeding law.

The Potter case seems to have been about a Critical Mass ride -
purposely obstructing traffic as a protest. I've never done that.

But here are other quotes from the article you linked:

"ORS 814.430 allows riders to maintain occupancy of the entire lane when
necessary, even if motor vehicle operators have to slow until riders are
able to again ride closer to the right edge."

"...it is quite likely that these statutes would be interpreted to allow
bicycles to stay in the travel lane, even if it means holding up
overtaking vehicles so long as surface hazards prevent the riders from
moving in safety off the main traveled portion of the roadway."

"​And, ORS 814.430 (“Bicycle Bill of Rights�) provides other conditions
justifying use of up to the entire lane..."

"... the right of people on bicycles to the road contained in ORS
814.430 provides both a safe haven on the roadway and the right to take
the lane when necessary.​"

​"The Potter case serves as a warning for riders that unreasonably
failing to yield to traffic or overtaking vehicles may trigger a traffic
citation. What the Potter case does not change is the right to take the
lane when reasonable necessary for safety, even if it means slowing down
overtaking vehicles."


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 8:26:49 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/28/2019 1:14 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:39:43 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 1:15:27 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 2:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:03:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:


So Jay, let me try yet again: If you're riding a ten foot lane in East
Toadsuck and an 8.5 foot truck approaches from behind you, exactly what
do _you_ do?

Depends on the road, traffic and speed of the truck. If I'm on an open section being approached by a truck, I'll stay AFRAP and hold a straight line.

So define AFRAP. Let's talk about that. What is "P" and how far is it?

The truck will cross the center line and pass me. If I'm in the middle of the road, it will pass me closely, honk and spew a cloud of diesel.

My experience, and the experience of almost everyone who learns and
experiences these things, is that if I'm close to the right edge, many
drivers will squeeze by with barely a foot to spare. Others will
"straddle pass," going only partly into the next lane, and do who knows
what if an oncoming car appears. But if I'm in the center of a ten foot
lane, almost all drivers will wait until passing is clear, then be
entirely in the next lane when they pass.

Here's a graphic summary of some test data:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...gplotchart.jpg
Note all the closest passes happened when the cyclist was far right..

If its tight quarters because of oncoming traffic or road conditions, I'll take the road depending on the speed and distance of the truck, among other things. That's the law.

In many if not most states, the laws state a cyclist is not required to
ride at the far right "if the lane is too narrow to safely share." The
dimensions I gave for lane and truck should make it clear that the lane
in question is indeed too narrow. So the cyclist is not required to be
at far right. _That's_ the law!

Cyclecrap says that "primary position" is the default position which is
against the law much of the time, unnecessary most of the time and
dangerous some times.

I suspect your interpretation of the law is both wrong and impractical..
For example: In a state with a three foot passing clearance law, any
lane less than 12 feet wide is "too narrow to safely share" by simple
math. (Two feet minimum for a cyclist riding with his right shoulder
vertically above the road edge, three feet clearance, and 8.5 feet for a
legal limit truck makes 13.5 feet - and that's riding the bike one foot
from the edge, which is often a bad idea given cracks, potholes, gravel,
etc.) Most traffic lanes are no wider than 12 feet, and many are ten
feet. There is even a movement to make narrower lanes the default, for
safety purposes.

Then there are situations where the road effectively narrows up ahead -
say, by parked cars. Is the cyclist forbidden to gradually move left
before he comes to the cars, even though the road is still "wide"?

Then there is the empty road situation. Yes, the letter of the law says
to be far right (as far right as "P")... but why? If the road is empty,
should a cyclist not be able to, say, ride the portion that has the
fewest pavement patches? And practically speaking, how often do cyclists
really get ticketed for not being at the right edge of an empty road?

What about approaching an intersection where a motorist is at a stop
sign at the right, peering around a parked car? Can I not be toward the
center of the roadway, so I'm visible to him as early as possible? Do I
really have to skim by the parked car, risk getting doored, and risk his
not being able to see me until its too late?

What about when the motor vehicle traffic is slow, so the cyclist can
keep up with it? Or for that matter, when it's stopped? Many states
mandate "far right" only when car traffic is faster; but even in those
that lack that detail, why should a cyclist move to a position where
he's less visible, and where some motorists would immediately move
forward to prevent him from getting back in line, even for (say) an
upcoming left turn?

Bob Mionske's book _Bicycling and the Law_ discusses a lot of this. For
the benefit of others reading this (because Jay knows it): Mionske is an
Oregon lawyer, a former Olympic cyclist, he has long written on legal
matters for bike publications. And he seems to disagree with Jay on much
of this. [Page 198: "Lanes that are too narrow to safely share mean that
cyclists must 'take the lane'..."]

BTW, Bob may be a great cyclist, but I checked the state docket, and he appears on two cases since his admission in 2001. I don't know what he does for a living. I've never seen him on a case.

Ray Thomas is someone I know, and although we disagree on some things (all things related to work), he is a far better source of commentary on Oregon law.
https://bikeportland.org/2013/12/02/...ing-laws-97747 It's basically what I've been saying, although he throws in Potter and the impeding law.

The Potter case seems to have been about a Critical Mass ride -
purposely obstructing traffic as a protest. I've never done that.

But here are other quotes from the article you linked:

"ORS 814.430 allows riders to maintain occupancy of the entire lane when
necessary, even if motor vehicle operators have to slow until riders are
able to again ride closer to the right edge."

"...it is quite likely that these statutes would be interpreted to allow
bicycles to stay in the travel lane, even if it means holding up
overtaking vehicles so long as surface hazards prevent the riders from
moving in safety off the main traveled portion of the roadway."

"​And, ORS 814.430 (“Bicycle Bill of Rights�) provides other conditions
justifying use of up to the entire lane..."

"... the right of people on bicycles to the road contained in ORS
814.430 provides both a safe haven on the roadway and the right to take
the lane when necessary.​"

​"The Potter case serves as a warning for riders that unreasonably
failing to yield to traffic or overtaking vehicles may trigger a traffic
citation. What the Potter case does not change is the right to take the
lane when reasonable necessary for safety, even if it means slowing down
overtaking vehicles."

Yes, exactly as I said -- you cannot take "Position One" lane center as a default position. Default is AFRAP with the ability to take the lane to avoid hazards or to avoid UNSAFE passing -- not just passing. Motorists -- and in fact all people -- are presumed to follow the law. We have two safe passing laws: https://bikeportland.org/2014/01/06/...xplained-99506 With an open lane for passing, the default is AFRAP since cars can pass safely. Cars pass me all the time safely while I'm riding AFRAP on one lane roads. P is about he https://tinyurl.com/rrfgmr8 As a practical matter, I'm all over the place on an empty road. On a busy two-lane road, I'll change my position as necessary to avoid unsafe passing in the lane and in areas where I need to improve my visibility or safety.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 12/28/2019 12:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 8:26:49 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/28/2019 1:14 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:39:43 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 1:15:27 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 2:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:03:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:


So Jay, let me try yet again: If you're riding a ten foot lane in East
Toadsuck and an 8.5 foot truck approaches from behind you, exactly what
do _you_ do?

Depends on the road, traffic and speed of the truck. If I'm on an open section being approached by a truck, I'll stay AFRAP and hold a straight line.

So define AFRAP. Let's talk about that. What is "P" and how far is it?

The truck will cross the center line and pass me. If I'm in the middle of the road, it will pass me closely, honk and spew a cloud of diesel.

My experience, and the experience of almost everyone who learns and
experiences these things, is that if I'm close to the right edge, many
drivers will squeeze by with barely a foot to spare. Others will
"straddle pass," going only partly into the next lane, and do who knows
what if an oncoming car appears. But if I'm in the center of a ten foot
lane, almost all drivers will wait until passing is clear, then be
entirely in the next lane when they pass.

Here's a graphic summary of some test data:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...gplotchart.jpg
Note all the closest passes happened when the cyclist was far right.

If its tight quarters because of oncoming traffic or road conditions, I'll take the road depending on the speed and distance of the truck, among other things. That's the law.

In many if not most states, the laws state a cyclist is not required to
ride at the far right "if the lane is too narrow to safely share." The
dimensions I gave for lane and truck should make it clear that the lane
in question is indeed too narrow. So the cyclist is not required to be
at far right. _That's_ the law!

Cyclecrap says that "primary position" is the default position which is
against the law much of the time, unnecessary most of the time and
dangerous some times.

I suspect your interpretation of the law is both wrong and impractical.
For example: In a state with a three foot passing clearance law, any
lane less than 12 feet wide is "too narrow to safely share" by simple
math. (Two feet minimum for a cyclist riding with his right shoulder
vertically above the road edge, three feet clearance, and 8.5 feet for a
legal limit truck makes 13.5 feet - and that's riding the bike one foot
from the edge, which is often a bad idea given cracks, potholes, gravel,
etc.) Most traffic lanes are no wider than 12 feet, and many are ten
feet. There is even a movement to make narrower lanes the default, for
safety purposes.

Then there are situations where the road effectively narrows up ahead -
say, by parked cars. Is the cyclist forbidden to gradually move left
before he comes to the cars, even though the road is still "wide"?

Then there is the empty road situation. Yes, the letter of the law says
to be far right (as far right as "P")... but why? If the road is empty,
should a cyclist not be able to, say, ride the portion that has the
fewest pavement patches? And practically speaking, how often do cyclists
really get ticketed for not being at the right edge of an empty road?

What about approaching an intersection where a motorist is at a stop
sign at the right, peering around a parked car? Can I not be toward the
center of the roadway, so I'm visible to him as early as possible? Do I
really have to skim by the parked car, risk getting doored, and risk his
not being able to see me until its too late?

What about when the motor vehicle traffic is slow, so the cyclist can
keep up with it? Or for that matter, when it's stopped? Many states
mandate "far right" only when car traffic is faster; but even in those
that lack that detail, why should a cyclist move to a position where
he's less visible, and where some motorists would immediately move
forward to prevent him from getting back in line, even for (say) an
upcoming left turn?

Bob Mionske's book _Bicycling and the Law_ discusses a lot of this. For
the benefit of others reading this (because Jay knows it): Mionske is an
Oregon lawyer, a former Olympic cyclist, he has long written on legal
matters for bike publications. And he seems to disagree with Jay on much
of this. [Page 198: "Lanes that are too narrow to safely share mean that
cyclists must 'take the lane'..."]

BTW, Bob may be a great cyclist, but I checked the state docket, and he appears on two cases since his admission in 2001. I don't know what he does for a living. I've never seen him on a case.

Ray Thomas is someone I know, and although we disagree on some things (all things related to work), he is a far better source of commentary on Oregon law.
https://bikeportland.org/2013/12/02/...ing-laws-97747 It's basically what I've been saying, although he throws in Potter and the impeding law.

The Potter case seems to have been about a Critical Mass ride -
purposely obstructing traffic as a protest. I've never done that.

But here are other quotes from the article you linked:

"ORS 814.430 allows riders to maintain occupancy of the entire lane when
necessary, even if motor vehicle operators have to slow until riders are
able to again ride closer to the right edge."

"...it is quite likely that these statutes would be interpreted to allow
bicycles to stay in the travel lane, even if it means holding up
overtaking vehicles so long as surface hazards prevent the riders from
moving in safety off the main traveled portion of the roadway."

"​And, ORS 814.430 (“Bicycle Bill of Rights�) provides other conditions
justifying use of up to the entire lane..."

"... the right of people on bicycles to the road contained in ORS
814.430 provides both a safe haven on the roadway and the right to take
the lane when necessary.​"

​"The Potter case serves as a warning for riders that unreasonably
failing to yield to traffic or overtaking vehicles may trigger a traffic
citation. What the Potter case does not change is the right to take the
lane when reasonable necessary for safety, even if it means slowing down
overtaking vehicles."

Yes, exactly as I said -- you cannot take "Position One" lane center as a default position.

But you can take the lane if necessary for safety. My state and many
others say that's any time the lane is too narrow to safely share. Most
lanes are too narrow to safely share.

Default is AFRAP with the ability to take the lane to avoid hazards or to avoid UNSAFE passing -- not just passing.

Which is fine, because I'm not normally trying to dissuade passing. When
I'm at lane center, people pass me all the time. They just use the next
lane to do it. That's completely fine.

I do want to dissuade unsafe passing. That would be passing in my lane
when the lane is too narrow to share.

This is beginning to sound almost like violent agreement.

With an open lane for passing, the default is AFRAP since cars can pass safely. Cars pass me all the time safely while I'm riding AFRAP on one lane roads. P is about he https://tinyurl.com/rrfgmr8

And here are our differences. Taking the last point first, I would
probably be a foot or two futher left in that photo. That's because the
lane is quite narrow (it looks like about nine feet) and I wouldn't want
someone starting to pass, then squeezing right when a car appeared
around that curve.

And although I agree that many if not most drivers would straddle pass
me in that position with sufficient clearance, I know by experience that
some would not. I know that since I started riding more toward the
center, the number of close passes has dropped considerably.

Also, I believe that if I'm very, very obviously "in the way," even a
distracted driver is more likely to notice me. I don't want someone
reading a text to subconsciously think "He left me enough room, I can
keep reading." I want "Oh oh, I gotta deal with this bike!"

A further detail: Whyever would I choose not to be a foot further left?
My chance of a ticket is zero, even in Oregon.

Yet another detail: I haven't yet mentioned this, but sometimes there's
value to waiting until a motorist in my mirror visibly slows, then
moving rightward a bit. Even in some narrow lanes, I'll move right a bit
and perhaps wave motorists by as soon as I see safe passing is possible.
Motorists seem to interpret that as cooperation and seem grateful. I've
waved to many of them, and they've waved back.

As a practical matter, I'm all over the place on an empty road.

Yes! Despite all the arguments you've made otherwise!

On a busy two-lane road, I'll change my position as necessary to avoid unsafe passing in the lane and in areas where I need to improve my visibility or safety.

I also change my position depending on circumstances. But my safety
comes first.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:23:21 PM UTC, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 12:17:16 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:


There are times, more often than not actually, when I ride
lane center. There are other times and other places where
that's ridiculous and possibly suicidal.


That is just what I and most people do: let it depend on the situation. I
often ride a 3 km stretch of a narrow road. At the end of the road there
is a company that harvest crops for the farmers so once in a while I
encounter big harvest machines or tractors on that narrow road.:

https://tinyurl.com/wxnzcj6

I take the lane if necessary but I gladly make room when I can hop on a
drive way of a house/farm to let him pass. I don't like the sound of a
roaring big engine behind me for the whole stretch. It is just an
example. This 'negotiation' happens a dozen times every ride. Every situation is different.

Lou


Although I agree with you completely any answer that remotely resembles “it
depends� will likely get a rebuke from the fanatics.

Strange since it’s likely the most correct response.

+1

AJ