When to honk at a bicyclist

In article ,
(R15757) writes:
Wayne Pein wrote in part:

The lane is in the "possession" of whoever is in front. First come,
first served.

Yeah, unless that first-comer happens to be a bicycle,
in which case that bicycle, insofar as it is moving
slower than other traffic, is obligated to move right.

Interestingly (to me), as far as I can tell, bicycles are
the only vehicles so generally discriminated against by
the law as a /type/ of vehicle. Singled-out, as it were.

Bicycles are not allowed to occupy entire lanes
whenever their operators feel like it, only when certain
specific conditions exist. Getting there first is not one
of those conditions.

Some would argue that in some certain circumstances moving
rightward would be deleterious to visibility to drivers, and
would therefore be impracticable. One example that springs
immediately to mind is where streets are heavily lined with
trees casting a lot of shadow over the side of the road. The
effect is compounded by the shade possibly concealing hazards
on or in the pavement. I can see how non-cycling drivers
might not understand or recognize such a concern, and would
assume a rider dealing with those conditions is simply being
bloody-minded.

But it's up to the bicyclist.

You're dreaming. Don't blame me, I didn't make the law,
I just ignore it.

Unless you're speaking abstractly, and not legally, in
which case I agree with you completely. It _should_ be
up to the cyclist, and the cyclist must interpret these
laws on the fly for his/her own safety.

Hmmm ... two schools of thought -- on the one hand, abstruse,
open-to-interpretation legal wording (i.e: 'practicable')
works to the cyclist's benefit; on the other, to his detriment?

I would really, really like to know fer sher, above all
argument, who truly gets to define what is practicable.
And I sure hope the answer isn't: 'everybody'.

But speaking legally, of course it is not up to the
cyclist. It sure would be interesting if it were though:
"Your Honor, I hereby declare myself not at fault, even
though Officer Friendly said I swerved into the path of
that passing vehicle.""Well ok then." (bangs gavel in
mock seriousness, judge and cyclist both laugh)

That would constitute a rear-ender. We know how those
are typically decided. When it's a /car/ that gets
rear-ended, anyways.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

R15757 wrote:
Wayne Pein wrote in part:

The lane is in the "possession" of whoever is in front. First come,
first served.

Yeah, unless that first-comer happens to be a bicycle,
in which case that bicycle, insofar as it is moving
slower than other traffic, is obligated to move right.
Bicycles are not allowed to occupy entire lanes
whenever their operators feel like it, only when certain
specific conditions exist. Getting there first is not one
of those conditions.

Well you have your interpretation, and I'll have mine. Since here the
law does not say that bicyclists cannot occupy a full lane, then it must
be assumed they can.



But it's up to the bicyclist.

You're dreaming. Don't blame me, I didn't make the law,
I just ignore it.

Unless you're speaking abstractly, and not legally, in
which case I agree with you completely. It _should_ be
up to the cyclist, and the cyclist must interpret these
laws on the fly for his/her own safety.

But speaking legally, of course it is not up to the
cyclist. It sure would be interesting if it were though:
"Your Honor, I hereby declare myself not at fault, even
though Officer Friendly said I swerved into the path of
that passing vehicle.""Well ok then." (bangs gavel in
mock seriousness, judge and cyclist both laugh)


Your defeatest attitude will not serve you well. If you don't act and
believe you are protected by the law, then that is your fault.

If I am riding down the center of a lane, then that is the practicable
location for me at the time and traffic conditions then existing. If a
police officer believes otherwise, and they have on 3 occasions, I
challenge their authority. The 3 outcomes? I continued on my merry way
and the officers were better informed of my rights.


I guess you never filter up past a line of cars at a

light.


If it is wide enough and I get and advantage yes. I do the same in my
car if possible. But most often there is no benefit to me, so I don't do it.

"..those whose measures are dictated by mere
expediency will arouse continual discontent."
--Confucius


This quote is irrelevant to my situation.

Wayne

Wayne Pein

wrote in part:

If I am riding down the center of a lane, then that is the practicable
location for me at the time and traffic conditions then existing. If a
police officer believes otherwise, and they have on 3 occasions, I
challenge their authority. The 3 outcomes? I continued on my merry way
and the officers were better informed of my rights.

An alternative explanation would be that those three police officers decided to
allow you to continue on your merry way not because you were right but simply
because your violation wasn't worth the headache.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

(Tom Keats)

wrote in part:

I would really, really like to know fer sher, above all
argument, who truly gets to define what is practicable.
And I sure hope the answer isn't: 'everybody'.

When words like "practicable" and "reasonable" are used in a law here in the US
the usual answer to your question is-
"Given the particular set of circumstances presented here [in a trial or suit]
what would a reasonably prudent person believe to be "practicable" or
"reasonable"? Since US law also assumes that the citizenry is by and large
"reasonably prudent", the short answer is- yup- 'everybody'. Or at least darn
near 'everybody'.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Zoot Katz wrote in message ...
25 Oct 2004 13:01:17 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:

Hey fukwit, you're getting boring.
That's why you've had your head up my ass for the last 8 days,
I was looking for your brain.
hypocrite.
go tinkle

I just recently purchased a bike to ride in my nice, little, safe town
in suburban New Jersey. Many parks, safe suburban streets, very little
crime etc. I thought it would be a nice relaxing hobby and good
exercise. I also thought it would be nice to write to other people who
ride bicycles.....(this is how I ended up reading this very
informative thread) :-)
After reading it, I think I will take my bike back to Walmart and buy
a gun instead. Riding a bike seems much too hostile and dangerous. I
think a gun is less threatening. I COULD BE WRONG!!! But based on
this thread, I am not quite sure. Mucho hostility going on here.
Peace from an old hippie looking for the simple pleasures. Thought it
could be found on a bicycle.

Bring me back to the summer of '69!! Peace love and all that other
crap to all.

On 28 Oct 2004 07:13:27 -0700, (Maggie) wrote:

Zoot Katz wrote in message ...
25 Oct 2004 13:01:17 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:

Hey fukwit, you're getting boring.
That's why you've had your head up my ass for the last 8 days,
I was looking for your brain.
hypocrite.
go tinkle

I just recently purchased a bike to ride in my nice, little, safe town
in suburban New Jersey. Many parks, safe suburban streets, very little
crime etc. I thought it would be a nice relaxing hobby and good
exercise. I also thought it would be nice to write to other people who
ride bicycles.....(this is how I ended up reading this very
informative thread) :-)
After reading it, I think I will take my bike back to Walmart and buy
a gun instead. Riding a bike seems much too hostile and dangerous. I
think a gun is less threatening. I COULD BE WRONG!!! But based on
this thread, I am not quite sure. Mucho hostility going on here.
Peace from an old hippie looking for the simple pleasures. Thought it
could be found on a bicycle.

Bring me back to the summer of '69!! Peace love and all that other
crap to all.

Uh, Peace? And you're apparently planning to prowl the streets shooting
people? This is clearly the most hostile post I've seen on the ng in quite
a while.

If not that, what would you propose that you would be doing with this
Walmart gun? Go hunting wabbits?

-B

Hunrobe wrote:

Wayne Pein


wrote in part:


If I am riding down the center of a lane, then that is the practicable
location for me at the time and traffic conditions then existing. If a
police officer believes otherwise, and they have on 3 occasions, I
challenge their authority. The 3 outcomes? I continued on my merry way
and the officers were better informed of my rights.


An alternative explanation would be that those three police officers decided to
allow you to continue on your merry way not because you were right but simply
because your violation wasn't worth the headache.

Regards,
Bob Hunt



First, it wasn't a violation. All three occasions happened on multi lane
roads in which I pointed out motorists could and did pass me in the left
lane. The officers agreed. I could have fibbed and said I was preparing
to enter the left lane to turn left. Had it occurred on a 2 lane road, I
may have pointed out that the lane was too narrow for me to allow
motorists to pass in my lane. Second, regardless of the explanation for
the police leaving me alone, I proved my point that attempting to micro
manage bicylcists' lateral position here in NC doesn't fly.

Regards,
Wayne

Hunrobe wrote:

(Tom Keats)


wrote in part:


I would really, really like to know fer sher, above all
argument, who truly gets to define what is practicable.
And I sure hope the answer isn't: 'everybody'.


When words like "practicable" and "reasonable" are used in a law here in the US
the usual answer to your question is-
"Given the particular set of circumstances presented here [in a trial or suit]
what would a reasonably prudent person believe to be "practicable" or
"reasonable"? Since US law also assumes that the citizenry is by and large
"reasonably prudent", the short answer is- yup- 'everybody'. Or at least darn
near 'everybody'.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

I don't know what you mean by "everybody" gets to decide what a
practicable lateral position is. "Everybody" gets to decide for
themselves what is practicable, but "everybody" doesn't mean a gaggle of
people decide where the bicyclist should ride.

Wayne

Maggie wrote:
Zoot Katz wrote in message
...
25 Oct 2004 13:01:17 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:

Hey fukwit, you're getting boring.
That's why you've had your head up my ass for the last 8 days,
I was looking for your brain.
hypocrite.
go tinkle

I just recently purchased a bike to ride in my nice, little, safe town
in suburban New Jersey. Many parks, safe suburban streets, very little
crime etc. I thought it would be a nice relaxing hobby and good
exercise. I also thought it would be nice to write to other people who
ride bicycles.....(this is how I ended up reading this very
informative thread) :-)
After reading it, I think I will take my bike back to Walmart and buy
a gun instead. Riding a bike seems much too hostile and dangerous. I
think a gun is less threatening. I COULD BE WRONG!!! But based on
this thread, I am not quite sure. Mucho hostility going on here.
Peace from an old hippie looking for the simple pleasures. Thought it
could be found on a bicycle.

Bring me back to the summer of '69!! Peace love and all that other
crap to all.

And the same crap to you!

Just killfile Zoot (he hates cars and drivers) and go ride your bike.

Bill "pedal softly...and aim between the eyes" S.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:52:48 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
wrote:

After reading it, I think I will take my bike back to Walmart and buy
a gun instead. Riding a bike seems much too hostile and dangerous. I
think a gun is less threatening. I COULD BE WRONG!!! But based on
this thread, I am not quite sure. Mucho hostility going on here.
Peace from an old hippie looking for the simple pleasures. Thought it
could be found on a bicycle.

Bring me back to the summer of '69!! Peace love and all that other
crap to all.

And the same crap to you!

Just killfile Zoot (he hates cars and drivers) and go ride your bike.

Bill "pedal softly...and aim between the eyes" S.

Are you sure this newbie, who mentions buying a gun, knows what a
'killfile' is, Bill. LOL

-B
virtually, virtually!