When to honk at a bicyclist

Hunrobe wrote:
I'm not sure why you replied
with the above.

Because I thought it might interest people.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Hunrobe wrote:
Wayne Pein


wrote in part:


I don't know what you mean by "everybody" gets to decide....


--- remainder snipped ---

Wayne,

If you want to engage someone in an argument you'll have to find someone else.
I was answering Tom K's question. If you had read what I wrote that- and who
gets to decide how we *all* use the roads- should have been clear.

Regards,
Bob Hunt



Bob,

I'm not looking for an argument. You sound as if you have a guilty
conscious.

Like I said, I don't know what you intended to mean in your "everybody"
repy. I read it and it isn't clear to me.

Wayne

Hunrobe wrote:



Since I was merely offering an alternative explanation of why Wayne may have
been "allowed to go on his merry way" even though he may have been wrong (he
supplied insufficient details to form any opinion) I'm not sure why you replied
with the above. My only point was that not being ticketed is not proof that he
was right. It's rather like conflicts here in the NG. Just because a Red Cloud
post may go unchallenged for instance doesn't mean it's an accurate, factual,
reasonable, or even sane post.

Well, since I didn't explain every detail of what transpired in my
conversations with the police officers, you are well within your right
to offer an alternative explanation. However, it is wrong.

Moreover, why do you feel you can offer an alternative explanation, but
Frank is not allowed to add his own supporting evidence that police can
become informed from reasoned dialog?

Wayne

R15757 wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

R15757 wrote: No, the bicyclist IS expected to give up his/her "right"

to the lane unless certain specific conditions exist.


Again: The cyclist isn't normally expected to give up his right "JUST
because someone would prefer to go faster." If someone prefers to go
faster AND it is reasonable (practicable) for the cyclist to do so, he
is expected to share.

I think I just said that.

But we need to not obscure the fact that the cyclist has a right to the
road; if the lane is too narrow to share, the cyclist has a right to
take the lane.


... And practically
speaking, it's up to the judgement of the cyclist. Prosecution would
occur only in situations where the cyclists blatantly abuses the situation.

It's not about getting a ticket or getting harassed by
clueless cops. It's about liability. If you get hit and
injured while riding in the lane, and the officer at the
scene writes in his report that you were riding
improperly, good luck. That police report is the holy
Word.

A competent cop wouldn't do that. That is, if a cyclist were taking the
lane because it was too narrow to share, and an incompetent motorist hit
him, it should not be written up as the cyclist's fault.

I know there are incompetent cops. But using one as a bad example does
not take away a cyclist's right to the road - even a narrow road.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

In article ,
(R15757) writes:

If we've established one thing in this thread it's that
many police officers and cyclists don't understand the
single law that is meant to cover every moment of the
cyclist's traveling existence.

Many? Perhaps. If so, then maybe it's about time that
situation was remedied.

I know what 'practicable' means to me. The tricky part
is knowing what it means to other people -- especially
police officers, judges, and insurance company torpedoes.

...

There
sure are a lot more important things to worry about
out there than what the hell practicable means.

Like cadence, or what to do if a pebble squirts out
from under your wheel and dings a parked car's paint.


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

In article ,
(Hunrobe) writes:
(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'.

I was afraid of that, because it leaves things so open-ended
and arbitrary.

Motor vehicle traffic law (indeed, /general/ traffic law) is so
nicely specific: "thou shalt not". Bicycle-specific traffic law
sounds more like: "you be the judge ... until your judgment is
superseded by Authority."

I hate being set up to be knocked down. And I still maintain
the keep-right law is so worded for the perceived convenience
of drivers, and the detriment of cyclists -- it can either set
us back up, or it can knock us down like bowling pins. Even if
cyclists are perpetually cut lots of legal slack, the 'as far
right as practicable' law is still a dangling Sword of Damaclese.

I don't like it. Doesn't keep me from riding, though.


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

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

But we need to not obscure the fact that the cyclist has a right to the
road; if the lane is too narrow to share, the cyclist has a right to
take the lane.

OK, let's not obscure that fact.

R15757: ...writes in his report that you were riding
improperly, good luck. That police report is the holy
Word.

A competent cop wouldn't do that. That is, if a cyclist were taking the
lane because it was too narrow to share, and an incompetent motorist hit
him, it should not be written up as the cyclist's fault.

Agreed. Definitely agreed. My point however is that
cyclists will not be able to somehow magically overrule
a police report just because they think they have a
better concept of what practicable means than the
officer..

My other related point is that there are realities (the
fact that few really know the law, the fact that even
those who do know it and follow it will make disastrous
mistakes in traffic) and there are abstractions (the
cyclist's right to the road, the law as written). It is
much better to deal with the realities. I mean, keep
hope alive for the abstractions, but deal in the
realities.

Robert

Wayne Pein

wrote:

I'm not looking for an argument. You sound as if you have a guilty
conscious.

Like I said, I don't know what you intended to mean in your "everybody"
repy. I read it and it isn't clear to me.

Then I'll restate it. Of course a cyclist must decide on what is "practicable"
and what is not in any given situation but to be defensible their decisions
must fall within broad parameters every other road user recognizes as
reasonable. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "Mine is the only judgement that
counts", so long as your decision affects you alone but that's not the case
when discussing traffic.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article ,
(R15757) writes:

Agreed. Definitely agreed. My point however is that
cyclists will not be able to somehow magically overrule
a police report just because they think they have a
better concept of what practicable means than the
officer..

That's because the keep-right law is so worded for the
convenience of drivers, to the detriment of cyclists.
And since 'everybody' gets to decide what 'practicable'
is, 'everybody' gets a chance to dilute or pervert
whatever a cyclist determines it to be.

Ipso fatso. The bicycles-keep-outa-the-way rule discriminates
against bicycles-as-vehicles, same as all the other bicycle-
specific traffic laws (mandatory side path, mandatory bike lane.)

And that's the point. That's all. So we put salt & pepper
on it, and we deal with it as a given, and we live with it,
and some people try to be happy with it.


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

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:56:18 -0700, (Tom Keats) wrote:

In article ,
(R15757) writes:

Agreed. Definitely agreed. My point however is that
cyclists will not be able to somehow magically overrule
a police report just because they think they have a
better concept of what practicable means than the
officer..

That's because the keep-right law is so worded for the
convenience of drivers, to the detriment of cyclists.
And since 'everybody' gets to decide what 'practicable'
is, 'everybody' gets a chance to dilute or pervert
whatever a cyclist determines it to be.

Ipso fatso. The bicycles-keep-outa-the-way rule discriminates
against bicycles-as-vehicles, same as all the other bicycle-
specific traffic laws (mandatory side path, mandatory bike lane.)

Pretty funny pun. By the Fatso? Fattie master reference. I get it.

And that's the point. That's all. So we put salt & pepper
on it, and we deal with it as a given, and we live with it,
and some people try to be happy with it.

Beyond the mixed metaphor you find such seasoning.

-B




cheers,
Tom