A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AG: Aunt Granny's Advice, or How to become an elderly cyclist:



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #291  
Old September 7th 15, 04:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
NFN Smith[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default AG: Legal isn't always smart

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Good post. Just one quibble:

"... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that
lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a
double yellow line, but a single white line, as well."

In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically
permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so,
in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half
the speed limit.

It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass
a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at
every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane
too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out
of the gutter.

The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying
to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for
passing truly slow vehicles.



Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane
change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a
measure of variance from state to state.

Smith

Ads
  #292  
Old September 7th 15, 09:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default AG: Stoplights

On Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 5:42:50 PM UTC-7, Joy Beeson wrote:
I once witnessed an egregious example of not understanding the rules:
A traffic light changed and a car stopped in the intersection to wait
for it to turn green again.

Though we call it a stop light, a red light doesn't mean "stop". It
means "it is not your turn to use the intersection". Had the driver
understood this, he wouldn't have remained in the intersection when it
wasn't his turn.

The most-common way to avoid entering an intersection is to stop, but
it's also permitted to move slowly enough that the light turns green
just as you reach it, or to turn off on a side road if one presents
itself.

Likewise, a green light isn't a command to shut your eyes and plow
straight ahead. A green light grants permission to enter the
intersection if it is, in your considered opinion, safe to enter the
intersection.


--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://joybeeson.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.


Well, I admit that's the best description of how lights should be treated I've seen.
  #293  
Old September 8th 15, 01:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,415
Default AG: Legal isn't always smart

On 9/7/2015 6:31 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
NFN Smith considered Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:41:39
-0700 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Good post. Just one quibble:

"... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that
lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a
double yellow line, but a single white line, as well."

In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically
permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so,
in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half
the speed limit.

It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass
a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at
every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane
too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out
of the gutter.

The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying
to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for
passing truly slow vehicles.



Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane
change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a
measure of variance from state to state.

And will be completely different for countries following the Vienna
conventions on road traffic (most of the world outside North America).


Can you tell us what the rules are for passing slow-moving bicycles in
those countries?


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #294  
Old September 8th 15, 02:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,900
Default AG: Legal isn't always smart

On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Good post. Just one quibble:

"... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that
lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a
double yellow line, but a single white line, as well."

In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically
permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so,
in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half
the speed limit.

It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass
a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at
every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane
too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out
of the gutter.

The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying
to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for
passing truly slow vehicles.



Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane
change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a
measure of variance from state to state.


Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is
not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle
must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the
bicycle until it's safe to do so.

There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when
it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that
as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter
minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that
try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane...

  #295  
Old September 8th 15, 08:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,900
Default AG: Legal isn't always smart

On 08/09/2015 3:14 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Duane considered Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:15:33
-0400 the perfect time to write:

On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Good post. Just one quibble:

"... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that
lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a
double yellow line, but a single white line, as well."

In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically
permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so,
in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half
the speed limit.

It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass
a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at
every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane
too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out
of the gutter.

The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying
to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for
passing truly slow vehicles.


Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane
change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a
measure of variance from state to state.


Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is
not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle
must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the
bicycle until it's safe to do so.

There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when
it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that
as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter
minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that
try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane...


The trouble with a fixed passing distance is that what is safe depends
on the size and speed of the passing vehicle, as well as things like
crosswinds. Even if the mandatory distance is stated to be a minimum,
once people have a figure, they tend to use it whatever the
circumstances.
I'll happily accept a small motorcycle passing at less than a metre if
it is only going 10mph faster than I am, but a 44 tonne truck doing
50mph with a crosswind from the right (the passing side in the UK) is
a whole different matter, and anything less than 2 metres is at least
very unpleasant, and a metre is downright dangerous.


But likely a 44 ton truck is not going to be able to pass me in the same
lane with 1m to spare so he will be forced to move to the other lane.
Well theoretically anyway. That's what they seem to do in places where
the 1m min is in effect. At the moment here it's up to the driver to
determine what a safe passing distance is. 1 meter minimum is better
than that, I think.
  #296  
Old September 9th 15, 06:32 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
john B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,603
Default AG: Legal isn't always smart

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:15:33 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Good post. Just one quibble:

"... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that
lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a
double yellow line, but a single white line, as well."

In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically
permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so,
in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half
the speed limit.

It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass
a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at
every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane
too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out
of the gutter.

The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying
to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for
passing truly slow vehicles.



Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane
change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a
measure of variance from state to state.


Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is
not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle
must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the
bicycle until it's safe to do so.

There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when
it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that
as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter
minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that
try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane...


Something that comes to mind with the 1 metre or 3 foot laws that seem
to be coming into style. Essentially it appears to mean that it is not
safe for an auto to pass a bicycle closer than 3 ft, or 1 metre. But
does that equally mean that it is unsafe for a bicycle to pass an auto
closer then the afore mentioned distance?

Certainly if the law were to be interpreted in such a manner it would
certainly do much to solve the "door" problem that some cyclists seem
to encounter.

--
cheers,

John B.

  #297  
Old September 9th 15, 01:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,900
Default AG: Legal isn't always smart

On 09/09/2015 1:32 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:15:33 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Good post. Just one quibble:

"... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that
lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a
double yellow line, but a single white line, as well."

In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically
permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so,
in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half
the speed limit.

It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass
a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at
every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane
too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out
of the gutter.

The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying
to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for
passing truly slow vehicles.


Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane
change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a
measure of variance from state to state.


Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is
not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle
must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the
bicycle until it's safe to do so.

There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when
it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that
as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter
minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that
try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane...


Something that comes to mind with the 1 metre or 3 foot laws that seem
to be coming into style. Essentially it appears to mean that it is not
safe for an auto to pass a bicycle closer than 3 ft, or 1 metre. But
does that equally mean that it is unsafe for a bicycle to pass an auto
closer then the afore mentioned distance?

Certainly if the law were to be interpreted in such a manner it would
certainly do much to solve the "door" problem that some cyclists seem
to encounter.


Not sure why you would need a law to tell you not to ride in a door
zone. I guess we have lots of laws trying to prevent stupidity though.

One of the main reasons for riders getting doored here is that the law
is written in a way to imply that they should be in the door zone.
There are even some bike lanes that are exactly in the door zone.
Rather than a law requiring riders to not be in the door zone, I'd
prefer a clear exclusion to the ride right law that allows riders to
move to the left to avoid doorings. Better to legislate against
behavior that's injurious to others and allow behavior that protects the
individual in my opinion, if you see what I mean.

I also think that increasing the fine from 35 bucks to 500-1000 bucks
like Ontario is doing will go a long way to alert drivers to not be stupid.

  #298  
Old September 9th 15, 03:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B.[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,202
Default AG: Legal isn't always smart

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:59:02 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 09/09/2015 1:32 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:15:33 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Good post. Just one quibble:

"... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that
lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a
double yellow line, but a single white line, as well."

In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically
permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so,
in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half
the speed limit.

It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass
a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at
every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane
too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out
of the gutter.

The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying
to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for
passing truly slow vehicles.


Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane
change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a
measure of variance from state to state.


Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is
not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle
must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the
bicycle until it's safe to do so.

There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when
it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that
as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter
minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that
try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane...


Something that comes to mind with the 1 metre or 3 foot laws that seem
to be coming into style. Essentially it appears to mean that it is not
safe for an auto to pass a bicycle closer than 3 ft, or 1 metre. But
does that equally mean that it is unsafe for a bicycle to pass an auto
closer then the afore mentioned distance?

Certainly if the law were to be interpreted in such a manner it would
certainly do much to solve the "door" problem that some cyclists seem
to encounter.


Not sure why you would need a law to tell you not to ride in a door
zone. I guess we have lots of laws trying to prevent stupidity though.

One of the main reasons for riders getting doored here is that the law
is written in a way to imply that they should be in the door zone.
There are even some bike lanes that are exactly in the door zone.
Rather than a law requiring riders to not be in the door zone, I'd
prefer a clear exclusion to the ride right law that allows riders to
move to the left to avoid doorings. Better to legislate against
behavior that's injurious to others and allow behavior that protects the
individual in my opinion, if you see what I mean.

I also think that increasing the fine from 35 bucks to 500-1000 bucks
like Ontario is doing will go a long way to alert drivers to not be stupid.


Singapore has always done that. Back when the average monthly wage was
probably under $2,000 a month the fine for spitting on the sidewalk
was $1,000. They did the same thing for talking on a hand phone
without a hands free device. Needless to say, you very, very seldom
see anyone spitting on the sidewalk or driving a car holding a phone
up to their ear.

They also hang dope dealers, usually about a month after conviction.
Surprisingly, there is a relatively small drug problem in Singapore.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #299  
Old September 9th 15, 05:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,415
Default AG: Legal isn't always smart

On 9/9/2015 1:32 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:15:33 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Good post. Just one quibble:

"... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that
lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a
double yellow line, but a single white line, as well."

In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically
permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so,
in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half
the speed limit.

It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass
a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at
every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane
too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out
of the gutter.

The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying
to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for
passing truly slow vehicles.


Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane
change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a
measure of variance from state to state.


Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is
not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle
must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the
bicycle until it's safe to do so.

There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when
it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that
as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter
minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that
try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane...


Something that comes to mind with the 1 metre or 3 foot laws that seem
to be coming into style. Essentially it appears to mean that it is not
safe for an auto to pass a bicycle closer than 3 ft, or 1 metre. But
does that equally mean that it is unsafe for a bicycle to pass an auto
closer then the afore mentioned distance?

Certainly if the law were to be interpreted in such a manner it would
certainly do much to solve the "door" problem that some cyclists seem
to encounter.


Judging from what I've read on various cycling advocacy forums, some
U.S. state's minimum passing clearance laws do apply to bikes passing
cars.

I think those aspects of the laws are generally bad. Yes, cyclists
should be out of the door zone. But on occasion, competent cyclists
prefer to filter forward in heavy stopped traffic (even though it's only
rarely needed in my case). I don't think a slow moving cyclist should
be prevented from closely passing a stopped car.

FWIW, I also don't think three feet is always adequate passing
clearance. One NE state (Maine? New Hampshire? I forget) has a more
complicated law, something like three feet up to 40 mph, plus an
additional foot for every extra 10 mph.

Trouble is, it's hard to get overly complicated laws passed. You
usually have to settle for what's politically possible.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #300  
Old September 9th 15, 06:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default AG: Legal isn't always smart

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 5:33:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/7/2015 6:31 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
NFN Smith considered Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:41:39
-0700 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Good post. Just one quibble:

"... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that
lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a
double yellow line, but a single white line, as well."

In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically
permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so,
in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half
the speed limit.

It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass
a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at
every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane
too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out
of the gutter.

The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying
to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for
passing truly slow vehicles.


Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane
change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a
measure of variance from state to state.

And will be completely different for countries following the Vienna
conventions on road traffic (most of the world outside North America).


Can you tell us what the rules are for passing slow-moving bicycles in
those countries?
--
- Frank Krygowski


In France I didn't see people passing people other than casually. I also didn't see racers inside the city limits. That was in 2002 and things might have changed. Stress levels seem to be a LOT higher now.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speeding cyclist mows down elderly jogger Mrcheerful UK 10 February 13th 14 11:43 PM
Cyclist:0 Disabled granny:1 Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 1 June 13th 13 09:15 PM
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement John Benn UK 25 August 19th 12 09:33 AM
cyclist says injured granny should not be on pavement! Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 5 June 13th 10 07:37 PM
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton [email protected] UK 167 February 1st 09 11:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.