Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure ofVehicular Cycling.

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 11:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:31:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 5:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 13:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2017 3:29 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of
transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/



That's an ignorant and deceptive propaganda piece.

Ignorant? Yes, because as explained by many people in the comments, even
its first mention of John Forester is mistaken. He did not "come up
with an idea for keeping cyclists safe on busy roads." He simply
publicized what was already standard bike riding technique in European
countries, where far more people used bikes than in America.


Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.

How odd. My wife and I rode lane center there whenever it was necessary
or desirable. The citation and fine crew somehow skipped us, those
slackers!

So about the citations: If you're in a ten foot lane in your country,
and a truck that's 8.5 feet wide is wanting to pass, are you supposed to
ride on the ragged edge of the pavement and hope that it doesn't knock
you over? Really??

Is that what you advocate for Americans?

I've lived in (lets see) ten of the 50 states and every one of them
had a verse in the highway rules that said "thou shall not impede
faster traffic". I didn't see any that were amended to say (except if
you are on a bicycle) :-)

You should look up the current laws. And the relevant court cases.
You're way behind.

Probably. After all I've been gone from there for years.

So, the "thou shall not impede" laws have been removed from the
traffic code?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 8/10/2017 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 11:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:31:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 5:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 13:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2017 3:29 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling�
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of
transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,�
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/



That's an ignorant and deceptive propaganda piece.

Ignorant? Yes, because as explained by many people in the comments, even
its first mention of John Forester is mistaken. He did not "come up
with an idea for keeping cyclists safe on busy roads." He simply
publicized what was already standard bike riding technique in European
countries, where far more people used bikes than in America.


Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.

How odd. My wife and I rode lane center there whenever it was necessary
or desirable. The citation and fine crew somehow skipped us, those
slackers!

So about the citations: If you're in a ten foot lane in your country,
and a truck that's 8.5 feet wide is wanting to pass, are you supposed to
ride on the ragged edge of the pavement and hope that it doesn't knock
you over? Really??

Is that what you advocate for Americans?

I've lived in (lets see) ten of the 50 states and every one of them
had a verse in the highway rules that said "thou shall not impede
faster traffic". I didn't see any that were amended to say (except if
you are on a bicycle) :-)

You should look up the current laws. And the relevant court cases.
You're way behind.

Probably. After all I've been gone from there for years.

So, the "thou shall not impede" laws have been removed from the
traffic code?

Here's Ohio's bike-relevant law:
------------------------------------------------
4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.

(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near
to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic
rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a
standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not
more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of
roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride
at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so.
Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway
include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or
impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the
bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within
the lane.
-------------------------------------------------------

The general slow vehicle law is this (I'll omit one paragraph):

4511.22 Slow speed.

(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or
street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the
normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or
reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

(B) ...

(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact,
in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably
slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its
operator.
------------------------------------------------------

That last paragraph figured heavily in a prominent case that established
that bikes are allowed to operate at bicycle speed, even if the poor
motorist behind the bike has to wait a few seconds.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:39:56 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2017 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 11:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:31:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 5:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 13:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2017 3:29 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling�
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of
transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,�
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/



That's an ignorant and deceptive propaganda piece.

Ignorant? Yes, because as explained by many people in the comments, even
its first mention of John Forester is mistaken. He did not "come up
with an idea for keeping cyclists safe on busy roads." He simply
publicized what was already standard bike riding technique in European
countries, where far more people used bikes than in America.


Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.

How odd. My wife and I rode lane center there whenever it was necessary
or desirable. The citation and fine crew somehow skipped us, those
slackers!

So about the citations: If you're in a ten foot lane in your country,
and a truck that's 8.5 feet wide is wanting to pass, are you supposed to
ride on the ragged edge of the pavement and hope that it doesn't knock
you over? Really??

Is that what you advocate for Americans?

I've lived in (lets see) ten of the 50 states and every one of them
had a verse in the highway rules that said "thou shall not impede
faster traffic". I didn't see any that were amended to say (except if
you are on a bicycle) :-)

You should look up the current laws. And the relevant court cases.
You're way behind.

Probably. After all I've been gone from there for years.

So, the "thou shall not impede" laws have been removed from the
traffic code?

Here's Ohio's bike-relevant law:
------------------------------------------------
4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.

(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near
to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic
rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a
standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not
more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of
roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride
at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so.
Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway
include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or
impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the
bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within
the lane.
-------------------------------------------------------

The general slow vehicle law is this (I'll omit one paragraph):

4511.22 Slow speed.

(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or
street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the
normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or
reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

(B) ...

(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact,
in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably
slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its
operator.
------------------------------------------------------

That last paragraph figured heavily in a prominent case that established
that bikes are allowed to operate at bicycle speed, even if the poor
motorist behind the bike has to wait a few seconds.


--
- Frank Krygowski

IIRC in Ontario Canada if there are 4 or more vehicles backed up behind any slow moving vehicle bicycle or motorised then the slow moving vehicle MUST MOVE TO THE RIGHT TO LET TRAFFIC PASS when it is safe for the slow moving vehicle to do so. Thus if you are impeding trafic because there is a shoulder you can move onto then you're liable to get a ticket for impeding traffic.

Cheers

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 22:39:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2017 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 11:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:31:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 5:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 13:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2017 3:29 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of
transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/



That's an ignorant and deceptive propaganda piece.

Ignorant? Yes, because as explained by many people in the comments, even
its first mention of John Forester is mistaken. He did not "come up
with an idea for keeping cyclists safe on busy roads." He simply
publicized what was already standard bike riding technique in European
countries, where far more people used bikes than in America.


Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.

How odd. My wife and I rode lane center there whenever it was necessary
or desirable. The citation and fine crew somehow skipped us, those
slackers!

So about the citations: If you're in a ten foot lane in your country,
and a truck that's 8.5 feet wide is wanting to pass, are you supposed to
ride on the ragged edge of the pavement and hope that it doesn't knock
you over? Really??

Is that what you advocate for Americans?

I've lived in (lets see) ten of the 50 states and every one of them
had a verse in the highway rules that said "thou shall not impede
faster traffic". I didn't see any that were amended to say (except if
you are on a bicycle) :-)

You should look up the current laws. And the relevant court cases.
You're way behind.

Probably. After all I've been gone from there for years.

So, the "thou shall not impede" laws have been removed from the
traffic code?

Here's Ohio's bike-relevant law:
------------------------------------------------
4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.

(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near
to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic
rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a
standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not
more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of
roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride
at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so.
Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway
include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or
impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the
bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within
the lane.
-------------------------------------------------------

The general slow vehicle law is this (I'll omit one paragraph):

4511.22 Slow speed.

(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or
street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the
normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or
reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

(B) ...

(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact,
in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably
slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its
operator.
------------------------------------------------------

That last paragraph figured heavily in a prominent case that established
that bikes are allowed to operate at bicycle speed, even if the poor
motorist behind the bike has to wait a few seconds.

That is essentially what I had said (perhaps in more poetic terms),
that essentially slower traffic is not to impede faster traffic. And
adds the notation that bicycles don't have to ride in the ditch, or
other unsafe places.

But your 4511.22 (A) and (B) is not an authority to ride lane center,
(as so often advocated) in any and all instances. In fact it would
appear that riding lane center could well be deemed illegal in many,
perhaps most, instances.

And, I might add, that from memory, the "prominent case" you mention
above did not rule that cars have to wait for bicycles. If memory
serves, you originally described it as a specific road condition that
limited viability, and in that case it was ruled that one did not have
to ride on the edge of the roadway.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:08:45 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 19:21, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 2:31 PM, Joerg wrote:

Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for
decades and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane
center is not at all customary there and would quickly result in a
citation and fine.

But if you're a tourist they just ignore you, and assume that you don't
know the law.


Sometimes.


In the UK you can take the lane when necessary, other times you can't.


That's how it is in most countries. Meaning if you are out there on a
rural road riding lane center you can be ticketed. Or get killed.


Are you saying it's different in other European countries? No one said
that it's customary to ride lane center, you only do it when there is no
other option.


Frank said in another post yesterday in this thread "My wife and I and
the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always near lane
center".

Not the words "almost always". Today he wrote, quote " My wife and I
rode lane center there whenever it was necessary or desirable".

I don't know what to believe of his writing. Do you?

I suggest that what you make of that is that people do not write in faultless English at all times and they do not always make their thoughts clear.

I think that as a group we're getting too critical of things like that an should back off a bit. Frank rides his share. He has also made more than his share of less than friendly comments and I'm not forgetting me. Recovering from a concussion isn't easy and too many people do not realize just what it's like to lose half of your life with disappeared memories. Many of my stupid comments are probably some sort of fear that I've lost more than memories but my intellectual edge.

I was just reading through my resume and discovered that I had designed and programmed VME boards used in the International Space Station and by Lockheed Aerospace. And I can't remember an F-ing thing about it.

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:59:34 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

Seriously, I talk to a lot of people who have bikes and occasionally
ride the residential streets here. They will not even venture out into
the village center 2mi away for errands and such because they will not
ride on a major thoroughfare sans bike lane. Understandably so. I ride
those a lot but it's not fun.

Most of this is probably nothing more than unfamiliarity. You should see the looks on people's faces when they ask how far I've gone today and I tell them "only 40 miles". It never even occurred to them that you could go over a mile on a bicycle.

get a job within a couple of miles of my house would I ride? Probably
not because I have to wear a suit and tie. ...


The Dutch do that. The ones in suit and tie just ride slower (and in
summer loosen the tie for the ride).

... Smelling like a racehorse
isn't particularly attractive to some of the people I would have to
communicate with.


Install a shower and changing locker at your law firm. We had that at
our medical device company.

Remember that this is the bay area - it's either too hot and humid or too cold and humid. Though it is certainly something I could consider.

On 2017-08-11 04:55, wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:59:34 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

Seriously, I talk to a lot of people who have bikes and
occasionally ride the residential streets here. They will not even
venture out into the village center 2mi away for errands and such
because they will not ride on a major thoroughfare sans bike lane.
Understandably so. I ride those a lot but it's not fun.

Most of this is probably nothing more than unfamiliarity. You should
see the looks on people's faces when they ask how far I've gone today
and I tell them "only 40 miles". It never even occurred to them that
you could go over a mile on a bicycle.


That happened to me again yesterday when re-filling a bottle at a
playground. Probably also because I ride in regular clothes and on a
vintage road bike. You came from WHERE?

I needed fresh bottling caps before I run out so there was the perfect
excuse for a long ride. 38 miles of mostly pure fun.


get a job within a couple of miles of my house would I ride?
Probably not because I have to wear a suit and tie. ...


The Dutch do that. The ones in suit and tie just ride slower (and
in summer loosen the tie for the ride).

... Smelling like a racehorse isn't particularly attractive to
some of the people I would have to communicate with.


Install a shower and changing locker at your law firm. We had that
at our medical device company.

Remember that this is the bay area - it's either too hot and humid or
too cold and humid. Though it is certainly something I could
consider.


Too hot is like here, after 10-15mi my T-Shirt is drenched in sweat. At
the playground I used to fill a bottle there is a water feature and I
let myself get soaked in it. This provides almost 1/2h of no cost
evaporative cooling. On stretches without such features or without
creeks I carry a 2nd sweat band which helps keeping the salt out of the
eyes.

There is no such thing as too cold, only wrong clothes, as Northern
Germans always say.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-08-10 12:25, sms wrote:
On 8/10/2017 7:47 AM, Joerg wrote:

Occasionally I also do that because there are many people who
absolutely positively will not cycle on roads. But they ride and some
are quite sporty so they don't hold me back. I normally rather ride
right from our garage but that requires many miles of county road
cycling to get to "the good stuff".

I have relatives who are willing to ride on roads with bike lanes, but
get very uneasy when there is a break in the bicycle lane. Explaining to
them that it's not that dangerous is futile. They are in that 60%.
They'd prefer separated lanes but at least they're willing to ride where
there's painted lanes.


That's why even bike lanes are worth it. They don't protect against
inattentive drivers who let the vehicles drift off (happened to me a few
months ago) but those are rare. Even more rare when there are bright
lights on the bike. They protect against most rear-end accidents. A few
weeks ago a car stopped at a crosswalk here because pedestrians were
about to cross. Bikes also have to stop, of course, but got their own
lane. Screeeech ... *POOF* ... pushed the car clear past the crosswalk
where luckily the pedestrains hadn't entered yet. Just imagine if that
driver up front had been a cyclist.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 8/10/2017 11:03 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:39:56 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2017 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 11:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:31:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 5:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 13:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2017 3:29 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling�
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of
transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,�
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/



That's an ignorant and deceptive propaganda piece.

Ignorant? Yes, because as explained by many people in the comments, even
its first mention of John Forester is mistaken. He did not "come up
with an idea for keeping cyclists safe on busy roads." He simply
publicized what was already standard bike riding technique in European
countries, where far more people used bikes than in America.


Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.

How odd. My wife and I rode lane center there whenever it was necessary
or desirable. The citation and fine crew somehow skipped us, those
slackers!

So about the citations: If you're in a ten foot lane in your country,
and a truck that's 8.5 feet wide is wanting to pass, are you supposed to
ride on the ragged edge of the pavement and hope that it doesn't knock
you over? Really??

Is that what you advocate for Americans?

I've lived in (lets see) ten of the 50 states and every one of them
had a verse in the highway rules that said "thou shall not impede
faster traffic". I didn't see any that were amended to say (except if
you are on a bicycle) :-)

You should look up the current laws. And the relevant court cases.
You're way behind.

Probably. After all I've been gone from there for years.

So, the "thou shall not impede" laws have been removed from the
traffic code?

Here's Ohio's bike-relevant law:
------------------------------------------------
4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.

(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near
to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic
rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a
standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not
more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of
roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride
at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so.
Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway
include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or
impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the
bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within
the lane.
-------------------------------------------------------

The general slow vehicle law is this (I'll omit one paragraph):

4511.22 Slow speed.

(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or
street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the
normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or
reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

(B) ...

(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact,
in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably
slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its
operator.
------------------------------------------------------

That last paragraph figured heavily in a prominent case that established
that bikes are allowed to operate at bicycle speed, even if the poor
motorist behind the bike has to wait a few seconds.


--
- Frank Krygowski

IIRC in Ontario Canada if there are 4 or more vehicles backed up behind any slow moving vehicle bicycle or motorised then the slow moving vehicle MUST MOVE TO THE RIGHT TO LET TRAFFIC PASS when it is safe for the slow moving vehicle to do so.

Some jurisdictions have that "four or more" law (sometimes it's "five or
more") and some do not. Ohio does not.

Thus if you are impeding trafic because there is a shoulder you can move onto then you're liable to get a ticket for impeding traffic.

Again, not in my state. If I got such a ticket (because some cops
enforce imaginary laws) fighting it would be an easy win. However, the
(very) few times I've held up a string of cars, I have pulled over when
it was reasonable to do so.

In practice, I think the issue comes up relatively rarely. Certainly, as
a motorist, I've been delayed FAR more often by other motorists than by
bicyclists. And in fact, as a bicyclist, I think I've been delayed by
motorists far more than I've delayed them.

It's rare for a motorist to wait behind me for more than ten seconds.
But I've spent many minutes at traffic lights, caught there because the
first drivers at the traffic light's queue are dozing, texting or
looking elsewhere when the light turns green. I've missed many chances
to pull into a traffic lane because oncoming motorists didn't bother to
signal that they'd be turning, thus giving me an opening.

In the grand scheme of things, if some evil sorcerer magically removed
all bicyclists from North American roads, there would be no detectable
increase in traffic throughput.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/11/2017 12:47 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 22:39:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2017 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 11:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:31:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 5:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 13:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2017 3:29 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling�
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of
transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,�
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/



That's an ignorant and deceptive propaganda piece.

Ignorant? Yes, because as explained by many people in the comments, even
its first mention of John Forester is mistaken. He did not "come up
with an idea for keeping cyclists safe on busy roads." He simply
publicized what was already standard bike riding technique in European
countries, where far more people used bikes than in America.


Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.

How odd. My wife and I rode lane center there whenever it was necessary
or desirable. The citation and fine crew somehow skipped us, those
slackers!

So about the citations: If you're in a ten foot lane in your country,
and a truck that's 8.5 feet wide is wanting to pass, are you supposed to
ride on the ragged edge of the pavement and hope that it doesn't knock
you over? Really??

Is that what you advocate for Americans?

I've lived in (lets see) ten of the 50 states and every one of them
had a verse in the highway rules that said "thou shall not impede
faster traffic". I didn't see any that were amended to say (except if
you are on a bicycle) :-)

You should look up the current laws. And the relevant court cases.
You're way behind.

Probably. After all I've been gone from there for years.

So, the "thou shall not impede" laws have been removed from the
traffic code?

Here's Ohio's bike-relevant law:
------------------------------------------------
4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.

(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near
to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic
rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a
standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not
more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of
roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride
at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so.
Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway
include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or
impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the
bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within
the lane.
-------------------------------------------------------

The general slow vehicle law is this (I'll omit one paragraph):

4511.22 Slow speed.

(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or
street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the
normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or
reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

(B) ...

(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact,
in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably
slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its
operator.
------------------------------------------------------

That last paragraph figured heavily in a prominent case that established
that bikes are allowed to operate at bicycle speed, even if the poor
motorist behind the bike has to wait a few seconds.

That is essentially what I had said (perhaps in more poetic terms),
that essentially slower traffic is not to impede faster traffic. And
adds the notation that bicycles don't have to ride in the ditch, or
other unsafe places.

But your 4511.22 (A) and (B) is not an authority to ride lane center,
(as so often advocated) in any and all instances. In fact it would
appear that riding lane center could well be deemed illegal in many,
perhaps most, instances.

Again, if nobody's around, I generally ride wherever it's smoothest.
That's usually lane center.

When motor traffic or parked cars are around, I choose my lane position
based first on my safety and convenience, and secondly on cooperation.
If the lane is safe to share, I share it. Most often it's not safe
enough to share, and that's pretty easy to understand given the width of
a typical lane, the width of a typical car, the width of a bike and our
state's three foot passing clearance law. (Some jurisdictions require
more clearance than three feet.)

And, I might add, that from memory, the "prominent case" you mention
above did not rule that cars have to wait for bicycles. If memory
serves, you originally described it as a specific road condition that
limited viability, and in that case it was ruled that one did not have
to ride on the edge of the roadway.

Nope. It was the Selz case. It was a city street, and the commuting
cyclist was ticketed because the cop conjured up an imaginary law saying
slow vehicles couldn't slow down other vehicles. Really, the cop thought
riding a four lane was just dangerous so he kicked his imagination into
gear.

Here's more info:
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-l...ase-revisited/

I got the same treatment from an Idaho state patrolman once. He was
saying things like "Can we agree on safety first? Can we at least agree
on that??" But by showing him passages in his own book of state laws, I
talked sense into him and avoided any more hassle.

--
- Frank Krygowski