Bad bicycle reporting on Channel 5 in Kansas City

"jj" wrote:
"Art Harris" wrote:
As someone
else pointed out here, if you're going to ride two abreast, the burden is
on
you to know when traffic is approaching.

I'd have to quibble with your last statement, Art. Where do you derive
that
"the burden is on you to know when traffic is approaching"? If the law
allows riding two abreast then it has to allow for significant time to
single up, including problems, road conditions, and communication.

I don't think so. Where I live, the New York State law (Section 1234b)
simply says:

"Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file when being
overtaken by another vehicle."

There are no "if, and's, or but's." You SHALL ride single file when being
overtaken. So if, for whatever reason, you're not riding single file when
overtaken, you're in violation. That puts the burden on the cyclist to
watch/listen for traffic and react accordingly. If the rider can't or isn't
willing to do that, he should ride single file.

Now of course, even if the cyclist is in violation, it doesn't give a
motorist the right to hit him, any more than he could run over a person
lying in the road.

I agree that the whole "riding two abreast" thing is kind of strange. This
may be a holdover from a simpler time. Cyclists (particularly those on
casual rides) like to converse, and if there is little or no traffic,
there's no harm in riding two abreast. Personally, I'll only do it on very
quiet roads, or if there's a very wide shoulder.

Art Harris

I'm almost assuredly wasting my time replying because everyone seems to
have already made up their mind what happened and what Missouri law
means so I'll point out just three things. First, it's rare for one
operator to be *solely* to blame in any collision that occurs in moving
traffic. Sharing the road means sharing responsibility no matter what
kind of vehicle one uses. In this case the cyclists were familiar with
the road, knew that it had blind curves and grades that obstructed
sight lines but still chose to ride two abreast. Their decision to ride
two abreast was a bad one and directly contributed to the crash.

I disagree with this point. The driver had the ultimate responsibility for
his actions. He made the decision to pass in an unsafe manner.

Further, there hasn't been any evidence offered that the driver passed in a
less safe manner because they were riding two abreast, so we have no reason
to believe the same outcome would not have occured had they been riding
single file.

Second, riding two abreast on that road was arguably unlawful.

Agreed.

In my view, both parties could be prosecuted under the VC (not withstanding
any possible immunity if the driver was conducting postal business), and the
driver sued in civil court for damages.



Chris Neary


"Science, freedom, beauty, adventu what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:24:48 -0500, "Arthur Harris"
wrote:

"jj" wrote:
"Art Harris" wrote:
As someone
else pointed out here, if you're going to ride two abreast, the burden is
on
you to know when traffic is approaching.

I'd have to quibble with your last statement, Art. Where do you derive
"the burden is on you to know when traffic is approaching"? If the law
allows riding two abreast then it has to allow for significant time to
single up, including problems, road conditions, and communication.

I don't think so. Where I live, the New York State law (Section 1234b)
simply says:

"Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file when being
overtaken by another vehicle."

There are no "if, and's, or but's." You SHALL ride single file when being
overtaken. So if, for whatever reason, you're not riding single file when
overtaken, you're in violation. That puts the burden on the cyclist to
watch/listen for traffic and react accordingly. If the rider can't or isn't
willing to do that, he should ride single file.

OK, I think I get that, certainly the language seems to indicate as you
suggest. Thanks for the clarification.

Since common sense suggests that it isn't always possible to do this given
that riding a bike requires strong concentration in a forward direction g
it's a difficult law to abide by, no? I know I've been passed quite a few
times single file riding where it was a complete surprise, and I'm the kind
of rider that checks my mirror every few seconds if there are any cars
around. (I don't ride roads where the speed limit is over 35, usually).

Now of course, even if the cyclist is in violation, it doesn't give a
motorist the right to hit him, any more than he could run over a person
lying in the road.

I agree that the whole "riding two abreast" thing is kind of strange. This
may be a holdover from a simpler time. Cyclists (particularly those on
casual rides) like to converse, and if there is little or no traffic,
there's no harm in riding two abreast. Personally, I'll only do it on very
quiet roads, or if there's a very wide shoulder.

Art Harris

Yeah for short periods on back residential streets, but I'm not comfortable
doing it for long. Don't think many riders are.

jj

This has nothing to do with the law--it is just good practice:

1.) I would NEVER consider it wise or safe to ride side-by-side without a
mirrors. And I would constantly observe the road behind me, to be aware
when singling up is needed.

2.) In the process of singling up, I always use head movements and hand
signals to make it clear to the other rider AND THE DRIVER that we are going
to let him by.

His impatience, justified or not, can become dangerous to the riders, and
can be minimized by proper communication.

"Chris Neary" wrote in message

Based on the accounts in news article, the riders were not
at fault for
riding two abreast, but would be at fault for not "singling
up" once they
were aware a vehicle was behind them.

The vehicle would be at fault for unsafe passing.

No matter whether the bicyclists were at fault (and could have
been ticketed), there is no legal justification for the
cyclist being hit by the car because of it.

An example: if you are driving a car and somebody is
jaywalking across the street, you aren't allowed to swerve and
hit the pedestrian. The pedestrian's violation of the law
doesn't create some sort of "open season".

The driver is within his first amendment rights to roll down
his window and yell "Get off the f*ing road", and honk his
horn, but colliding with the cyclist is another thing
entirely.

"Rich" wrote in message
...
jj wrote:

Somewhat playing the devil's advocate, the riders may be somewhat
incompetent, and slightly less than optimally prepared. They may in fact
think they are not impeding traffic and might in fact be incorrect.

If they're impeeding traffic, then they're at fault. If someone has slow
reflexes, that does not give them the right to run through a light that
just turned red. Lacking the skills to obey a law (or being ignorant of
the law), will not stand up as a defense in court.

Rich


We Brits have our faults, but I am glad of one thing - in cyclist mode we
have a *right* to be on the road and it's perfectly legal to ride 2-abreast.
Indeed, it's perfectly legal to ride more than 2-abreast. The onus is on the
motorist to overtake only when safe to do so. When in motorist mode, when we
only have a *licence* to be on the road - even though too many motorists
seem to think it's a god-given right to be on the public highway ;-)

Cheers, helen s

On 18 Feb 2005 20:51:54 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc,
wrote:

But what is notable is how really, really bad the TV reporting is. It
implies the bicyclists are not allowed in the "traffic lane", they
should always ride on the shoulder (in this case a dinky little thing
about 6-12 inches wide), that the cyclists were at fault for riding
abreast whereas the motorist was not at fault at all, and so on.

so write or call the station and ask for time for fair reply and
rebuttal to explain the station's error, or ask for an on-air
correction.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:26:52 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, Rich
wrote:

If they're impeeding traffic, then they're at fault. If someone has
slow reflexes, that does not give them the right to run through a light
that just turned red. Lacking the skills to obey a law (or being
ignorant of the law), will not stand up as a defense in court.

wrong! first the word is "impeding". second, the law in every
state puts an overtaking vehicle at fault in any rear end
accident, which this was. the driver should be cited for unsafe
passing. the law requires him to wait until it is safe to pass,
whether YOU like it or not.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:05:42 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Arthur
Harris" wrote:

If I had to guess I'd say the two cyclists were
ignoring the horn honking motorist, expecting him to go around them (into
the other lane). The motorist got angry and decided to pass as close as
possible. He misjudged and brushed one of the cyclists. If so, both would be
partially to blame,

bull****! the overtaking driver is at fault. THE LAW REQUIRES
HIM TO PASS SAFELY and he did not do so.

... it is both polite and legally required to single up when
a car approaches to pass.

=v= That's a statement that needs qualifiers. There are times
when bicyclists should take the lane, and "around a curve" is
pretty much a classic example of that. To "single up" in such
a situation sends out a dangerous message. It is not impolite.

=v= There is widespread expectation that if a motorist in front
of you slows down, there could well be a valid reason, even if
you can't tell what it is from your perspective. Bicyclists
should be given the same consideration, and not an iota less.
_Jym_