Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

On Dec 5, 4:29 pm, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:28:03 -0800 (PST)

Brendo wrote:

If the group has stopped at an intersection due to red lights, why
would the car get inside the mass? This can only happen two ways

Presumably turning into the road the mass is on.

Sure, but the argument he gave was that this was a reason for corking.
You can't turn 'into' the mass unless the mass is still crossing the
intersection. And you wouldn't turn unless the lights were green.
Generally, car's follow traffic light rules. So if you drive onto the
road when the light turns green, why would there be the mass on it
unless they were running the red? The only other way it would occur is
if the car is behind the mass, and tries to drive through it, but this
can happen on open road as well, so the corking argument is
irrelevant.

It won't be a problem id the mass is riding vehicularly and the ones
behind aren't trying to get past it except where safe and legal.

Sure, it might upset the riders who want to be with their mates, but
bike riders don't get upset when they can't get past cars do they?
ONly car drivers get upset when they can't get past bikes?

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Brendo wrote:
On Dec 5, 4:29 pm, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:28:03 -0800 (PST)

Brendo wrote:

If the group has stopped at an intersection due to red lights, why
would the car get inside the mass? This can only happen two ways

Presumably turning into the road the mass is on.

Sure, but the argument he gave was that this was a reason for corking.
You can't turn 'into' the mass unless the mass is still crossing the
intersection. And you wouldn't turn unless the lights were green.

you can break it up. Thus making it less of a mass, and more like
traffic

And this is only a problem if the ones separated do silly things
wanting to be back with the others. If they don't, then there's no
reason for drivers to be "confused".

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:59:26 -0000
Baka Dasai wrote:

No, I think that some car drivers react badly when faced with a mass of
riders in front of them and a mass of riders behind them, some of whom
attempt to (legally) overtake the car at the next red-light. A
sensible car driver would accept that this is all fine and legal, but
the problem is the few who react aggressively to:

A. being inside a mass of cyclists, and
B. having some of those cyclists (legally) overtake them.

It seems to offend some car driver's sense of vehicular hierarchy.
Corking is a semi-legal, police-authorised hack to minimise this
situation.

And this happened how often? When there was *no* poor behaviour by
cyclists? None at all?

Once? Several times? All the time?


Zebee

Baka Dasai wrote:
Brendo said

Sure, but the argument he gave was that this was a reason for
corking. You can't turn 'into' the mass unless the mass is still
crossing the intersection.

The red light cuts the mass in half. A car (or cars) enter from a
side street. The light turns green for the mass, and the second half
of the mass catches up to the first half, with a car (or cars) now
stuck in between. Those car drivers caught in the middle panic/get
frustrated and start running over people.

When I've been in a car and stuck in traffic, I don't panic, and I don't run
over people. Is that what you do in a car?

OK, sometimes I get frustrated.

Theo

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:00:54 +0900
Theo Bekkers wrote:
Baka Dasai wrote:

The red light cuts the mass in half. A car (or cars) enter from a
side street. The light turns green for the mass, and the second half
of the mass catches up to the first half, with a car (or cars) now
stuck in between. Those car drivers caught in the middle panic/get
frustrated and start running over people.

When I've been in a car and stuck in traffic, I don't panic, and I don't run
over people. Is that what you do in a car?


I suppose if bicycles are behaving unpredictably or sitting in blind
spots a car trying to change lanes or move on might find that very
difficult.

I somehow doubt that a *normal* reaction to bicycles behaving well is
to hit them.

I doubt that's a normal reaction to bicycles behaving badly come to
that.

Zebee

The red light cuts the mass in half. A car (or cars) enter from a side
street. The light turns green for the mass, and the second half of the
mass catches up to the first half, with a car (or cars) now stuck in
between. Those car drivers caught in the middle panic/get frustrated
and start running over people.
--
What was I thinking?


OK, lets assume that this scenario happens. You have two distinct
groups of riders, who decide to join and surround a car travelling on
the same road (there's no other way a car can get caught in the
middle). It's a single lane road. You're saying that it is legal for a
group of bikes to ride alongside a car on a road? I can't drive two
cars side by side, so why do you assume you can ride a bicycle beside
a car? Should a bike overpassing a car be done only when it's safe, or
is that another rule that groups of bicycles don't need to adhere to?

brendan

Brendo wrote:

I've only caught this mid-thread, so am not aware of the details, but:

OK, lets assume that this scenario happens. You have two distinct
groups of riders, who decide to join and surround a car travelling on
the same road (there's no other way a car can get caught in the
middle). It's a single lane road. You're saying that it is legal for a
group of bikes to ride alongside a car on a road? I can't drive two
cars side by side, so why do you assume you can ride a bicycle beside
a car?

This should have a "depends" attached, because I don't know what the exact
laws are on riding/driving in one lane, because I've seen it vary from state
to state.
That said, a car and bike alongside each other is not legal (in NSW at
least), and I would hazzard a guess that it's stupid, and no-one would want to
do it either.

Should a bike overpassing a car be done only when it's safe, or
is that another rule that groups of bicycles don't need to adhere to?

Again, there's a depends here and it's a little more complex too. Here in
NSW, it's illegal to travel between cars (lane split), but it's not policed.
That doesn't make it legal, just one of those things that people do.

As far as when traffic is moving, regardless of laws, if you want to
lanesplit, you have my blessing if you want to kill yourself that way, just
that there might be faster, less painful and certainly less messy ways of
doing it.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:32:46 +1100
John Tserkezis wrote:
Again, there's a depends here and it's a little more complex too. Here in
NSW, it's illegal to travel between cars (lane split), but it's not policed.
That doesn't make it legal, just one of those things that people do.

As far as I know it is legal for a bicycle (and only a bicycle) to
pass a vehicle on the left at any time unless the vehicle is turning
left. No vehicle including bicycles may pass a vehicle at all unless
they are keeping a safe distance and may not return to the lane unless
that will not obstruct the vehicle being overtaken.

What a "safe distance" is when a bicycle overtakes a car is unclear.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

As far as I know it is legal for a bicycle (and only a bicycle) to
pass a vehicle on the left at any time unless the vehicle is turning
left. No vehicle including bicycles may pass a vehicle at all unless
they are keeping a safe distance and may not return to the lane unless
that will not obstruct the vehicle being overtaken.

Is this enshrined in the Road rules?

I don't recall seeing any exceptions of this type, only that bicycles on the
road are tied to the same rules as cars (within reason).

--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org

On 2007-12-05, Brendo (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
On Dec 5, 4:29 pm, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:28:03 -0800 (PST)

Brendo wrote:

If the group has stopped at an intersection due to red lights, why
would the car get inside the mass? This can only happen two ways

Presumably turning into the road the mass is on.

Sure, but the argument he gave was that this was a reason for corking.
You can't turn 'into' the mass unless the mass is still crossing the
intersection. And you wouldn't turn unless the lights were green.
Generally, car's follow traffic light rules. So if you drive onto the
road when the light turns green, why would there be the mass on it
unless they were running the red?

Um. A mass doesn't have zero length?

When it gets split at the lights, you get cars coming in from the
intersection, that will be sandwiched between two half masses. If
there are sufficiently few vehicles sandwiched, then there are
problems as the mass comes back together as they naturally would tend
to do particularly if there's only one lane of car and the bikes are
able to overtake.

I'm afraid I'm not understanding where either you or Zebee are coming
from...

--
TimC
I'm sorry, but all questions must be in the form of a question.
-- pieceoftheuniverse in RHOD