Fined for impeding traffic.

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 1:30:17 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/22/2015 3:39 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 10:45:44 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:

I'd have probably also been fined for telling the judge exactly what
kind of idiot he was, and ramming a copy of Cyclecraft up his nose.

I don't know if you would have been fined, but you would have been laughed at. Cyclecraft isn't the law -- anywhere.

It is educational, though. I don't advocate applying the book to a
judge's nose, but it's high time someone did something to educate those
in the legal system.

The law is the law. If judges substitute "public policy" for the plain language of a statute, they are criticized as activists and usually reversed by the appellate courts. Waive Cyclecraft at the legislators.

Bicycles are not special. They are treated like vehicles. Had the rider
been in a car going below the speed limit and holding up traffic, he would
have gotten the same ticket.

Depends on the law, doesn't it?

Yes, and as always, I will admit that Ohio law is tres different.

There's legal precedent that the capability of the vehicle needs to be
taken into consideration. Today I watched a tractor (used for roadside
mowing, I think) waiting to pull out onto a 40,000 car per day, 40 mph
road. I know that tractor wasn't going to be going over 20 mph. I very
much doubt the driver got a ticket.

See above. And let me make this clear, a slow moving vehicle can be on the road but must not unreasonably impede the flow of traffic -- or whatever the local VC says. I like the Washington approach because it tells you what unreasonable is, i.e., it's five cars piled up.

Also, as a practical matter, cars usually don't pile up in most places (or don't pile up for long) because passing is possible. So, it's usually a non-issue. Driving out to the coast or to central Oregon, however, it's easy to stack up cars.


Having crept home on Saturday on a 100 mile stretch of twisting one lane
(each way) road, stuck behind an asshole with a horse trailer going 10mph
under the limit for much of the way -- I fully support the impeding laws.

And people complain about bicycles!

I like the Washington version that says you're impeding if you have five
cars stacked up behind you. The guy with the horse trailer probably had
thirty.
He should have pulled over.

Yes, I've followed monster motor homes in similar situations. Yes, he
should have pulled over - assuming he could do it safely. But I'll
note, that degree of obstruction never happens with a bicycle. For one
thing, it really is much easier to pass a bicycle.

Question: What's the longest time and distance you've ever been held up
behind a bicycle while you were driving a car?

Personally, I don't think I've ever been held up for even thirty
seconds, nor even a quarter mile. It's just not a big problem.

IME, impeding tickets usually involve some sort of aggravated conduct on the part of the cyclist (unless there is a really Draconian impeding law -- and that might be the case in Australia. I don't know). Like I said, around here, they are usually reserved for the most annoying Critical Mass riders or people who are trying to make a point rather than trying to get from one point to another.

Yes, you can usually get around a bicyclist -- although not always on the roads around here, and that is why I will pull off or pull way over on a climb.

On a rare day that I drove, I was coming home on a back road that I ride all the time, and there was a woman in front of me on a bike. She was climbing this hill, and I knew I could get around eventually, so I was being uncharacteristically patient -- but she started freaking out, looking over her shoulder over and over again (and I wasn't close or aggressive or anything), and then she just pulled over and stopped. It was very odd, and it made me feel guilty, like I was that guy chasing wildlife on a snowmobile (but I wasn't). I think she was a newbie and just scared.

I rode to work today behind a newbie. I haven't seen someone so wobbly in a long time. He was down on the drops, gritting his teeth -- in these ridiculously sheer nylon running shorts. He was on some '80s vintage ten-speed, so no SMS story about some rube getting sold a CF uber-bike. He probably found the bike in a dumpster along with the shorts.

-- Jay Beattie.

https://goo.gl/xgC4Li

find one with a hi pitched shriek...THE BANSHEE BALL SQUEEZER...n mount it against the hood before the rad. Supply power n ground with 10 gauge wire directly from and back to Batt.

I suffer many over the limit (mine) speeder around OR backcountry...pulling over quickly several times avoiding a near miss from an oncoming. that Beattie survives testifies to his acumen.

The very few outback riders run down were insufferable and impedious.

There is an ongoing joi de vie in OR bubbling just below the drunken redneck level. Like they're all on valiums or oxycontin with meth....

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 9:47:57 PM UTC-4, wrote:
https://goo.gl/xgC4Li

find one with a hi pitched shriek...THE BANSHEE BALL SQUEEZER...n mount it against the hood before the rad. Supply power n ground with 10 gauge wire directly from and back to Batt.

I suffer many over the limit (mine) speeder around OR backcountry...pulling over quickly several times avoiding a near miss from an oncoming. that Beattie survives testifies to his acumen.

The very few outback riders run down were insufferable and impedious.

There is an ongoing joi de vie in OR bubbling just below the drunken redneck level. Like they're all on valiums or oxycontin with meth....



I wanted a Union Pacific articulated horn at 180db. Press the lever and phhhhooooooooooooom no 2CV. opted out a$ the batt would move rearward. One of those costx2+30% and ahhhh FI

so I MO'd a 39 buck Wolo motocycle horn.

Sets everyone's teeth on edge. They frieze from greasers to Dungeness Elk

On 23/06/2015 01:59, jbeattie wrote:

See above. And let me make this clear, a slow moving vehicle can be on the road but must not unreasonably impede the flow of traffic -- or whatever the local VC says. I like the Washington approach because it tells you what unreasonable is, i.e., it's five cars piled up.

The OP was a case in NZ with one van being held up. That really doesn't
count.

On 23/06/15 05:39, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 10:45:44 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Fri, 19 Jun 2015
09:20:58 +1000 the perfect time to write:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...-on-port-hills


By the sounds of it I would have been fined too.

And I would, and probably any competent cyclist. I'd have probably
also been fined for telling the judge exactly what kind of idiot he
was, and ramming a copy of Cyclecraft up his nose.

I don't know if you would have been fined, but you would have been
laughed at. Cyclecraft isn't the law -- anywhere.

Bicycles are not special. They are treated like vehicles. Had the
rider been in a car going below the speed limit and holding up
traffic, he would have gotten the same ticket.

Not if it wasn't safe to pull over and let the queue behind go.

Having crept home on Saturday on a 100 mile stretch of twisting one
lane (each way) road, stuck behind an asshole with a horse trailer
going 10mph under the limit for much of the way -- I fully support
the impeding laws. I like the Washington version that says you're
impeding if you have five cars stacked up behind you. The guy with
the horse trailer probably had thirty. He should have pulled over.


The cyclist in the story was not impeding traffic for an appreciable
length of road or time.

--
JS

On 23/06/2015 03:06, Clive George wrote:
On 23/06/2015 01:59, jbeattie wrote:

See above. And let me make this clear, a slow moving vehicle can be on
the road but must not unreasonably impede the flow of traffic -- or
whatever the local VC says. I like the Washington approach because it
tells you what unreasonable is, i.e., it's five cars piled up.

The OP was a case in NZ with one van being held up. That really doesn't
count.

I should probably mention the holding up traffic thing we met over here
a few weeks ago.

This was a cyclist doing the end-to-end (fine) with a support van
(again, fine) who insisted on driving immediately behind said cyclist as
he rode down the A65 (grr).

I've ridden that road many times - it was my commute for 5 years - and I
found it fine. There is also a perfectly good alternative road for this
particular section if one was after a more pleasant ride (for commuting
I wanted the shortest route). But neither of those two options were what
this team chose.

It's way harder to overtake a support van + cyclist than just a cyclist.
The driver probably thought he was improving safety for his rider - but
they managed to generate a really quite impressive queue. They did pull
over after a mile so weren't completely unaware, but there were at least
two ways they could have had avoided having to do that at all.

Later on we met a team of riders plus bigger van doing the same down the
A59. There was space there, but I do wonder if people are starting to
think this is the sensible thing to do and we're going to see more of it.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:59:53 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 1:30:17 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/22/2015 3:39 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 10:45:44 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:

I'd have probably also been fined for telling the judge exactly what
kind of idiot he was, and ramming a copy of Cyclecraft up his nose.

I don't know if you would have been fined, but you would have been laughed at. Cyclecraft isn't the law -- anywhere.

It is educational, though. I don't advocate applying the book to a
judge's nose, but it's high time someone did something to educate those
in the legal system.

The law is the law. If judges substitute "public policy" for the plain language of a statute, they are criticized as activists and usually reversed by the appellate courts. Waive Cyclecraft at the legislators.

Bicycles are not special. They are treated like vehicles. Had the rider
been in a car going below the speed limit and holding up traffic, he would
have gotten the same ticket.

Depends on the law, doesn't it?

Yes, and as always, I will admit that Ohio law is tres different.

There's legal precedent that the capability of the vehicle needs to be
taken into consideration. Today I watched a tractor (used for roadside
mowing, I think) waiting to pull out onto a 40,000 car per day, 40 mph
road. I know that tractor wasn't going to be going over 20 mph. I very
much doubt the driver got a ticket.

See above. And let me make this clear, a slow moving vehicle can be on the road but must not unreasonably impede the flow of traffic -- or whatever the local VC says. I like the Washington approach because it tells you what unreasonable is, i.e., it's five cars piled up.

Also, as a practical matter, cars usually don't pile up in most places (or don't pile up for long) because passing is possible. So, it's usually a non-issue. Driving out to the coast or to central Oregon, however, it's easy to stack up cars.


Having crept home on Saturday on a 100 mile stretch of twisting one lane
(each way) road, stuck behind an asshole with a horse trailer going 10mph
under the limit for much of the way -- I fully support the impeding laws.

And people complain about bicycles!

I like the Washington version that says you're impeding if you have five
cars stacked up behind you. The guy with the horse trailer probably had
thirty.
He should have pulled over.

Yes, I've followed monster motor homes in similar situations. Yes, he
should have pulled over - assuming he could do it safely. But I'll
note, that degree of obstruction never happens with a bicycle. For one
thing, it really is much easier to pass a bicycle.

Question: What's the longest time and distance you've ever been held up
behind a bicycle while you were driving a car?

Personally, I don't think I've ever been held up for even thirty
seconds, nor even a quarter mile. It's just not a big problem.

IME, impeding tickets usually involve some sort of aggravated conduct on the part of the cyclist (unless there is a really Draconian impeding law -- and that might be the case in Australia. I don't know). Like I said, around here, they are usually reserved for the most annoying Critical Mass riders or people who are trying to make a point rather than trying to get from one point to another.

Yes, you can usually get around a bicyclist -- although not always on the roads around here, and that is why I will pull off or pull way over on a climb.

On a rare day that I drove, I was coming home on a back road that I ride all the time, and there was a woman in front of me on a bike. She was climbing this hill, and I knew I could get around eventually, so I was being uncharacteristically patient -- but she started freaking out, looking over her shoulder over and over again (and I wasn't close or aggressive or anything), and then she just pulled over and stopped. It was very odd, and it made me feel guilty, like I was that guy chasing wildlife on a snowmobile (but I wasn't). I think she was a newbie and just scared.

I rode to work today behind a newbie. I haven't seen someone so wobbly in a long time. He was down on the drops, gritting his teeth -- in these ridiculously sheer nylon running shorts. He was on some '80s vintage ten-speed, so no SMS story about some rube getting sold a CF uber-bike. He probably found the bike in a dumpster along with the shorts.

-- Jay Beattie.

Never mind the shorts... what kind of generator did he have :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 6/22/2015 8:26 PM, jbeattie wrote:

The Critical Mass guys get fined for impeding, but that's about it. I think more cars should get fined.

The worst impeding, in my view, goes like this:

1) It's either raining or it's 95 Fahrenheit with the sun beating down.

2) I'm on the bike at a red light, about the 8th vehicle back, and dripping.

3) The light finally turns green.

4) The guy in front takes over five seconds to notice.

5) Each of the next five guys gets off to a very leisurely start.
Because, hey, _they_ won't have any trouble making the green.

6) The car in front of me actually runs the fresh red to get through the
intersection.

7) I'm still on the bike at a red light, and dripping.

Fortunately, it doesn't happen to me very often. But boy, it's
frustrating when it does.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/22/2015 8:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 1:30:17 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/22/2015 3:39 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 10:45:44 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:

I'd have probably also been fined for telling the judge exactly what
kind of idiot he was, and ramming a copy of Cyclecraft up his nose.

I don't know if you would have been fined, but you would have been laughed at.
Cyclecraft isn't the law -- anywhere.

It is educational, though. I don't advocate applying the book to a
judge's nose, but it's high time someone did something to educate those
in the legal system.

The law is the law. If judges substitute "public policy" for the plain language of a statute,
they are criticized as activists and usually reversed by the appellate
courts. Waive
Cyclecraft at the legislators.

Figuratively speaking, some of us have done that. And we've gotten laws
changed.

But ISTM that lots of states have statutes that allow cyclists to ride
further left "when necessary for safety" or some such wording. Tickets,
when they occur, happen when a cop thinks it's not necessary for the
cyclist to be further left. Books like _Cyclecraft_ can help explain
why it may be necessary for safety.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/22/2015 8:26 PM, jbeattie wrote:

The Critical Mass guys get fined for impeding, but that's about it. I think more cars should get fined.

The worst impeding, in my view, goes like this:

1) It's either raining or it's 95 Fahrenheit with the sun beating down.

2) I'm on the bike at a red light, about the 8th vehicle back, and dripping.

3) The light finally turns green.

4) The guy in front takes over five seconds to notice.

5) Each of the next five guys gets off to a very leisurely
start. Because, hey, _they_ won't have any trouble making the green.

6) The car in front of me actually runs the fresh red to get through
the intersection.

7) I'm still on the bike at a red light, and dripping.

Fortunately, it doesn't happen to me very often. But boy, it's
frustrating when it does.

That's why I invariably filter forward. Some lights around here I might
not make it from four cars back, and even then have eight lanes to cross
on a fading yellow. Locally, most such situations have either a bike
lane or wide outside lane, so filtering isn't an issue, except in the
left turn lane. What's the "vehicular cycling" recommendation for
controlled left turns? There seem three options: (1) filter forward and
get in front of the pack, or in a gap near the front; (2) filter and
stay just to the right; (3) behave like a car and probably miss the
turn then wait for a cycle.

--
Joe Riel