|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular 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. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling.
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. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
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. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
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/ |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Founder of Marin County Bicycle Coalition Arrested again | Mike Vandeman[_4_] | Mountain Biking | 1 | December 13th 13 02:42 PM |
Marin County Bicycle Coalition Expands into Mountain Biking | sms88 | Social Issues | 1 | November 8th 11 06:02 AM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Rides | 0 | May 14th 08 09:56 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | May 14th 08 09:55 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | May 14th 08 09:54 PM |