|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
3ft passing requirement revisited
On Aug 23, 2:43*pm, Barry Harmon wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote : 1. *A large difference in relative speed makes for accidents,and there is a lot of difference in speed between a car moseying along and a bike moseying along. *If you can't keep up with the traffic flow, stay out of the road. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on rbm, and I've read some pretty silly stuff. Roads should be designed for all vehicular traffic, not just cars. If not keeping up with traffic is causing problems, that's an issue with road design. At least some traffic engineers and police departments agree with me regarding the hazards of large differences in relative speed. *Note that I said stay out of the road, not the roadway. *If the speed limit is 45 and you are in the traffic lane doing 15 or 20, you are holding up traffic and are endangering yourself. *If you don't agree with that, then you are probably a candidate for a Darwin Award. I rode 40 miles today, a round trip to a neighboring city, including stops at a couple places in the center of that city. There were plenty of times I was in the traffic lane, doing 15 to 25 mph. Speed limits varied from 25 in towns to 55 on highways. I estimate I delayed motorists by a grand total of one minute. (For the record, I was delayed by motorists roughly the same amount.) Why so little? Because almost every time a motorist passed me, there was zero delay. Either the lane was wide enough to safely share, or there was no oncoming traffic, so the motorist moved to the opposing lane to pass me. The few times I took the lane to prevent unsafe passing, I had no problem. Nobody honked or complained. The delay for each motorist was negligible, and they could see the reason for it. IOW, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. And I don't know what you would have me do, anyway. To leave my village, I _must_ ride on several streets (including one state highway) that have substandard lane widths - about 9 feet. Does you intend for me to walk my bike out of town? Or stand meekly at the side of the road until no cars are coming? That's hardly consistent with the fact that cyclists have a legal right to the road, is it? - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
3ft passing requirement revisited
Barry Harmon wrote:
1. A large difference in relative speed makes for accidents,and there is a lot of difference in speed between a car moseying along and a bike moseying along. If you can't keep up with the traffic flow, stay out of the road. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on rbm, and I've read some pretty silly stuff. Roads should be designed for all vehicular traffic, not just cars. If not keeping up with traffic is causing problems, that's an issue with road design. At least some traffic engineers and police departments agree with me regarding the hazards of large differences in relative speed. Note that I said stay out of the road, not the roadway. If the speed limit is 45 and you are in the traffic lane doing 15 or 20, you are holding up traffic and are endangering yourself. If you don't agree with that, then you are probably a candidate for a Darwin Award. Ridiculous? I find your attitude regarding road design amusing and highly unrealistic. 2. Roads are designed for cars. There, I said it. Get over it. Nice thinking there. Goes back to your point #1. We cyclists (are you a cyclist?) should know our place. Some of us are just too uppity and trouble-causing. Especially those who know the vehicle code. Yes, I'm a cyclist, and have been since 1947. It's not the uppity and trouble-causing that bothers me, it's the pseudo machismo that gets me. You can engage in all the dangerous acts you want, but at least accept the consequences of your actions without blaming others for them. (See a point below regarding influencing others.) 3. Riding bikes on a busy, higher-speed road is dangerous. Nonsense. It's not the speed that's dangerous, it's opportunities for conflict. You are far more likely to be killed by either you or a car running an intersection at moderate speed than being run down from behind on an expressway. Huh? Just because running a stop sign happens more often than getting blown off a high-speed road doesn't make it more dangerous. These are not mutually exclusive outcomes. For some reason, many states have seen fit to preclude bicycles and some other classes of things from their high-speed roads. I wonder why? Maybe you should enlighten them. 4. Cars can survive an accident with a bike far better than vice-versa. No question. 5. US roads are not, and never will be, as bike friendly as European roads. There is a world of difference between Denmark and the US, like it or not, and we can't change that, at least not over the next few years. Change has to start somewhere. I believe it has started already. We're making progress in DC at the annual Bike Summit. Road manuals are being re-written to include the needs of cyclists by default. We're already seeing the results, as new roadways are build and old ones redesigned for better traffic flow. The world will become a better place for bikes only if cyclists assert their rights to use the roads and tell people in Washington that we're legit taxpayers. I agree that change should start somewhere, but the thought that cyclists should "take the lane to show the cagers who's in charge" won't get it done. Maybe I'm spoiled by riding in my part of Northern New Jersey. Some of the roads where I live have a lot of 6-8 foot wide bike lanes, which makes my daily 25-40 mile exercise ride very safe and serene -- as serene as anything can be in New Jersey. Unfortunately for your argument, the change won't come from Washington, It'll come at the state and lower level, since that's where state and local codes are written and enforced. You should spend your time in Sacramento, not Washington. 6. John Forrester is delusional. Following his path will be dangerous to some people's health. Some of what John says is true, but it's far too idyllic to be practical for most. My concern regarding this whole discussion is that some impressionable sort will read about taking the lane, showing the cagers, etc., and actually do it and get hurt doing it. The whole macho mantra displayed here is akin to the person who gets his first 400hp car and becomes Andretti for a day on the public roads. Machismo may have its place, but it's inappropriate while riding a bike in traffic. But maybe I'm a throw-back to the days when a thing called Defensive Driving was popular. I find your response a ray of light in a dark elitist view of bicycling and auto traffic. Locally the "cars are a hazard" people lost out when Foothill expressway was repainted with standard lane widths and an edge stripe that left a good 8 ft shoulder marked for bicycles. They said it couldn't be done, but it has worked admirably the last more than 10 years. The "it can't be done folks still exist and try to make an issue of it anywhere they can. I wrote to the county roads department and county supervisors about another road, Kings Mountain Road, on which there was a double center line with double bots-dots for the entire 4.2 miles from Woodside to Skyline Blvd. Because the anti bicycle folks used these knobs and center lines as an excuse to buzzing bicyclists closely, I asked that the bots-dots be removed so these poor drivers could without rude noises from the road, pass bicyclists at a reasonable distance. There are no more bots-dots on Kings Mountain road and practically no cars buzz bicyclists who ride where they ought to. In contrast, HWY 84 from La Honda to HWY 1 has wakeup burrs in the dual center stripe, yet buzzing bicyclists is rare, the Kings Mountain folk not treading there often and cars regularly brrrrrmp over the center stripe when passing bicyclists. That show me how much ill will there is on Kings Mountain road. Jobst Brandt |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
3ft passing requirement revisited
On Aug 23, 11:43*am, Barry Harmon wrote:
*Note that I said stay out of the road, not the roadway. You seem to be using these terms in a way that is not consistent with the definitions in the vehicle codes. I'm reading this in ba.bicycles and therefore going by the California code, but AIRC the one in NJ was similar. Section 530 of the CVC specifies that "roadway" refers only to the portion of highway or road that is ordinarily used by motor vehicle traffic (therefore excluding the shoulder). Staying out of the 'road' is therefore more restrictive and includes both staying off the 'roadway' and also any adjacent shoulder or other part of the public route. But from a practical standpoint, many roads do not have sufficient shoulder area to allow a bicyclist to travel on them without being in the traffic lane (i.e. 'roadway') at least some of the time. Restricting cyclists from even the roadway portion of all roads where traffic goes substantially faster than bike speeds would have the effect of preventing bicycle access to many possible destinations and eliminate the bicycle as a viable means of transportation in many areas. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
3ft passing requirement revisited
Peter Rathman wrote:
Â*Note that I said stay out of the road, not the roadway. You seem to be using these terms in a way that is not consistent with the definitions in the vehicle codes. I'm reading this in ba.bicycles and therefore going by the California code, but AIRC the one in NJ was similar. Section 530 of the CVC specifies that "roadway" refers only to the portion of highway or road that is ordinarily used by motor vehicle traffic (therefore excluding the shoulder). Staying out of the 'road' is therefore more restrictive and includes both staying off the 'roadway' and also any adjacent shoulder or other part of the public route. But from a practical standpoint, many roads do not have sufficient shoulder area to allow a bicyclist to travel on them without being in the traffic lane (i.e. 'roadway') at least some of the time. Restricting cyclists from even the roadway portion of all roads where traffic goes substantially faster than bike speeds would have the effect of preventing bicycle access to many possible destinations and eliminate the bicycle as a viable means of transportation in many areas. If you can't see that even the motor vehicle code is filled with gratuitous verbiage, you are not a critical reader. I am appalled at warning signs that end with "AHEAD" and begin with "BE PREPARED TO STOP" in contrast to an icon of a flagman or traffic signal. Roadway is much like road signs in my area where, for instance, "Pescadero Rd." has become "PESCADERO CREEK ROAD", more words are more important. Jobst Brandt |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
3ft passing requirement revisited
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message news I've wondered whether cyclists really need a law that requires cars to pass us no closer than 3 feet. I generally don't have too many issues out on the road, and it would seem that common sense and courtesy go a long way towards making the world a reasonable place to drive and bike. Until today. I didn't even really know what happened until I played it back in mind mind immediately afterward. Karl, Kevin and I were on the return leg of our usual Tuesday/Thursday morning ride, heading north on 84 in Woodside, approaching Tripp Road. We were not only single file, but single file on the very edge of the road... I mean riding in tight formation, with maybe just a couple inches (really) of pavement to the right of our wheels. If there was a "good citizen" award for cyclists sharing the road, we would have gotten it. That might be the problem. See below. No reason for us to impede cars if we don't have to (the shoulder's in pretty good shape there, and being the first day of school for many, there was more traffic than usual). And then the black SUV went past us. It didn't blast its horn. It didn't swerve. It simply didn't deviate from its course. And it passed each of us by maybe, what, 6 inches? Could have even been a bit less. It was RIGHT THERE. I related a similar experience to a veteran motorcylcist. His reaction was more or less, 'Well, what did you expect?!? If you cede the lane then you will eventually get pushed off the road.' His experience was similar for cars passing motorcycles. The the car passing tended to assume they need not go _all_ the way over into the oncoming lane since it was just a motorcycle and before long the motorcyclist ended up being pushed off the road. So on a motorcycle you take the lane aggressively, hugging the left side of the lane markings. The problem with taking the lane though in my experience is road situations wherein an overtaking car has little time and sightlines to see the slower moving vehicle and slow if the oncoming traffic allows for a safe pass. My strategy is a compromise. When the oncoming traffic is heavy I cede the lane and take the shoulder if practiceable. If there is no oncoming traffic I can see with good sightlines then I take the lane - not as aggressively as a motorcyle migh, hugging the lane markings, but assertively enough to make the overtaking vehicle realize he has to move all the way into the other lane. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
3ft passing requirement revisited
In article ,
nmp wrote: Timothy J. Lee wrote: In article , nmp wrote: I still keep a healthy distance from parked cars though. A good idea. A bicyclist hugging the parked cars is hard to see by someone in the traffic side of a parked car trying to check whether it is safe to open the door (the current car design trend to smaller windows and big pillars makes it worse). Smaller windows make no difference. It is still their responsibility to check. That might even require opening the window and sticking ones head out. It may make no difference in determining legal fault in a door opening crash, but small windows and blind spots increase the risk of such a crash if the bicyclist is hugging the parked cars. Car occupants may be legally required to check if it is safe to open the door before opening the door, but, given how many people have rather sloppy driving skills, it would not be surprising that they do not check carefully enough for bicyclists hugging the parked cars before opening the door. So keeping outside of the door range of parked cars is a defensive maneuver for the bicyclist. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
36" Unicycle Inseam Requirement | 1-wheeled-grape | Unicycling | 3 | July 3rd 08 02:28 AM |
36" Unicycle Inseam Requirement | kington99 | Unicycling | 4 | July 2nd 08 04:08 PM |
36" Unicycle Inseam Requirement | Vipassana | Unicycling | 2 | July 2nd 08 01:13 AM |
In passing... | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 4 | May 18th 07 03:57 PM |
Passing on the right....... | Claire Petersky | General | 109 | May 23rd 05 09:44 AM |