When to honk at a bicyclist

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:00:45 GMT, "Pete"
wrote:


"Badger_South" wrote


I was stunned to learn that Newport News actually has a law the makes it
illegal to ride in the street if there's a bike path adjacent.

The only saving grace is that Newport News has very few actual "bike paths".
The onse they do have are literally upsized sidewalks.

And FWIW, I've never, ever, been stopped for not obeying this 'law'.

Pete

Hey Pete, that's good to know, but the upshot of this law is not the
primary enforcement...it's that you may lack legal backing if you have an
accident in the street and you're near a bike trail...that's all.

Where do you guys like to ride in NN? My folks live near Mariner's museum,
and I'm looking for some rides for Thanksgiving.

Best,

-B

21 Oct 2004 10:59:20 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:

What does "you" mean? Tell me how many cars or SUV's I own?

Frankly, that's your problem. Driving any one of them is when it
becomes a problem for the rest of us. We have to clean up the messes.

You think you have it all figured out, but as much as I
hate to admit it, you and I are more alike than we are different.
That statement is based on logic and fact, not emotion.
Try it sometime.

About the only basis for that logic is the fact that we both ****
standing up.

Your adherence to your beloved boogie-man myth is an emotional
response to your own fears rooted in the cyclists inferiority
superstition. I don't worry as much about the loon hunters that you
figure are stalking you. They're statistically unlikely to harm me for
what others do. That's a fact.

Don't try blaming anyone but the perpetrator. They're the product of
generations of car-centric classist society that glorifies reckless
driving, stupidity and violence in its entertainment

From their very first appearance cyclists were and still are scorned
by other road users.

I ride my bike everywhere. I ride as part of traffic.That I
consistently arrive at my destinations without incident fairly proves
that my conduct in traffic is within acceptable bounds.

Unless scofflaw cyclists are directly endangering me with their
antics, I'm just thankful they're not driving trucks like that. Nor do
I credit them with extra dimensional powers to invoke the cosmic
revenge of raging caged whackadoos.

I don't stop at stop signs if there's nobody around to witness my not
stopping. I take the lane when it's the place to be. Riding two or
more abreast is illegal here so I won't block other traffic to do it.

Let me know when that beer bottle you catch has my name on it, goof.
--
zk

In article ,
(R15757) writes:
Tom Keats wrote in part:

On that note I'll point out that the three traffic laws aimed
specifically at cyclists -- mandatory side path, mandatory
bike lane, and keep as far right (in North America) as
practicable -- are entirely about motorists' convenience.

The last one is convenient for motorists, but really
the law is about the overall flow of traffic, of which
cyclists are a part. It is just a version of slower
vehicle keep right.

But why is it necessary for a version of that law that
singles-out one /type/ of vehicle -- a type of vehicle
which can sometimes even keep up with the rest of the
traffic?

The law is not a slap in the face to
cyclists, especially when you consider that most
jurisdictions add a long list of exceptions to the rule--
for cyclists' safety and convenience.

Sure, that works in more enlightened jurisdictions.

If a law needs so many afterthought, add-on exceptions,
what good is it in the first place?

ISTR in one of his articles, John S. Allen considers an
hypothetical situation where this law could be used in
combination with a mandatory bike lane law to the detriment
of an injured-by-car cyclist's insurance claim. The cyclist
encounters a transitory obstacle in the bike lane, such
as a running dog. He has to swerve out of the bike lane
and gets clobbered by a car. Then the dog is long gone,
so the cyclist has nothing to point to as reason for his
leftward manoeuver. By the letter of the law, the cyclist
has violated both the bike lane law and the keep right law.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats wrote:

But why is it necessary for a version of that law [slower vehicles keep
right] that
singles-out one /type/ of vehicle -- a type of vehicle
which can sometimes even keep up with the rest of the
traffic?

If the law was not written specifically for cyclists,
there could be no exceptions for cyclists, and cyclists
would _always_ be required to keep right, even with
skinny lanes, debris on the right, or whatever.

If you are moving the speed of traffic you can take
whatever lane you want. If you are moving slower than
traffic, move right. That's not really the letter of the
law, but few people, including police, understand the
letter of the ride-to-the-right laws. So we fall back on
common sense, and that works fine.


snipIf a law needs so many afterthought, add-on exceptions,
what good is it in the first place?

What are you suggesting--that cyclists should be
exempt from the stay right rules? That everyone
should be exempt from the stay right rules? What is
the alternative?

ISTR in one of his articles, John S. Allen considers an
hypothetical situation where this law could be used in
combination with a mandatory bike lane law to the detriment
of an injured-by-car cyclist's insurance claim. The cyclist
encounters a transitory obstacle in the bike lane, such
as a running dog. He has to swerve out of the bike lane
and gets clobbered by a car. Then the dog is long gone,
so the cyclist has nothing to point to as reason for his
leftward manoeuver. By the letter of the law, the cyclist
has violated both the bike lane law and the keep right law.

I dont think cyclists are legally required to run over a
dog or any other obstacle in the bike lane. On the other
hand, it is their responsibility to make sure the path is
clear before swerving like a madman out of said lane,
or, if there were no bike lane, swerving from their
established position at the right side of the road. This
wreck would be the responsibility of the dog owner,
partially of the cyclist. Definitely not the motorist's
fault. The dog got away--tough titty. Stuff happens.
There are no magical easy answers.

Robert

In article ,
(R15757) writes:

snipIf a law needs so many afterthought, add-on exceptions,
what good is it in the first place?

What are you suggesting--that cyclists should be
exempt from the stay right rules? That everyone
should be exempt from the stay right rules? What is
the alternative?

I'm suggesting that pre-existing legislation governing
slow moving vehicles in general is sufficient for
governing bicycles in particular.

Here's how it works where I live:

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engs....htm#bylawSlow

City of Vancouver Street and Traffic By-Law No. 2849
(as of March 30, 1999)

Slow Moving Vehicles
59.
The driver of every slow moving vehicle shall drive such vehicle
as close as possible to the right hand edge or curb of any street
unless it is impracticable to travel on such side. For the purpose
of this section a bicycle shall be regarded at all times as a slow
moving vehicle.

-----

http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat...htm#section150

MOTOR VEHICLE ACT - Continued
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318

Part 3
Driver on right

150

....


(2) The driver of a vehicle proceeding at less than normal
speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions
then existing must drive the vehicle in the right hand lane
then available for traffic, or as closely as practicable to
the right hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when
overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same
direction, or when preparing for a left hand turn at an
intersection or into a private road or driveway.

------

None of this legislation eternally banishes slow moving
vehicles to the right-hand gutter, with no legal right
to make left turns or avoid obstacles or hazards. And
yet the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act also contains
the usual, bicycle-specific: "A person operating a cycle
must ... ride as near as practicable to the right side
of the highway."

Note the use of the word "highway", which is defined as
including any paved shoulders. The "roadway" is the
usually-travelled part of a highway; i.e: the traffic
lanes.

So, there's one example of how the bicycle-specific
keep-right law restricts cyclists from the roadway.
For the convenience of motorists.

Of course cyclists here aren't required to ride over
bad shoulder pavement, or into obstacles or hazards
on the shoulder. We're 'allowed' to ride around them,
and then get back onto the shoulder. But I suspect
this law could be interpreted such that if there is
a good, clear, paved shoulder present, a cyclist
wanting to carve high-speed turns during a mountain
descent isn't allowed to leave the shoulder and
ingress into the traffic lane.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

R15757 wrote:

Tom Keats wrote:

But why is it necessary for a version of that law [slower vehicles keep
right] that
singles-out one /type/ of vehicle -- a type of vehicle
which can sometimes even keep up with the rest of the
traffic?

If the law was not written specifically for cyclists,
there could be no exceptions for cyclists, and cyclists
would _always_ be required to keep right, even with
skinny lanes, debris on the right, or whatever.


How so?




If you are moving the speed of traffic you can take
whatever lane you want. If you are moving slower than
traffic, move right.


By move right do you mean the right lane or the right side of the right
lane? In your view is a bicyclist entitled to fully use the right lane
of a multi-lane road?


That's not really the letter of the
law, but few people, including police, understand the
letter of the ride-to-the-right laws. So we fall back on
common sense, and that works fine.


If a law is not understandable, even by those intended to enforce it,
then it should be re-worded to be understandable or abandoned.

Wayne

Tom Keats wrote:


I'm suggesting that pre-existing legislation governing
slow moving vehicles in general is sufficient for
governing bicycles in particular.

Here's how it works where I live:

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engs....htm#bylawSlow

City of Vancouver Street and Traffic By-Law No. 2849
(as of March 30, 1999)

Slow Moving Vehicles
59.
The driver of every slow moving vehicle shall drive such vehicle
as close as possible to the right hand edge or curb of any street
unless it is impracticable to travel on such side. For the purpose
of this section a bicycle shall be regarded at all times as a slow
moving vehicle.


That's a nasty law if I ever read one. Very discriminatory to bicyclists.





-----

http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat...htm#section150

MOTOR VEHICLE ACT - Continued
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318

Part 3
Driver on right

150

...


(2) The driver of a vehicle proceeding at less than normal
speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions
then existing must drive the vehicle in the right hand lane
then available for traffic, or as closely as practicable to
the right hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when
overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same
direction, or when preparing for a left hand turn at an
intersection or into a private road or driveway.



This is a typical example of poor wording. The first conjuction "or" is
illustrative. One can drive in the right hand lane, *or* drive as
closely as practicable to the edge. Does this "or" mean choice, and/or
is wording missing, such as "... or when the roadway is unmarked as
closely as practicable ....?"

Wayne

In article ,
Wayne Pein writes:

City of Vancouver Street and Traffic By-Law No. 2849
(as of March 30, 1999)

Slow Moving Vehicles
59.
The driver of every slow moving vehicle shall drive such vehicle
as close as possible to the right hand edge or curb of any street
unless it is impracticable to travel on such side. For the purpose
of this section a bicycle shall be regarded at all times as a slow
moving vehicle.


That's a nasty law if I ever read one. Very discriminatory to bicyclists.

I'm afraid I don't see how it is any more discriminatory than
the typical bicycle-specific keep-right law. I'm assuming the
"unless it is impracticable to travel on such side" part
provides a similar 'out' for avoiding door zones, making left
turns, etc. Am I wrong? Please explain.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats wrote:

City of Vancouver Street and Traffic By-Law No. 2849
(as of March 30, 1999)

Slow Moving Vehicles
59.
The driver of every slow moving vehicle shall drive such vehicle
as close as possible to the right hand edge or curb of any street
unless it is impracticable to travel on such side. For the purpose
of this section a bicycle shall be regarded at all times as a slow
moving vehicle.


That's a nasty law if I ever read one. Very discriminatory to bicyclists.


I'm afraid I don't see how it is any more discriminatory than
the typical bicycle-specific keep-right law. I'm assuming the
"unless it is impracticable to travel on such side" part
provides a similar 'out' for avoiding door zones, making left
turns, etc. Am I wrong? Please explain.




Maybe it isn't any more discriminatory than typical. :-) But it IS
discriminatory.

Two big problems as I see it. First, the use of "possible" rather than
"practicable." Big difference. Second, I think the sentence "For the
purpose of this section a bicycle shall be regarded at all times as a
slow moving vehicle." is a real offender. It ignores actual bicycle
speed. So if a bicyclist is doing 25 mph (40 kph) when the speed limit
is the same, the bicyclist is still required to drive as close as
*possible.* Here, I sometimes exceed the speed limit on descents. I hope
I don't get cited!

One little nuance that I have recently become enamored with is the fact
that in every country, motor vehicle operators are placed closer to the
centerline rather than the curbline. Here in North America, we drive on
the right, but the steering wheel is on the left. This is for the very
real safety reason of improved sightlines.

Regards,
Wayne

"Badger_South" wrote


Hey Pete, that's good to know, but the upshot of this law is not the
primary enforcement...it's that you may lack legal backing if you have an
accident in the street and you're near a bike trail...that's all.

Where do you guys like to ride in NN? My folks live near Mariner's museum,
and I'm looking for some rides for Thanksgiving.

Currently, I'm in NN only occasionally, but the roads from the Mariners
Museum south along the water are nice. Quiet residential area, mostly.

For local MTB, Harwood Mills in Denbeigh is OK. York State park is better.

Pete