Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clearview.

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 8:39:34 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 4:20:53 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:

You need to read the statutes more carefully. There is no common law of traffic. It's statutory. The Ohio statute is peculiar and is not the law in every state -- or anywhere else from what I can tell.

Under the UVC, slow moving vehicles must yield to faster traffic on one-lane (each way) roads -- without regard to the physical fitness of the driver, except in Ohio. in your scenario, the slow moving tractor on a one lane road must yield to faster traffic. In other words, it has to pull of when it is safe and let traffic by. Tractor drivers often fail to do that, but it doesn't mean they're following the law.

The Oregon statute gives a bicyclist the right to take the lane to avoid "unsafe operation" within a lane that is too narrow to share. Crossing the center line to pass is not unsafe operation -- so if there is room to pass (no oncoming traffic), the statute does not give riders a free pass to take the lane -- not as written.

The take-away from all of this is that the rules of the road for bicyclists can vary significantly from one state to another. You cannot tell a rider in another state how he or she should ride -- not without looking at state and local law. In fact, city ordinances may affect where an how a bicyclist can use the roads or sidewalks.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, I realize you're a lawyer and I'm not. But I also realize that Steve
Magas is a lawyer. So is Bob Mionske. So are a couple of the guys I ride with.
So are people on staff at the League of American Bicyclists, other guys on
the board of the Ohio Bicycle Federation, other folks in other state
bicycling advocacy organizations.

Despite what you say, your view on controlling a narrow lane seems to be
in disagreement with what all those people say. Don't pretend that I'm
the only person recommending riding far enough left to control a lane.
It's the standard advice in the League's education programs, in the
Cycling Savvy courses, in CAN-BIKE, and in similar cycling courses in
other countries. Are all the lawyers associated with all those
education programs wrong? I doubt it.

To paraphrase and old joke: I don't think everyone's out of step except
our little Jay.

Wake me up when Bob has any published opinions -- or even a case on any Oregon docket. BTW, it's not just little Jay that thinks impeding traffic is an infraction. http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/c...2/a115242.html

Note the absence of any reference in that opinion of Ohio law, Bob Mionske or Steve Magas -- or Frank Krygowski. I'm not saying that "controlling the lane" doesn't make sense -- it does sometime -- but it's also illegal sometimes. If you want to parse the language of a statute and argue what it means, that's one thing, but don't be an ass and drop names (or insults). I couldn't imagine getting in front of a judge and arguing the meaning of Oregon statute based on a Velo News column or a Commute Orlando YouTube video. I don't know about your friends, but in the last 29 years of arguing in front of judges and appellate courts, I have never once relied on material published by Cycling Savvy.

Now, if I'm trying to prove the standard of care (rather than the requirements of the Oregon VC), I might call an expert on riding technique -- and I've done that a few times. But that has nothing to do with what a statute says or requires. That's where you keep going south -- arguing about the "right way" rather than what the express terms of a statue say. The "right way" would get me in to trouble in Oregon, particularly with our bike lane laws..

--Jay Beattie.

Interesting to see whether Franki-boy has the sense to shut up.

Andre Jute

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 4:03:44 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
Interesting to see whether Franki-boy has the sense to shut up.

Andre Jute

Short answer = No.

In many things it;s his way or you're wrong. Never mind if your experiences trying his way are different or if it's illegal to do it his way im your locale - you're still wrong.

Cheers

On 5/31/2015 2:13 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 8:39:34 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Jay, I realize you're a lawyer and I'm not. But I also realize that Steve
Magas is a lawyer. So is Bob Mionske. So are a couple of the guys I ride with.
So are people on staff at the League of American Bicyclists, other guys on
the board of the Ohio Bicycle Federation, other folks in other state
bicycling advocacy organizations.

Despite what you say, your view on controlling a narrow lane seems to be
in disagreement with what all those people say. Don't pretend that I'm
the only person recommending riding far enough left to control a lane.
It's the standard advice in the League's education programs, in the
Cycling Savvy courses, in CAN-BIKE, and in similar cycling courses in
other countries. Are all the lawyers associated with all those
education programs wrong? I doubt it.

To paraphrase and old joke: I don't think everyone's out of step except
our little Jay.

Wake me up when Bob has any published opinions -- or even a case on any Oregon docket. BTW, it's not just little Jay that thinks impeding traffic is an infraction. http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/c...2/a115242.html

Note the absence of any reference in that opinion of Ohio law, Bob Mionske or Steve Magas -- or Frank Krygowski. I'm not saying that "controlling the lane" doesn't make sense -- it does sometime -- but it's also illegal sometimes. If you want to parse the language of a statute and argue what it means, that's one thing, but don't be an ass and drop names (or insults). I couldn't imagine getting in front of a judge and arguing the meaning of Oregon statute based on a Velo News column or a Commute Orlando YouTube video. I don't know about your friends, but in the last 29 years of arguing in front of judges and appellate courts, I have never once relied on material published by Cycling Savvy.

Now, if I'm trying to prove the standard of care (rather than the requirements of the Oregon VC), I might call an expert on riding technique -- and I've done that a few times. But that has nothing to do with what a statute says or requires. That's where you keep going south -- arguing about the "right way" rather than what the express terms of a statue say. The "right way" would get me in to trouble in Oregon, particularly with our bike lane laws.

OK, you said "I'm not saying that "controlling the lane" doesn't make
sense -- it does sometime -- but it's also illegal sometimes."

Then perhaps we're in violent agreement once again. I've never said
it's _never_ illegal to control a lane. The case you cited was a
Critical Mass ride, in which the defendant was apparently convicted for
doing what CM riders purposely do: obstruct traffic unnecessarily, yell
at police officers, and generally make asses of themselves in order to
make a point. That's FAR different from what I advise.

So what do I advise? Let's review. I say that when a lane is too
narrow to be safely shared by the cyclist and a passing motor vehicle,
the cyclist should ride far enough left to strongly discourage the
motorist from passing too close. I also say that when a lane is wide
enough to be safely shared, I _do_ share the lane and I advise others to
do the same.

(And for further parenthetical details: 1) In those very few instances
where I've had many cars backed up behind me, I have pulled over when
safe to let them pass. 2) I'm counting a usable bike lane as if it were
part of "the lane," which means I wouldn't generally need to be far left
of a decent bike lane. 3) And I've never ridden in a Critical Mass
ride, and don't advise doing so as they are normally organized.)

Unless I misunderstand your posts, you have been claiming that
controlling even an obviously too-narrow lane is illegal. (Correct me
if I'm wrong about that.) I dispute that, and judging by their
behavior, their discussions with me, their writing or their legal work,
so does every bike riding lawyer I'm aware of. So does every cop and
former cop I've ridden with. Hell, I've attended bike events where cops
who had developed well-reputed bike education programs gave exactly the
same advice I give.

Furthermore, even if a lawyer can work the algebraic equations of law to
show that the behavior I advise is prohibited by law, I doubt it makes a
practical difference in even one situation out of ten thousand. There
have been many times I've controlled narrow lanes in front of cop cars,
as well as when riding with cops and lawyers. The practice is even more
reasonable than, say, staying clipped in and balancing at 1 mph at a
stop sign. (Something else I've done directly in front of a cop car,
BTW.) I think citations are essentially nonexistent for controlling an
obviously narrow lane.

You don't like my name dropping. Sorry about that. But you haven't
explained why the advice given by all those lawyers and cops I mentioned
is different than your own. Do you want to do that now?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 8:45:03 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 4:03:44 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
Interesting to see whether Franki-boy has the sense to shut up.

Andre Jute

Short answer = No.

In many things it;s his way or you're wrong. Never mind if your experiences trying his way are different or if it's illegal to do it his way im your locale - you're still wrong.

And let me be clear that I'm not arguing over the "standard of care," viz., what a skilled rider "should do." I'm just saying that local law may prohibit a cyclist from "controlling the lane" if that means impeding traffic or riding outside a bike lane.

As a general rule, its permissible to ride on sidewalks so long as you don't exceed the speed of pedestrian traffic. It's illegal in downtown Portland, however. It is generally illegal to ride on interstate highways. It is legal in most rural areas in Oregon. Passing on the right on a one-lane road is generally illegal, except that is legal for bicycles in Oregon. Running stops on a bicycle is illegal in Oregon, but rolling stops are legal in many other states. Impeding and passing laws are all over the map -- Washington (where I might ride today -- still thinking about it) has a "five car" rule. http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.427 If you are moving slowly on a one lane (each way) road and five "vehicles" stack up behind you, you have to move off the road and let them pass. No "controlling the lane" parades for Frank in Washington -- even if he's just holding up five other bicycles.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2015 2:13 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 8:39:34 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Jay, I realize you're a lawyer and I'm not. But I also realize that Steve
Magas is a lawyer. So is Bob Mionske. So are a couple of the guys I ride with.
So are people on staff at the League of American Bicyclists, other guys on
the board of the Ohio Bicycle Federation, other folks in other state
bicycling advocacy organizations.

Despite what you say, your view on controlling a narrow lane seems to be
in disagreement with what all those people say. Don't pretend that I'm
the only person recommending riding far enough left to control a lane.
It's the standard advice in the League's education programs, in the
Cycling Savvy courses, in CAN-BIKE, and in similar cycling courses in
other countries. Are all the lawyers associated with all those
education programs wrong? I doubt it.

To paraphrase and old joke: I don't think everyone's out of step except
our little Jay.

Wake me up when Bob has any published opinions -- or even a case on any Oregon docket. BTW, it's not just little Jay that thinks impeding traffic is an infraction. http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/c...2/a115242.html

Note the absence of any reference in that opinion of Ohio law, Bob Mionske or Steve Magas -- or Frank Krygowski. I'm not saying that "controlling the lane" doesn't make sense -- it does sometime -- but it's also illegal sometimes. If you want to parse the language of a statute and argue what it means, that's one thing, but don't be an ass and drop names (or insults). I couldn't imagine getting in front of a judge and arguing the meaning of Oregon statute based on a Velo News column or a Commute Orlando YouTube video. I don't know about your friends, but in the last 29 years of arguing in front of judges and appellate courts, I have never once relied on material published by Cycling Savvy.

Now, if I'm trying to prove the standard of care (rather than the requirements of the Oregon VC), I might call an expert on riding technique -- and I've done that a few times. But that has nothing to do with what a statute says or requires. That's where you keep going south -- arguing about the "right way" rather than what the express terms of a statue say. The "right way" would get me in to trouble in Oregon, particularly with our bike lane laws.

OK, you said "I'm not saying that "controlling the lane" doesn't make
sense -- it does sometime -- but it's also illegal sometimes."

Then perhaps we're in violent agreement once again. I've never said
it's _never_ illegal to control a lane. The case you cited was a
Critical Mass ride, in which the defendant was apparently convicted for
doing what CM riders purposely do: obstruct traffic unnecessarily, yell
at police officers, and generally make asses of themselves in order to
make a point. That's FAR different from what I advise.

So what do I advise? Let's review. I say that when a lane is too
narrow to be safely shared by the cyclist and a passing motor vehicle,
the cyclist should ride far enough left to strongly discourage the
motorist from passing too close. I also say that when a lane is wide
enough to be safely shared, I _do_ share the lane and I advise others to
do the same.

(And for further parenthetical details: 1) In those very few instances
where I've had many cars backed up behind me, I have pulled over when
safe to let them pass. 2) I'm counting a usable bike lane as if it were
part of "the lane," which means I wouldn't generally need to be far left
of a decent bike lane. 3) And I've never ridden in a Critical Mass
ride, and don't advise doing so as they are normally organized.)

Unless I misunderstand your posts, you have been claiming that
controlling even an obviously too-narrow lane is illegal. (Correct me
if I'm wrong about that.) I dispute that, and judging by their
behavior, their discussions with me, their writing or their legal work,
so does every bike riding lawyer I'm aware of. So does every cop and
former cop I've ridden with. Hell, I've attended bike events where cops
who had developed well-reputed bike education programs gave exactly the
same advice I give.

Furthermore, even if a lawyer can work the algebraic equations of law to
show that the behavior I advise is prohibited by law, I doubt it makes a
practical difference in even one situation out of ten thousand. There
have been many times I've controlled narrow lanes in front of cop cars,
as well as when riding with cops and lawyers. The practice is even more
reasonable than, say, staying clipped in and balancing at 1 mph at a
stop sign. (Something else I've done directly in front of a cop car,
BTW.) I think citations are essentially nonexistent for controlling an
obviously narrow lane.

You don't like my name dropping. Sorry about that. But you haven't
explained why the advice given by all those lawyers and cops I mentioned
is different than your own. Do you want to do that now?

It's simple -- you're citing supposed experts on the standard of care. I'm talking about the language of particular statutes. It's ships passing in the night.

Generally speaking, you can "control" an obviously too narrow lane for a period of time until it becomes impeding or failure to allow passing or whatever approach is taken in the particular state. Parades require a permit -- most places, but perhaps not in Ohio under your impeding law.

Remember that when you control the lane, you control it for everybody -- including other cyclists. This is probably not much of a concern for you (or even part of your consciousness) because, AFAIK, you don't ride in an area with lots of other cyclists. I get the pleasure of plodding along in traffic (or forced filtering) every morning because some flower child is controlling traffic at 10mph. It upsets motorists and puts me in what amounts to a three lane cattle drive with lots of angry cows trying to get around an obstacle. I suppose I'm upset because it's a downhill, and you have to work to gum-up traffic at morning commute speeds -- but people do that because they're bicycles, damn it, and they're entitled to take the lane.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 12:41:25 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2015 2:13 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 8:39:34 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Jay, I realize you're a lawyer and I'm not. But I also realize that Steve
Magas is a lawyer. So is Bob Mionske. So are a couple of the guys I ride with.
So are people on staff at the League of American Bicyclists, other guys on
the board of the Ohio Bicycle Federation, other folks in other state
bicycling advocacy organizations.

Despite what you say, your view on controlling a narrow lane seems to be
in disagreement with what all those people say. Don't pretend that I'm
the only person recommending riding far enough left to control a lane.
It's the standard advice in the League's education programs, in the
Cycling Savvy courses, in CAN-BIKE, and in similar cycling courses in
other countries. Are all the lawyers associated with all those
education programs wrong? I doubt it.

To paraphrase and old joke: I don't think everyone's out of step except
our little Jay.

Wake me up when Bob has any published opinions -- or even a case on any Oregon docket. BTW, it's not just little Jay that thinks impeding traffic is an infraction. http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/c...2/a115242.html

Note the absence of any reference in that opinion of Ohio law, Bob Mionske or Steve Magas -- or Frank Krygowski. I'm not saying that "controlling the lane" doesn't make sense -- it does sometime -- but it's also illegal sometimes. If you want to parse the language of a statute and argue what it means, that's one thing, but don't be an ass and drop names (or insults).. I couldn't imagine getting in front of a judge and arguing the meaning of Oregon statute based on a Velo News column or a Commute Orlando YouTube video. I don't know about your friends, but in the last 29 years of arguing in front of judges and appellate courts, I have never once relied on material published by Cycling Savvy.

Now, if I'm trying to prove the standard of care (rather than the requirements of the Oregon VC), I might call an expert on riding technique -- and I've done that a few times. But that has nothing to do with what a statute says or requires. That's where you keep going south -- arguing about the "right way" rather than what the express terms of a statue say. The "right way" would get me in to trouble in Oregon, particularly with our bike lane laws.

OK, you said "I'm not saying that "controlling the lane" doesn't make
sense -- it does sometime -- but it's also illegal sometimes."

Then perhaps we're in violent agreement once again. I've never said
it's _never_ illegal to control a lane. The case you cited was a
Critical Mass ride, in which the defendant was apparently convicted for
doing what CM riders purposely do: obstruct traffic unnecessarily, yell
at police officers, and generally make asses of themselves in order to
make a point. That's FAR different from what I advise.

So what do I advise? Let's review. I say that when a lane is too
narrow to be safely shared by the cyclist and a passing motor vehicle,
the cyclist should ride far enough left to strongly discourage the
motorist from passing too close. I also say that when a lane is wide
enough to be safely shared, I _do_ share the lane and I advise others to
do the same.

(And for further parenthetical details: 1) In those very few instances
where I've had many cars backed up behind me, I have pulled over when
safe to let them pass. 2) I'm counting a usable bike lane as if it were
part of "the lane," which means I wouldn't generally need to be far left
of a decent bike lane. 3) And I've never ridden in a Critical Mass
ride, and don't advise doing so as they are normally organized.)

Unless I misunderstand your posts, you have been claiming that
controlling even an obviously too-narrow lane is illegal. (Correct me
if I'm wrong about that.) I dispute that, and judging by their
behavior, their discussions with me, their writing or their legal work,
so does every bike riding lawyer I'm aware of. So does every cop and
former cop I've ridden with. Hell, I've attended bike events where cops
who had developed well-reputed bike education programs gave exactly the
same advice I give.

Furthermore, even if a lawyer can work the algebraic equations of law to
show that the behavior I advise is prohibited by law, I doubt it makes a
practical difference in even one situation out of ten thousand. There
have been many times I've controlled narrow lanes in front of cop cars,
as well as when riding with cops and lawyers. The practice is even more
reasonable than, say, staying clipped in and balancing at 1 mph at a
stop sign. (Something else I've done directly in front of a cop car,
BTW.) I think citations are essentially nonexistent for controlling an
obviously narrow lane.

You don't like my name dropping. Sorry about that. But you haven't
explained why the advice given by all those lawyers and cops I mentioned
is different than your own. Do you want to do that now?

It's simple -- you're citing supposed experts on the standard of care. I'm talking about the language of particular statutes. It's ships passing in the night.

Generally speaking, you can "control" an obviously too narrow lane for a period of time until it becomes impeding or failure to allow passing or whatever approach is taken in the particular state. Parades require a permit -- most places, but perhaps not in Ohio under your impeding law.

Remember that when you control the lane, you control it for everybody -- including other cyclists. This is probably not much of a concern for you (or even part of your consciousness) because, AFAIK, you don't ride in an area with lots of other cyclists. I get the pleasure of plodding along in traffic (or forced filtering) every morning because some flower child is controlling traffic at 10mph. It upsets motorists and puts me in what amounts to a three lane cattle drive with lots of angry cows trying to get around an obstacle. I suppose I'm upset because it's a downhill, and you have to work to gum-up traffic at morning commute speeds -- but people do that because they're bicycles, damn it, and they're entitled to take the lane.

-- Jay Beattie.

Used to get those plodding bicyclist holding up ALL other traffic in Toronto on a very busy east-west main road. It really irked me that it was so hard to pass them even though I was on a bicycle. Fortunately I was able to use, once I discovered it, a very nice country-like road that paralelled that mani road. It's bicyclists that insist on "taking and controlling the lane" even when there is traffic backing up behind them that gives all bicyclists a bad name and leads to many motorists demanding that bicycles be bannished from the roads and/or the licensing of all bicyclists. The licensing bit is so that law breaking bicyclists including those impedeing the flow of traffic can be reported and/or ticketed and/or lose their priviledge just like motorists.

Cheers

On 5/30/2015 7:20 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Frank, we're talking about impeding laws -- and this is why Ohio is unusual. Note section (C) please:

snip huge response

-- Jay Beattie.

You got sucked into data-centric responses to a clever troll who hates
facts and data. Don't they teach you not to do that in law school.

On 5/31/2015 12:15 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm just saying that local law may prohibit a cyclist from "controlling the lane"
if that means impeding traffic or riding outside a bike lane.

If that's all you're saying - that local law _may_ be against it - yes,
I agree. That's obvious, because tremendously stupid laws exist. (For
example, in Oregon, it's illegal for a motorist to pump his own gas.
And of course, it's illegal for a kid to ride his bike from his driveway
to his friend's driveway across their cul-de-sac residential street
unless the kid straps on a helmet for the five second trip.)

Until last year, it was illegal in my town for a cyclist to ride a bike
across a "through intersection." It was illegal for a cyclist to ride
on the street if there was a sidewalk. It was illegal to park a bike
without locking it. It was illegal for a cyclist to say "Excuse me" to
warn a pedestrian. (Only horns or bells could be used for pedestrian
warnings.)

The list of foolish laws went on and on, and was completely ignored by
everyone. I got the laws repealed.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/31/2015 12:41 PM, jbeattie wrote:


It's simple -- you're citing supposed experts on the standard of care.
I'm talking about the language of particular statutes. It's ships
passing in the night.

OK. In the post I just finished, I agree that there can be a law
against safely controlling a lane, just as there can be a law against
pumping gas into one's own car. Stupid laws do exist.

Generally speaking, you can "control" an obviously too narrow lane for
a period of time until it becomes impeding or failure to allow passing or
whatever approach is taken in the particular state.

Nice, thank you. I think I'll save that quote.

Remember that when you control the lane, you control it for everybody --
including other cyclists. This is probably not much of a concern for you
(or even part of your consciousness) because, AFAIK, you don't ride in an
area with lots of other cyclists. I get the pleasure of plodding along in
traffic (or forced filtering) every morning because some flower child is
controlling traffic at 10mph. It upsets motorists and puts me in what
amounts to a three lane cattle drive with lots of angry cows trying to
get around an obstacle. I suppose I'm upset because it's a downhill,
and you have to work to gum-up traffic at morning commute speeds -- but
people do that because they're bicycles, damn it, and they're entitled
to take the lane.

We don't have nearly the density of bicyclists that you do (in fact, no
place in the U.S. does, AFAIK). So my riding among other cyclists is
usually confined to club rides and a rare mass cycling event. (I tend
to stay away from those, except when doing volunteer support.)

On club rides, I tend to converse with almost everyone at various times.
I do encounter times when I'm behind a clot of riders going much
slower than I like, usually on uphills. My usual solution is to say "On
your left" and go around. At times, that means I'm passing them by
using the oncoming lane of a two lane road. For me, it's never a big
problem.

But then, Ohio law is on my side. (I can't be ticketed for leaving a
bike lane, for example.)

--
- Frank Krygowski