3ft passing requirement revisited

Jeremy Parker wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote

[snip]

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.

[snip]

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.

[snip]

Position in the road makes a very effective signal, much better than
the official hand signals. It's a common theory that your distance
from the edge of the road indicates to the motorists' subconscious
how much clearance you think you need for yourself, which results in
the motorists giving the same clearance to you as you give to the
curb.

What other reason could you have for huddling close to the edge of
the road but to indicate to motorists behind that you want to share
not just the road, but the lane you are in as well. You are telling
the motorists that you want them to pass **in your lane**.

By implication, you are telling the motorists that you think it is
safe for the motorists to do so. What other reason could you have
for sending out the signal.

Jeremy Parker



I thought the law required bicyclists to ride as close to the right edge
as is safe. As long as there are no obstacles or debris, riding near
the right edge is the law. This does not mean that cars should give
cyclists no more room on the left. That's just inconsiderate.

/dave a

On Aug 22, 2:07*pm, Barry Harmon wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote in news:6ed6a699-d3a6-45c1-b6bb-
:

On Aug 22, 10:23*am, Barry Harmon wrote:

You may want the right to ride your bike on high-speed roads, but if you
can't maintain a reasonable minimum speed, you shouldn't be on that
particular section of road.

Well, that's true in the mind of certain selfish and ignorant
motorists. Fortunately, the laws say otherwise.

- Frank Krygowski

Actually, Frank, there are minimum speed provisions on most interstates.

Barry, I've bicycled hundreds of miles on interstates, perfectly
legally. Those minimum speed requirements apply only to motorized
vehicles, not to bicycles. IOW, get a grip, please.


There are also provisions in the motor vehicle codes of some states that
state that if there are a certain number of cars backed-up behind a
motorist, then said motorist must pull over and allow the cars to pass.

:-) Your next challenge is to write a 100 word theme explaining the
difference between "motorist" and "bicyclist." Think you're up to it?

You may be right about what the law says, but in actual practice, a bike in
the middle of the lane going 20 miles an hour in a 45 mph zone is a bike
asking for a citation for obstructing traffic or worse.

Gosh, I'll have to tell that to my riding buddies - the one who's a
police chief, the one who's a city cop, the one who's a retired state
highway patrolman, and the one who's an ex-cop and current criminal
justice professor. Somehow, they all seem to disagree with you.
Wonder who's wrong? ;-)


Finally, there are prohibitions against bikes on most limited-access
highways. *There must be something going on that you don't know about, eh?

Yes, most limited access highways prohibit bikes, but not all. Check
the state laws for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho,
Utah, etc etc. These (and many other) states allow cycling on at
least some limited access highways.

Now to tie that to your statement from the last post: Obviously, the
legislators differ from your opinion that " if you can't maintain a
reasonable minimum speed, you shouldn't be on that particular section
of road." Or alternately, they accept the normal speed of a bicycle
as a "reasonable minimum."

That demonstrates there's "something you don't know about"!

Seems to me that there are as many agressive, ignorant, selfish, suicidal
bike riders as there are selfish and ignorant motorists.

What things seem to you isn't important. I've already lost all
respect for your uninformed opinions.

- Frank Krygowski

I dont get intimidated by menace truckers.


On Aug 22, 3:08*pm, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:

Consider yourself "brushed back" when a semi runs you off the road in
your cage, asswipe.

I think I've scraped higher life forms off my shoe
--

There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't!

On Aug 22, 6:01*pm, dave a wrote:


I thought the law required bicyclists to ride as close to the right edge
as is safe. *As long as there are no obstacles or debris, riding near
the right edge is the law. *

Sorry, you're wrong. Riding near the right edge is not safe in most
circumstances. And since cyclists have a right to use the road
safely, they certainly don't have to be "inches" from the edge, as the
OP was.

To explain: Obviously, it's unsafe to ride over obstacles (say, bad
grates or potholes) or most debris at the road edge. But it's also
unsafe to swerve to avoid such things. Thus, for safety, you need to
stay far enough away from the edge if there's a reasonable possibility
that such debris will appear. And such debris tends to collect at the
road edge, by the sweeping action of car tires.

Another "obstacle" - and a particularly dangerous one - is a car door
that _might_ pop open. Practically speaking, that means the door of
any parked car. This is why every reputable bike safety expert says
you should never ride in the "door zone." (That's true even if simple-
minded "bicycle advocates" have had bike lanes painted in the door
zone.)

Furthermore, you shouldn't ride close to the edge if you're between
widely spaced parked cars. It's not safe to do the repeated merges
with traffic when you come to a parked car. A competent cyclist knows
to maintain a straight line, not to slavishly swerve back and forth to
try to ride right at the edge of the road.

And you shouldn't be too far to the right if it makes you too
inconspicuous on the road. For example, when I'm riding a certain
downhill highway through our village, I might be doing 25 mph, with
the right of way, as cars come up to stop signs on the right. Should
I ride close to the edge? Heck no! If I do, they may not notice me
in the shadows of the trees. I'm much safer both in terms of
visibility and evasive room if I ride more centered in the lane.

And to get back to the OP's example: it's obviously unsafe to ride
far enough to the right that motorists are tempted to squeeze past.
That was the mistake Mike and his riding buddies were making. When a
lane is too narrow to safely share, you don't share it.

Lots of experienced cyclists don't understand this, but riding too far
to the right is often dangerous. Don't be a gutter bunny.

- Frank Krygowski

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Barry Harmon



--
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Barry Harmon" wrote in message
. 15.254...


What I envision, probably some version of cycling utopia that would
never exist, are not only signs that say "Share the Road" but also
"Minimum 3ft clearance when passing bikes" or words to that effect.


I ride many thousands of miles/year, and this stretch of road at least
100 times/year. The line of sight isn't bad, and the pavement
predictable and decent. We don't need cars to deviate 10 feet from the
right to pass us; doing so would require much more sudden movement on
their part and increase the difficulty of getting back into the lane
after passing us. It serves no purpose for us to ride that far out in
the road in that particular location. Other places, it makes sense to
do so. Not just to decrease the likelihood of being "buzzed" but, more
importantly, to increase the likelihood of being SEEN. Cars are
looking forward, basically for other cars. Move out into their direct
line of sight, and you're much more likely to be seen.


John Forrester basically believes that bikes should behave pretty much
the same as cars, and to a large extent, I agree with him. But what
about those who aren't, in a literal sense, up to speed? Higher speeds
improve your maneuverability in traffic, and self-assurance improves
the manner in which you exercise your skills. Perhaps 10% of the
cyclists on the road are capable of duking it out with cars. That
leaves the other 90% who aren't comfortable taking the lane or riding
on crowded urban streets. Me? I think it's both my right and it's fun.
I don't pretend to be a car when I'm riding on Mission Street in San
Francisco. I'm better! But it's not for everyone.

The thought of a bike "duking it out with cars" makes me hope you've got
your will up-to-date. That's one of the most irresponsible statements
I've read in a long time.


I'm one of those evil guys that goes to DC each year, lobbying for
more funds for bike-oriented improvements to our roadways and, gasp,
bike paths. Frequently paths I'd never consider riding myself, but
desired by a recreational cyclist who would rather be on a dedicated
(non-car) route. John Forrester would suggest that doing anything like
that is allowing the car folk to say that that's where we belong (on
the bike path, not on the street), and that separate is inferior, not
equal. I think we need, and can have, both. I will fight tooth & nail
to maintain my rights to ride on high-speed conventional roads, with
cars at my side, while at the same time lobby for recreational bike
paths & routes.

You may want the right to ride your bike on high-speed roads, but if you
can't maintain a reasonable minimum speed, you shouldn't be on that
particular section of road. I don't know what a reasonable minimum
speed is, but something around 70% of the maximum seems to be what the
road designers look for -- minimum speed of 45 in a 65 zone. This says
that if you can maintain at least 31 you can "take the lane" in a 45
zone, although you will still be very far below what most drivers drive.

A few final comments.

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.

2. Roads are designed for cars. There, I said it. Get over it.

3. Riding bikes on a busy, higher-speed road is dangerous.

4. Cars can survive an accident with a bike far better than vice-versa.

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.

6. John Forrester is delusional. Following his path will be dangerous
to some people's health.

Barry Harmon



--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

I think his post is probably an example of why you should killfile him,
as almost everyone in rb.misc has long previously.

I'll second that. For a bit, I didn't understand to whom you were
responding. Out of sight, out of mind.


Ditto.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
...
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.


Mike,

I usually agree with what you write, but idyllic? E. M. Forster perhaps,
but not John.

--
Carl

John Thompson wrote:

Times like that, a carbide spike on the end of a 3' long horizontally
mounted fiberglass pole sounds awfully tempting.

I've found the Flash Flag amazingly effective in eliminating those close
encounters. I think it's partly psychological, partly a fear of the
driver messing up their vehicle. Maybe adding a silver painted cardboard
spike to the end would be a good idea.

"http://www.flashback.ca/bicycle.html"

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

I doubt that particular driver thought he or she was
doing something reckless.

I've found the Flash Flag amazingly effective in eliminating those close
encounters. I think it's partly psychological, partly a fear of the
driver messing up their vehicle. Like you said, that driver probably
didn't even think they were doing anything wrong.

"http://www.flashback.ca/bicycle.html"

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
...
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.


Mike,

I usually agree with what you write, but idyllic? E. M. Forster perhaps,
but not John.

--
Carl

Carl: John envisions a world that I believe cannot exist, in which everyone
is taught from the earliest age the various rules of the road, all applied
equally to cars & bikes. His world depends upon this common bond (via
education), and thus an "idyllic" situation that will never exist.

I'm sure I could have expressed myself better. I knew John in the way-back
days; his daughter was a good friend of my girlfriend back in the day. I
respected him as a very intelligent person, but a bit, well, idyllic! Things
he thought were completely reasonable just couldn't happen. That's what I
thought way back when, and that's what I think now. There's nothing wrong
with defining a Utopian/Idyllic world; it's a very useful exercise. But it's
somewhat crazy to believe it would come to pass.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA