2 ms·

No they don't. Do you drive? Cause if so - you're a threat to other people... When a pedestrian crosses a street - cars and bikes have to stop for example. Whe

by ajuc 4y ago

No they don't. Do you drive? Cause if so - you're a threat to other people... When a pedestrian crosses a street - cars and bikes have to stop for example. When a bike and a car meet on an intersection of equal roads with no lights or signs - whoever is on the left has to yield, no matter what their speed is. When signs or lights show who has to yield - it also doesn't matter if you drive a car/bike or walk. I can't think of a single instance where the law says you should yield just because you're slower. And if law doesn't say who should yield - it's customary to let the slower/more vulnerable to go first.

eptcyka 4y ago
Pedestrians are not vehichles. I am specifically referring to a situation where there's traffic going one way on a road and slower vehicles are impeding on traffic behind them - in this case it's the responsibility of the slower vehicle to let the faster traffic pass in a safe manner. Seems like I've worded myself poorly here given that people are clearly misunderstanding me. Yes, at intersections, as a driver, I will let bicycles and pedestrians cross first if there's a stop sign or the traffic is moving slowly. However, when I'm driving my Prius on the highway and I don't feel like doing 15 MPH over the speed limit, I will move over and let the soccer mom pass. 30 minutes later when on a mountain road, I expect the soccer mom and the cycling enthusiasts to do the same.
- ralferoo 4y ago
  > 30 minutes later when on a mountain road, I expect the soccer mom and the cycling enthusiasts to do the same. I have a feeling that you'll end up killing someone on one of these mountain roads with that attitude. You wait behind them until you're on a clear stretch of straight road, and then overtake. If you don't have a clear stretch of road, you continue to wait behind them. Anything else, and you're putting either the cyclist in danger, or yourself and the oncoming traffic in danger.
  - eptcyka 4y ago
    What specifically about that statement implies that I have an attitude that tends towards being dangerous on the road? I'm not saying that I'll be driving at inappropriate speeds or trying to tail-gate other cars or god-forbid cyclists on mountain roads. I prefer to keep my distance, especially around cyclists. All I'm saying is that it'd be nice if the slower traffic in front would actively let the faster traffic pass, using the turnouts or whatever they're called to stop and let others pass.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ajuc 4y ago
  > Yes, at intersections, as a driver, I will let bicycles and pedestrians cross first if there's a stop sign or the traffic is moving slowly. There's no if, and you're not in a position to "let" them do anything. Doesn't matter how fast they go. If they have the right of way - they do. If they don't - they don't. Speed doesn't matter and it's not your decision. > I am specifically referring to a situation where there's traffic going one way on a road and slower vehicles are impeding on traffic behind them There's law about that, and you won't like it :) If a bike is driving on a road and you're behind it and forced to slow down because of that - you can overtake the bike only if you have at least 1 meter of safety margin. If the road is too narrow to do that or there's a continuous line or overtaking ban sign - you are required by law to slow down and drive behind the bike waiting for a safer place to overtake that bike. There's no law forcing the bike to "let you overtake it" - the only relevant law AFAIK is that the bike has to drive near the right side (except for intersections where they turn left). But so do anybody else, including cars - it has nothing to do with speed. > soccer mom No idea what that is and how it matters. > cycling enthusiasts Do you call people "walking enthusiasts" and car drivers "car enthusiast"? This whole approach to cyclists as if they were somehow "less serious" road users than car drivers is toxic.
  - eptcyka 4y ago
    The soccer mom comment is a bit insensitive, but I meant to imply that the person operating their vehicle isn't paying attention to driving much. As for the cycling enthusiast remark, if you're cycling on mountain roads for the purpose of recreation, I think it's fair to say that you'd be interested in cycling more than most other people. I might be very wrong. I don't have anything against cyclists, I am one myself. And yes, I will call people hill-walking enthusiasts if they enjoy hill walking. I will also call some people driving enthusiasts, if they enjoy the act of driving. These are distinct groups of people for whom these labels seem justified. Don't take this the wrong way but it might be you who's assigning some moral value to the use of these labels, my intention was to use them in a more matter-of-fact kind of a way. > There's no law forcing the bike to "let you overtake it" - the only relevant law AFAIK is that the bike has to drive near the right side (except for intersections where they turn left). But so do anybody else, including cars - it has nothing to do with speed. Yes there is. In the UK, as per the latest changes to the highway code, slower traffic should let faster traffic pass, when possible to do so in a safe manner. I was certain it was the same in California, but I cannot find any source claiming this just now - however, there are plenty of signs saying that slower traffic should use turnouts to let others pass. > There's law about that, and you won't like it :) If a bike is driving on a road and you're behind it and forced to slow down because of that - you can overtake the bike only if you have at least 1 meter of safety margin. If the road is too narrow to do that or there's a continuous line or overtaking ban sign - you are required by law to slow down and drive behind the bike waiting for a safer place to overtake that bike. I take no issue with such a law - if it's not safe to pass, then there's nothing one can do. I think it's pretty obvious that safety always comes first. However, given a situation where there's 5 or more cars behind me when I'm cycling, I'll be aware of this and I will stop whenever possible to let them pass if they are able to go faster than I am on my bike. This is not difficult to do, and I'd much prefer the 2 tonnes of metal that's powered by paleolithic compost and not rarely operated by someone looking at their phone were in front of me rather than behind me.

by ajuc 4y ago

eptcyka 4y ago

Pedestrians are not vehichles. I am specifically referring to a situation where there's traffic going one way on a road and slower vehicles are impeding on traffic behind them - in this case it's the responsibility of the slower vehicle to let the faster traffic pass in a safe manner. Seems like I've worded myself poorly here given that people are clearly misunderstanding me. Yes, at intersections, as a driver, I will let bicycles and pedestrians cross first if there's a stop sign or the traffic is moving slowly. However, when I'm driving my Prius on the highway and I don't feel like doing 15 MPH over the speed limit, I will move over and let the soccer mom pass. 30 minutes later when on a mountain road, I expect the soccer mom and the cycling enthusiasts to do the same.

ralferoo 4y ago
> 30 minutes later when on a mountain road, I expect the soccer mom and the cycling enthusiasts to do the same. I have a feeling that you'll end up killing someone on one of these mountain roads with that attitude. You wait behind them until you're on a clear stretch of straight road, and then overtake. If you don't have a clear stretch of road, you continue to wait behind them. Anything else, and you're putting either the cyclist in danger, or yourself and the oncoming traffic in danger.
- eptcyka 4y ago
  What specifically about that statement implies that I have an attitude that tends towards being dangerous on the road? I'm not saying that I'll be driving at inappropriate speeds or trying to tail-gate other cars or god-forbid cyclists on mountain roads. I prefer to keep my distance, especially around cyclists. All I'm saying is that it'd be nice if the slower traffic in front would actively let the faster traffic pass, using the turnouts or whatever they're called to stop and let others pass.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ajuc 4y ago
> Yes, at intersections, as a driver, I will let bicycles and pedestrians cross first if there's a stop sign or the traffic is moving slowly. There's no if, and you're not in a position to "let" them do anything. Doesn't matter how fast they go. If they have the right of way - they do. If they don't - they don't. Speed doesn't matter and it's not your decision. > I am specifically referring to a situation where there's traffic going one way on a road and slower vehicles are impeding on traffic behind them There's law about that, and you won't like it :) If a bike is driving on a road and you're behind it and forced to slow down because of that - you can overtake the bike only if you have at least 1 meter of safety margin. If the road is too narrow to do that or there's a continuous line or overtaking ban sign - you are required by law to slow down and drive behind the bike waiting for a safer place to overtake that bike. There's no law forcing the bike to "let you overtake it" - the only relevant law AFAIK is that the bike has to drive near the right side (except for intersections where they turn left). But so do anybody else, including cars - it has nothing to do with speed. > soccer mom No idea what that is and how it matters. > cycling enthusiasts Do you call people "walking enthusiasts" and car drivers "car enthusiast"? This whole approach to cyclists as if they were somehow "less serious" road users than car drivers is toxic.
- eptcyka 4y ago
  The soccer mom comment is a bit insensitive, but I meant to imply that the person operating their vehicle isn't paying attention to driving much. As for the cycling enthusiast remark, if you're cycling on mountain roads for the purpose of recreation, I think it's fair to say that you'd be interested in cycling more than most other people. I might be very wrong. I don't have anything against cyclists, I am one myself. And yes, I will call people hill-walking enthusiasts if they enjoy hill walking. I will also call some people driving enthusiasts, if they enjoy the act of driving. These are distinct groups of people for whom these labels seem justified. Don't take this the wrong way but it might be you who's assigning some moral value to the use of these labels, my intention was to use them in a more matter-of-fact kind of a way. > There's no law forcing the bike to "let you overtake it" - the only relevant law AFAIK is that the bike has to drive near the right side (except for intersections where they turn left). But so do anybody else, including cars - it has nothing to do with speed. Yes there is. In the UK, as per the latest changes to the highway code, slower traffic should let faster traffic pass, when possible to do so in a safe manner. I was certain it was the same in California, but I cannot find any source claiming this just now - however, there are plenty of signs saying that slower traffic should use turnouts to let others pass. > There's law about that, and you won't like it :) If a bike is driving on a road and you're behind it and forced to slow down because of that - you can overtake the bike only if you have at least 1 meter of safety margin. If the road is too narrow to do that or there's a continuous line or overtaking ban sign - you are required by law to slow down and drive behind the bike waiting for a safer place to overtake that bike. I take no issue with such a law - if it's not safe to pass, then there's nothing one can do. I think it's pretty obvious that safety always comes first. However, given a situation where there's 5 or more cars behind me when I'm cycling, I'll be aware of this and I will stop whenever possible to let them pass if they are able to go faster than I am on my bike. This is not difficult to do, and I'd much prefer the 2 tonnes of metal that's powered by paleolithic compost and not rarely operated by someone looking at their phone were in front of me rather than behind me.