4 ms·
Well in California law cyclists have the same right to the road* as a motorists (sadly the same does not apply to the laws of physics). And if you ride in the
by gumby 3y ago
Well in California law cyclists have the same right to the road* as a motorists (sadly the same does not apply to the laws of physics). And if you ride in the bike lanes, as I do, you discover they are often populated with debris (unsurprising due to road camber and automotive bow wave and wake) and untrimmed branches from live bushes, which one must move leftwards in order to avoid.
Many motorists act as if roads were built for cars and all others get to use them on sufferance, if at all.
* Excepting controlled-access roads, i.e. freeways.
- WalterBright 3y agoThe cases I've seen were not the result of debris avoidance. The bike lanes were clear. > Many motorists act as if roads were built for cars and all others get to use them on sufferance, if at all. Wandering over the line into traffic without looking is just stupid. No amount of lawsuit money is going to fix getting crippled.
- LAC-Tech 3y agoAll the debates about cars vs bikes are so stupid. Bicycles are vehicles according to law basically everywhere on earth. It's all very simple - you over take vehicles safely, vehicles signal where they are going and drive predictably, you don't overtake vehicles when stopped at an intersection, etc etc. It's just a smaller slower vehicle, that's it.
- mindslight 3y agoHonestly if the bike lane is full of debris, or has a line of parked cars too close such that their doors swing open into it, just ride fully in the next lane over. A bike lane is a lane that can be used by bikes, not a lane that must be used by bikes. And in general the vast majority of the complaints about cyclists swerving too much can and should be addressed by riding further out aka taking the lane.