5 ms·

I dread passing a cyclist, and always wonder what the legal/criminal consequences would be if the cyclist swerved in front of me while trying to pass a parked c

by alexpw 12y ago

I dread passing a cyclist, and always wonder what the legal/criminal consequences would be if the cyclist swerved in front of me while trying to pass a parked car (no bike lane). EDIT: I meant a two lane road. I'm in the left lane. Cars are parked in the right lane sporadically. A cyclist is in the right lane, but veers into the left lane to go around it. I don't know whether to feel reassured or what, but I'd rather sky dive to work than ride in the road while the average person drove by me.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
maxerickson 12y ago
In most U.S. jurisdictions, a bicycle is traffic, just like a car. If you think they might take the lane, the legal thing to do is to leave room for it to happen safely.
- HCIdivision17 12y ago
  I feel the problem is that we're deeply over-trained to read cues for what a car will do, and less so for bikes. To whit, if a bike _could_ dart in front of me, I assume it will. Much like a squirrel, deer, or inner city car in a traffic jam. Edit: actually, I would probably hit the squirrel. Swerving/sudden speed changes are often far more dangerous. Hopefully the point holds: if you always feel the need to fail safe, then expect congestion and traffic problems.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Moreover, if you're a bicyclist and there's no bike lane (or insufficient bike lane) so you'll have to bike erratically if you don't take the lane then take the lane. Signal, make sure it's clear, and do it early. The safest thing everyone can be is predictable.
gohrt 12y ago
In general, it is not good to illegally share a lane with anpther vehicle. If you want to pass, move to an open lane.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > In general, it is not good to illegally share a lane with anpther vehicle. IIRC, in California, it isn't illegal to share a lane, (though it still may be a bad idea) but its illegal to straddle lanes.
  - revelation 12y ago
    If you do the first grade math on a bike width, car width, minimum distance the car has to keep while passing and the distance the bike needs from the curb or parked cars, no, you can not share the lane. As you say, you can not straddle either, so the only option is the full lane.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > If you do the first grade math on a bike width, car width, minimum distance the car has to keep while passing and the distance the bike needs from the curb or parked cars, no, you can not share the lane. Legally, you can; the width of cars and bikes are actual facts, of course, but I don't think you'll find a fixed-in-law minimum distance for most of those things in the California Vehicle Code.
      - jfmiller28 12y ago
        Starting Tuesday, there is. California's "Give me three" law goes into effect. However in a standard 13' wide lane a passenger car and a bike not forced off the right curb by parked cars or trash in the road can pass without the car needing to leave the lane. Happens all the time, no problems.
grecy 12y ago
The same consequences as if it were a motorbike. Legally, a bicycle has the same legal right to the road and lane as you and your car does. You must not encroach on that.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Legally, a bicycle has the same legal right to the road and lane as you and your car does. Legally, in California, a bicycle that isn't maintaining the "normal speed of traffic" for the road it is on is required to be operated as close as practical to the right-hand curb except in specifically enumerated circumstances. It does not have the same legal right to the road and lane as a car does. (California Vehicle Code Sec. 21202)
- scardine 12y ago
  Where I live, the minimum speed is half the top speed, so if a bike is doing less than 20 mph in a 40 mph street it is theoretically violating traffic rules - not that it justifies anyone risking running over the cyclist.
klochner 12y ago
If there is no bike lane, then legally you shouldn't be passing a cyclist unless it is a passing zone (broken yellow or white line), in which case you should have plenty of room to use the opposing lane. If it's a solid line with no bike lane, then it's the same as if you were passing a car, i.e., illegal. I've been ticketed for that in SF.
- donatj 12y ago
  And this is the problem, people going 8 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour lane isn't safe for that person.
  - mattwad 12y ago
    By problem, you mean there are not enough bike lines? I agree :)
  - arrrg 12y ago
    Just slow down for a bit. It won’t kill you (nor anyone else).
    - hsod 12y ago
      No, but in the aggregate the loss of efficiency + wasted fuel has a real social cost, which shouldn't be dismissed so glibly. Cyclists significantly slowing traffic on major arterials IS a problem and sanctimonious truisms are not the solution. The solution is bike lanes or entire separate "bike arterials" which run parallel to "car arterials" so the two wildly different transportation mechanisms don't get in each others way too much.
      - auxbuss 12y ago
        The solution is for all road-users to continuously adapt to what's happening around them. Folk who aren't capable of that shouldn't be allowed on the road. Cyclists are not a problem. They are a group of road-users. Equally entitled to use the roads as every other legal road-user.

by alexpw 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

maxerickson 12y ago

In most U.S. jurisdictions, a bicycle is traffic, just like a car. If you think they might take the lane, the legal thing to do is to leave room for it to happen safely.

HCIdivision17 12y ago
I feel the problem is that we're deeply over-trained to read cues for what a car will do, and less so for bikes. To whit, if a bike _could_ dart in front of me, I assume it will. Much like a squirrel, deer, or inner city car in a traffic jam. Edit: actually, I would probably hit the squirrel. Swerving/sudden speed changes are often far more dangerous. Hopefully the point holds: if you always feel the need to fail safe, then expect congestion and traffic problems.
dllthomas 12y ago
Moreover, if you're a bicyclist and there's no bike lane (or insufficient bike lane) so you'll have to bike erratically if you don't take the lane then take the lane. Signal, make sure it's clear, and do it early. The safest thing everyone can be is predictable.

gohrt 12y ago

In general, it is not good to illegally share a lane with anpther vehicle. If you want to pass, move to an open lane.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> In general, it is not good to illegally share a lane with anpther vehicle. IIRC, in California, it isn't illegal to share a lane, (though it still may be a bad idea) but its illegal to straddle lanes.
- revelation 12y ago
  If you do the first grade math on a bike width, car width, minimum distance the car has to keep while passing and the distance the bike needs from the curb or parked cars, no, you can not share the lane. As you say, you can not straddle either, so the only option is the full lane.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > If you do the first grade math on a bike width, car width, minimum distance the car has to keep while passing and the distance the bike needs from the curb or parked cars, no, you can not share the lane. Legally, you can; the width of cars and bikes are actual facts, of course, but I don't think you'll find a fixed-in-law minimum distance for most of those things in the California Vehicle Code.
    - jfmiller28 12y ago
      Starting Tuesday, there is. California's "Give me three" law goes into effect. However in a standard 13' wide lane a passenger car and a bike not forced off the right curb by parked cars or trash in the road can pass without the car needing to leave the lane. Happens all the time, no problems.

grecy 12y ago

The same consequences as if it were a motorbike. Legally, a bicycle has the same legal right to the road and lane as you and your car does. You must not encroach on that.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Legally, a bicycle has the same legal right to the road and lane as you and your car does. Legally, in California, a bicycle that isn't maintaining the "normal speed of traffic" for the road it is on is required to be operated as close as practical to the right-hand curb except in specifically enumerated circumstances. It does not have the same legal right to the road and lane as a car does. (California Vehicle Code Sec. 21202)
scardine 12y ago
Where I live, the minimum speed is half the top speed, so if a bike is doing less than 20 mph in a 40 mph street it is theoretically violating traffic rules - not that it justifies anyone risking running over the cyclist.

klochner 12y ago

If there is no bike lane, then legally you shouldn't be passing a cyclist unless it is a passing zone (broken yellow or white line), in which case you should have plenty of room to use the opposing lane. If it's a solid line with no bike lane, then it's the same as if you were passing a car, i.e., illegal. I've been ticketed for that in SF.

donatj 12y ago
And this is the problem, people going 8 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour lane isn't safe for that person.
- mattwad 12y ago
  By problem, you mean there are not enough bike lines? I agree :)
- arrrg 12y ago
  Just slow down for a bit. It won’t kill you (nor anyone else).
  - hsod 12y ago
    No, but in the aggregate the loss of efficiency + wasted fuel has a real social cost, which shouldn't be dismissed so glibly. Cyclists significantly slowing traffic on major arterials IS a problem and sanctimonious truisms are not the solution. The solution is bike lanes or entire separate "bike arterials" which run parallel to "car arterials" so the two wildly different transportation mechanisms don't get in each others way too much.
    - auxbuss 12y ago
      The solution is for all road-users to continuously adapt to what's happening around them. Folk who aren't capable of that shouldn't be allowed on the road. Cyclists are not a problem. They are a group of road-users. Equally entitled to use the roads as every other legal road-user.