5 ms·

In general, I think it's a good idea. The specifics leave a bit to be desired: Since bicyclists want to own the lane, they'll ride to the outside, which means

In general, I think it's a good idea. The specifics leave a bit to be desired: Since bicyclists want to own the lane, they'll ride to the outside, which means I have to be three feet from the outside line - which puts me into the other lane at times. Great time to be a police officer. Occasionally, one cyclist will be in the lane and their partner will be in the car lane, riding beside them. Thus, I am stuck driving 15 mph while they merrily tool along. If I pass them, well, another great time to be a police officer.

dcherman 12y ago
I understand that not all bikers share this mentality, but I do often feel like "sharing the road" means "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" when I see people doing things like this. This does not help driver/biker relations.
dllthomas 12y ago
You can pass precisely like you can pass any other vehicle, and like any other vehicle they're required to get out of your way when they're holding up 5+ cars (and it's discourteous of them to block even one car for a significant duration).
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Actually, except in specified circumstances in CA, bikes are forbidden from taking the lane in the first place, as they are required to ride as close as practical to the right-hand edge of the roadway.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Yes, but those specified circumstances are pretty broad. If you don't feel safe biking along a strech without taking the lane, then the middle of the lane can be "as close to the right as practicable". Being further right for the sake of being further right, where there is not enough room for a car and a bike, just creates ambiguity and makes everyone less safe, and is thus not practical.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Yes, but those specified circumstances are pretty broad. Not really. > If you don't feel safe biking along a strech without taking the lane, then the middle of the lane can be "as close to the right as practicable". You will probably usually get away with that the same way you'll usually get away with ignoring the law requiring yielding to pedestrians at intersections -- its not something the police usually care that much about enforcing. But that's not at all what the law says, and I'd be very surprised if there is any reference in the statute, or any case law, that you can point to that suggests your attempt to define "practicable" as "whatever the bicyclist subjectively feels comfortable doing" is a correct interpretation of the statute.
      - revelation 12y ago
        It literally says so in the "rules of the road". You might have missed it in your posting frenzy. A person operating a bicycle or roller skis upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time and place shall operate on the right portion of the way as far as practicable __except when it is unsafe to do so as determined by the bicyclist__ or roller skier (Thats Maine, but presumably it is similar elsewhere)
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        California, which is what is under discussion, uses "reasonably necessary", not "as determined by the cyclist", which in law generally means an objective standard (as that term is used in law -- that is, reasonable to an outside observer, in practice the trier of fact of the case in which the requirement becomes an issue), not a subjective one (i.e., not the judgement of the person to whom the requirement applies.)
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        "Not really." Yes, really. Per VC 21202, it is explicitly: 1) when passing another bicycle, 2) where the cyclist is planning on making a left hand turn, 3) "[w]hen reasonably necessary to avoid conditions [...] that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge", or 4) approaching anywhere anyone can make a right hand turn. That's "pretty broad", in my book - feel free to disagree, obviously the term is subjective. "You will probably usually get away with that the same way you'll usually get away with ignoring the law requiring yielding to pedestrians at intersections" That is a horrendous false equivalence. Violation of that law puts people at risk. I'm advocating an interpretation of a law permitting behaviors that keep people safe. 'But that's not at all what the law says, and I'd be very surprised if there is any reference in the statute, or any case law, that you can point to that suggests your attempt to define "practicable" as "whatever the bicyclist subjectively feels comfortable doing" is a correct interpretation of the statute.' Not "subjectively feels comfortable doing," but "reasonably considers to be the safer choice". This is the same responsibility everyone has on the road, and it's insane to think that "practicable" is not intended to take safety into account. Riding unsafely is not practicable. I have no idea whether this has been tested in court, but anything else is crazy.
eggie 12y ago
Cyclists aren't trying to "own" the lane any more than you are. Really, both of you own it, as citizens and road users. The reason for being in the lane is safety. In many situations, impatient people who feel they are impeded will try to squeeze past a cyclist who is not riding safely in the lane. This is among the most frightening and dangerous things that can regularly happen to any road user. I'm not trying to chastise you. I just hope that you can imagine the situation that other travelers are in so you don't hurt someone in impatience.
- dcherman 12y ago
  I know this is ( hopefully ) not a common occurrence, but let me tell you something that I recently witnessed. I was driving on back-roads to my parents house, and it's not uncommon to see bikes on these roads since they are pretty good biking roads as I understand it. The difference is that these bikes were riding 4 wide on a single lane road, and they had a car in front of them driving between 15-20mph with their hazard lights on, presumably in an attempt to keep cars from passing them. How is this not "owning" the lane? That was not the first time I've seen this happen either. Bikers also need to understand that this behavior is not reasonable.
  - revelation 12y ago
    So, if theres some farm vehicle on the back-road going 10mph, presumably you will be writing to the farmers association to say that you think "farmers need to understand that behavior is not reasonable"? I think you need to understand that 1) roads aren't for cars going the speed limit 2) the speed limit is a limit.
    - dcherman 12y ago
      So in other words, you believe that "sharing" means bikers own the road. I think you need to understand what sharing means, and it doesn't mean that you get to be an unnecessary annoyance to others. This is the type of attitude that does not help driver/biker relations.
carlob 12y ago
This reminds me of instructions on the sticker of Velibs, the bike sharing program in Paris. If the road is to narrow for a car to safely overtake you, you should stick to the center of the lane. At any rate it's pretty dangerous to ride a bike too close to the sidewalk or parked cars. I try to keep a meter (about 3 feet) on the right as well when I cycle.
3JPLW 12y ago
Note that the Pennsylvania (four foot!) law explicitly allows cars to cross the double-yellow line to overtake bicycles as long as it is safe to do so.[1] I'm not sure what the specifics are for the California law are, but many states have existing laws on passing "obstructions" that may apply.[2] 1. http://walkbikejersey.blogspot.com/2012/02/pennsy-passes-progressive-safe-bicycle.html http://walkbikejersey.blogspot.com/2012/02/pennsy-passes-pro... 2. http://flbikelaw.org/2013/12/no-passing-zones/ http://flbikelaw.org/2013/12/no-passing-zones/

dcherman 12y ago

I understand that not all bikers share this mentality, but I do often feel like "sharing the road" means "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" when I see people doing things like this. This does not help driver/biker relations.

dllthomas 12y ago

You can pass precisely like you can pass any other vehicle, and like any other vehicle they're required to get out of your way when they're holding up 5+ cars (and it's discourteous of them to block even one car for a significant duration).

dragonwriter 12y ago
Actually, except in specified circumstances in CA, bikes are forbidden from taking the lane in the first place, as they are required to ride as close as practical to the right-hand edge of the roadway.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Yes, but those specified circumstances are pretty broad. If you don't feel safe biking along a strech without taking the lane, then the middle of the lane can be "as close to the right as practicable". Being further right for the sake of being further right, where there is not enough room for a car and a bike, just creates ambiguity and makes everyone less safe, and is thus not practical.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Yes, but those specified circumstances are pretty broad. Not really. > If you don't feel safe biking along a strech without taking the lane, then the middle of the lane can be "as close to the right as practicable". You will probably usually get away with that the same way you'll usually get away with ignoring the law requiring yielding to pedestrians at intersections -- its not something the police usually care that much about enforcing. But that's not at all what the law says, and I'd be very surprised if there is any reference in the statute, or any case law, that you can point to that suggests your attempt to define "practicable" as "whatever the bicyclist subjectively feels comfortable doing" is a correct interpretation of the statute.
    - revelation 12y ago
      It literally says so in the "rules of the road". You might have missed it in your posting frenzy. A person operating a bicycle or roller skis upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time and place shall operate on the right portion of the way as far as practicable __except when it is unsafe to do so as determined by the bicyclist__ or roller skier (Thats Maine, but presumably it is similar elsewhere)
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        California, which is what is under discussion, uses "reasonably necessary", not "as determined by the cyclist", which in law generally means an objective standard (as that term is used in law -- that is, reasonable to an outside observer, in practice the trier of fact of the case in which the requirement becomes an issue), not a subjective one (i.e., not the judgement of the person to whom the requirement applies.)
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "Not really." Yes, really. Per VC 21202, it is explicitly: 1) when passing another bicycle, 2) where the cyclist is planning on making a left hand turn, 3) "[w]hen reasonably necessary to avoid conditions [...] that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge", or 4) approaching anywhere anyone can make a right hand turn. That's "pretty broad", in my book - feel free to disagree, obviously the term is subjective. "You will probably usually get away with that the same way you'll usually get away with ignoring the law requiring yielding to pedestrians at intersections" That is a horrendous false equivalence. Violation of that law puts people at risk. I'm advocating an interpretation of a law permitting behaviors that keep people safe. 'But that's not at all what the law says, and I'd be very surprised if there is any reference in the statute, or any case law, that you can point to that suggests your attempt to define "practicable" as "whatever the bicyclist subjectively feels comfortable doing" is a correct interpretation of the statute.' Not "subjectively feels comfortable doing," but "reasonably considers to be the safer choice". This is the same responsibility everyone has on the road, and it's insane to think that "practicable" is not intended to take safety into account. Riding unsafely is not practicable. I have no idea whether this has been tested in court, but anything else is crazy.

eggie 12y ago

Cyclists aren't trying to "own" the lane any more than you are. Really, both of you own it, as citizens and road users. The reason for being in the lane is safety. In many situations, impatient people who feel they are impeded will try to squeeze past a cyclist who is not riding safely in the lane. This is among the most frightening and dangerous things that can regularly happen to any road user. I'm not trying to chastise you. I just hope that you can imagine the situation that other travelers are in so you don't hurt someone in impatience.

dcherman 12y ago
I know this is ( hopefully ) not a common occurrence, but let me tell you something that I recently witnessed. I was driving on back-roads to my parents house, and it's not uncommon to see bikes on these roads since they are pretty good biking roads as I understand it. The difference is that these bikes were riding 4 wide on a single lane road, and they had a car in front of them driving between 15-20mph with their hazard lights on, presumably in an attempt to keep cars from passing them. How is this not "owning" the lane? That was not the first time I've seen this happen either. Bikers also need to understand that this behavior is not reasonable.
- revelation 12y ago
  So, if theres some farm vehicle on the back-road going 10mph, presumably you will be writing to the farmers association to say that you think "farmers need to understand that behavior is not reasonable"? I think you need to understand that 1) roads aren't for cars going the speed limit 2) the speed limit is a limit.
  - dcherman 12y ago
    So in other words, you believe that "sharing" means bikers own the road. I think you need to understand what sharing means, and it doesn't mean that you get to be an unnecessary annoyance to others. This is the type of attitude that does not help driver/biker relations.

carlob 12y ago

This reminds me of instructions on the sticker of Velibs, the bike sharing program in Paris. If the road is to narrow for a car to safely overtake you, you should stick to the center of the lane. At any rate it's pretty dangerous to ride a bike too close to the sidewalk or parked cars. I try to keep a meter (about 3 feet) on the right as well when I cycle.

3JPLW 12y ago

Note that the Pennsylvania (four foot!) law explicitly allows cars to cross the double-yellow line to overtake bicycles as long as it is safe to do so.[1] I'm not sure what the specifics are for the California law are, but many states have existing laws on passing "obstructions" that may apply.[2] 1. http://walkbikejersey.blogspot.com/2012/02/pennsy-passes-progressive-safe-bicycle.html http://walkbikejersey.blogspot.com/2012/02/pennsy-passes-pro... 2. http://flbikelaw.org/2013/12/no-passing-zones/ http://flbikelaw.org/2013/12/no-passing-zones/