Traffic question

[Greens]

Let's say I come to a red light at a T intersection. Right turns on red are
allowed. There is a gap on the right side of the cars parked at the red
light. None of them are taking the right turn on red. Should I roll down the
right side of them and take the right turn after checking for crossing
traffic or should I stay behind the last car at the light and wait for motor
vehicle traffic in front of me to move? This will require me to stop, unclip
and stand. I won't be able to accelerate as fast as a car and I'll be
wobbling a little as I take off with cars coming up behind me and probably
pretty fast because people tend to be impatient at this busy corner.

What's the right thing to do?
What's the right thing to do legally? (so that if I get hurt, it's not my
fault)
What would a cop want me to do?
What's the safest thing to do?

There's another option - several really. I could pull into a business
driveway and cut the corner by riding through the parking lot or I could get
off and walk. Really, this is the safest way to go. I rarely chose it. This
is a type of situtation where car drivers tend to think themselves very put
upon by a cyclist. They're willing to share the road on the straight
sections with few intersections (oh, they're so generous), but when it comes
to a situation like this, motorists are almost violent in asserting that
they own the road in fact even if not legally. I don't think I've ever heard
of a cop correcting a motorist for endangering a cyclist in this sort of
situation.

Why don't I just get off and walk? Partly because I know the rules and I
feel I have a right to the road. Partly because I've got plans that don't
include walking. It should be safe to pass on the right if traffic is
stopped. Cars, oversized monsters that they are should never bully cyclists.
It should be something the police are interested in stopping. And partly
because I am subject to road rage too or at least something I call
"irrational cycling exuberance". Irrational cycling exuberance is taking
actions while cycling that might be legal, but just aren't worth it.

Those of you still talking to me, please avoid acting as though you're so
good at safe cycling that you've never felt a twinge of exuberance in your
life. Lectures can be so boring.

[Paul Myron Hobson]

Greens wrote:
> Let's say I come to a red light at a T intersection. Right turns on red are
> allowed. There is a gap on the right side of the cars parked at the red
> light. None of them are taking the right turn on red. Should I roll down the
> right side of them and take the right turn after checking for crossing
> traffic or should I stay behind the last car at the light and wait for motor
> vehicle traffic in front of me to move? This will require me to stop, unclip
> and stand. I won't be able to accelerate as fast as a car and I'll be
> wobbling a little as I take off with cars coming up behind me and probably
> pretty fast because people tend to be impatient at this busy corner.
>
> What's the right thing to do?

Depends on where you are, probably.

> What's the right thing to do legally? (so that if I get hurt, it's not my
> fault)

See above

> What would a cop want me to do?

He/she probably doesn't care.

> What's the safest thing to do?

Strictly speaking, staying back and waiting your turn would be the
safest, assuming your assertive enough to take the lane. I'd filter
through if I could see that enough people were turning left. I don't
like to play leap-frog.

\\paul

[landotter]

On Sep 13, 1:29 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Let's say I come to a red light at a T intersection. Right turns on red are
> allowed. There is a gap on the right side of the cars parked at the red
> light. None of them are taking the right turn on red. Should I roll down the
> right side of them and take the right turn after checking for crossing
> traffic or should I stay behind the last car at the light and wait for motor
> vehicle traffic in front of me to move?

I would and so would the bike cops around here. It's always safer to
clear an intersection. That's assuming you're absolutely sure the car
up front isn't going to turn right into you regardless of whether
they're blinking or not. Legal? Maybe--but motorists often appreciate
it when they don't have to worry about a cyclist. So again, your
choice, but done safely, it's what I'd do--regardless of legality--and
don't take the right of way if it ain't yours, no offers on Sundays,
no double coupons.

>This will require me to stop, unclip
> and stand. I won't be able to accelerate as fast as a car and I'll be
> wobbling a little as I take off with cars coming up behind me and probably
> pretty fast because people tend to be impatient at this busy corner.
>
> What's the right thing to do?
> What's the right thing to do legally? (so that if I get hurt, it's not my
> fault)

It's state by state, but I'd rather bend the law and get out of the
intersection, than be 100% legal and in the hospital.

> What would a cop want me to do?

I doubt any but the most uptight would even blink an eye if you did
this slowly and safely.

> What's the safest thing to do?

It's always safest to not be in an intersection, if getting out of the
intersection isn't going to be in itself dangerous or piss anybody
off.

>
> There's another option - several really. I could pull into a business
> driveway and cut the corner by riding through the parking lot

I'll do that if it's a really nasty intersection, but it's technically
illegal.

> or I could get
> off and walk.

That gives you all the rights of a ped, which definitely is the best
legal option.

>Really, this is the safest way to go. I rarely chose it. This
> is a type of situtation where car drivers tend to think themselves very put
> upon by a cyclist. They're willing to share the road on the straight
> sections with few intersections (oh, they're so generous), but when it comes
> to a situation like this, motorists are almost violent in asserting that
> they own the road in fact even if not legally. I don't think I've ever heard
> of a cop correcting a motorist for endangering a cyclist in this sort of
> situation.
>
> Why don't I just get off and walk? Partly because I know the rules and I
> feel I have a right to the road. Partly because I've got plans that don't
> include walking. It should be safe to pass on the right if traffic is
> stopped. Cars, oversized monsters that they are should never bully cyclists.
> It should be something the police are interested in stopping. And partly
> because I am subject to road rage too or at least something I call
> "irrational cycling exuberance". Irrational cycling exuberance is taking
> actions while cycling that might be legal, but just aren't worth it.
>
> Those of you still talking to me, please avoid acting as though you're so
> good at safe cycling that you've never felt a twinge of exuberance in your
> life. Lectures can be so boring.

Just be polite and safe, a tactical length seatstay mounted Mossberg
is optional.

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Sep 13, 8:29 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Let's say I come to a red light at a T intersection. Right turns on red are
> allowed. There is a gap on the right side of the cars parked at the red
> light. None of them are taking the right turn on red. Should I roll down the
> right side of them and take the right turn after checking for crossing
> traffic or should I stay behind the last car at the light and wait for motor
> vehicle traffic in front of me to move? This will require me to stop, unclip
> and stand. I won't be able to accelerate as fast as a car and I'll be
> wobbling a little as I take off with cars coming up behind me and probably
> pretty fast because people tend to be impatient at this busy corner.
>
> What's the right thing to do?
> What's the right thing to do legally? (so that if I get hurt, it's not my
> fault)
> What would a cop want me to do?
> What's the safest thing to do?
>
> There's another option - several really. I could pull into a business
> driveway and cut the corner by riding through the parking lot or I could get
> off and walk. Really, this is the safest way to go. I rarely chose it. This
> is a type of situtation where car drivers tend to think themselves very put
> upon by a cyclist. They're willing to share the road on the straight
> sections with few intersections (oh, they're so generous), but when it comes
> to a situation like this, motorists are almost violent in asserting that
> they own the road in fact even if not legally. I don't think I've ever heard
> of a cop correcting a motorist for endangering a cyclist in this sort of
> situation.
>
> Why don't I just get off and walk? Partly because I know the rules and I
> feel I have a right to the road. Partly because I've got plans that don't
> include walking. It should be safe to pass on the right if traffic is
> stopped. Cars, oversized monsters that they are should never bully cyclists.
> It should be something the police are interested in stopping. And partly
> because I am subject to road rage too or at least something I call
> "irrational cycling exuberance". Irrational cycling exuberance is taking
> actions while cycling that might be legal, but just aren't worth it.
>
> Those of you still talking to me, please avoid acting as though you're so
> good at safe cycling that you've never felt a twinge of exuberance in your
> life. Lectures can be so boring.

I would roll along the side and take the right. Of course being wary
of any sudden mind-changing being done by the stopped cars. Part of
the advantage of cycling is not having to wait unnecessarily for cars
stuck due to their size.

If the bike fits, and it doesn't cause anyone else any appreciable
fright, discomfort, or risk, I'll ride there.

As far as cutting through a parking lot, that sounds like the most
dangerous option of all, so I don't think I'd ever do that. And I'm
allergic to walking my bike.

As far as what is legal that probably depends, but as long as you are
exercising caution I'd don't see how that could be a problem.

Joseph

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Greens:
>What's the right thing to do?
>What's the right thing to do legally? (so that if I get hurt, it's not my
>fault)
>What would a cop want me to do?
>What's the safest thing to do?

Good distinctions....


>There's another option - several really. I could pull into a business
>driveway and cut the corner by riding through the parking lot

I try not to ride on roads/streets - period. I'm not 100%
successful, but I work at it and I'm maybe 85% successful
mileage-wise. But I ride for sport, not transportation.

Having said that, I find parking lots to be noticeably hazardous:
close quarters, people backing out of spaces, the occasional
nitwit just *wheeling* in or out of the lot.... I try to avoid
parking lots.
--
PeteCresswell

[Jay Beattie]

On Sep 13, 11:29 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Let's say I come to a red light at a T intersection. Right turns on red are
> allowed. There is a gap on the right side of the cars parked at the red
> light. None of them are taking the right turn on red. Should I roll down the
> right side of them and take the right turn after checking for crossing
> traffic or should I stay behind the last car at the light and wait for motor
> vehicle traffic in front of me to move? This will require me to stop, unclip
> and stand. I won't be able to accelerate as fast as a car and I'll be
> wobbling a little as I take off with cars coming up behind me and probably
> pretty fast because people tend to be impatient at this busy corner.
>
> What's the right thing to do?
> What's the right thing to do legally? (so that if I get hurt, it's not my
> fault)
> What would a cop want me to do?
> What's the safest thing to do?
>
> There's another option - several really. I could pull into a business
> driveway and cut the corner by riding through the parking lot or I could get
> off and walk. Really, this is the safest way to go. I rarely chose it. This
> is a type of situtation where car drivers tend to think themselves very put
> upon by a cyclist. They're willing to share the road on the straight
> sections with few intersections (oh, they're so generous), but when it comes
> to a situation like this, motorists are almost violent in asserting that
> they own the road in fact even if not legally. I don't think I've ever heard
> of a cop correcting a motorist for endangering a cyclist in this sort of
> situation.
>
> Why don't I just get off and walk? Partly because I know the rules and I
> feel I have a right to the road. Partly because I've got plans that don't
> include walking. It should be safe to pass on the right if traffic is
> stopped. Cars, oversized monsters that they are should never bully cyclists.
> It should be something the police are interested in stopping. And partly
> because I am subject to road rage too or at least something I call
> "irrational cycling exuberance". Irrational cycling exuberance is taking
> actions while cycling that might be legal, but just aren't worth it.
>
> Those of you still talking to me, please avoid acting as though you're so
> good at safe cycling that you've never felt a twinge of exuberance in your
> life. Lectures can be so boring.

UVC, adopted in most states, says no passing on the right unless you
are in a marked bike lane. You are obligated to wait in line, just
like a car. But, most police officers do not care, and in Oregon,
the Bicycle Transportation Aliance got the UVC changed to allow
passing on the right. See 2(c) below:

SECTION 1. ORS 811.415 is amended to read:
811.415. (1) A person commits the offense of unsafe passing on the
right if the person:
(a) Drives a vehicle to overtake and pass upon the right of another
vehicle at any time not permitted under this section.
(b) Drives a vehicle to overtake and pass upon the right of another
vehicle at any time by driving off the paved portion of the highway.
(2) For purposes of this section, a person may drive a vehicle to
overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle under any of the
following circumstances:
(a) Overtaking and passing upon the right is permitted if:
(A) The overtaken vehicle is making or the driver has signaled an
intention to make a left turn;
(B) The paved portion of the highway is of sufficient width to allow
two or more lanes of vehicles to proceed lawfully in the same
direction as the overtaking vehicle; and
(C) The roadway ahead of the overtaking vehicle is unobstructed for a
sufficient distance to permit passage by the overtaking vehicle to be
made in safety.
(b) Overtaking and passing upon the right is permitted if the
overtaken vehicle is proceeding along a roadway in the left lane of
two or more clearly marked lanes allocated exclusively to vehicular
traffic moving in the same direction as the overtaking driver.
(c) Overtaking and passing upon the right is permitted if the
overtaking vehicle is a bicycle that may safely make the passage under
the existing conditions.
(3) The offense described in this section, unsafe passing on the
right, is a Class B traffic violation.

Even before this law (2005), the Portland Police would not ticket for
passing on the right because it kept bicycles and traffic moving.
Passing on the right is safe if you look out for motorists pulling in
and out and opening doors. One problem is where the motorists leave a
gap in traffic to let somoneone across. It is hard to see the gap
from a distance, and all of the sudden, there is a car pulled across
in front of you. Anyway, I would exercise caution and roll up the
right. -- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Drackman]

"Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:GZadnfoQWtwsHXTbnZ2dnUVZ_tSknZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> Let's say I come to a red light at a T intersection. Right turns on red
> are allowed. There is a gap on the right side of the cars parked at the
> red light. None of them are taking the right turn on red. Should I roll
> down the right side of them and take the right turn after checking for
> crossing traffic or should I stay behind the last car at the light and
> wait for motor vehicle traffic in front of me to move? This will require
> me to stop, unclip and stand. I won't be able to accelerate as fast as a
> car and I'll be wobbling a little as I take off with cars coming up behind
> me and probably pretty fast because people tend to be impatient at this
> busy corner.
>
> What's the right thing to do?
> What's the right thing to do legally? (so that if I get hurt, it's not my
> fault)
> What would a cop want me to do?
> What's the safest thing to do?
>
> There's another option - several really. I could pull into a business
> driveway and cut the corner by riding through the parking lot or I could
> get off and walk. Really, this is the safest way to go. I rarely chose it.
> This is a type of situtation where car drivers tend to think themselves
> very put upon by a cyclist. They're willing to share the road on the
> straight sections with few intersections (oh, they're so generous), but
> when it comes to a situation like this, motorists are almost violent in
> asserting that they own the road in fact even if not legally. I don't
> think I've ever heard of a cop correcting a motorist for endangering a
> cyclist in this sort of situation.
>
> Why don't I just get off and walk? Partly because I know the rules and I
> feel I have a right to the road. Partly because I've got plans that don't
> include walking. It should be safe to pass on the right if traffic is
> stopped. Cars, oversized monsters that they are should never bully
> cyclists. It should be something the police are interested in stopping.
> And partly because I am subject to road rage too or at least something I
> call "irrational cycling exuberance". Irrational cycling exuberance is
> taking actions while cycling that might be legal, but just aren't worth
> it.
>
> Those of you still talking to me, please avoid acting as though you're so
> good at safe cycling that you've never felt a twinge of exuberance in your
> life. Lectures can be so boring.
>

I just hold my place in line... just like any other vehicle.

[!Jones]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:29:22 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Greens"
<prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:

>What's the right thing to do legally? (so that if I get hurt, it's not my
>fault)

That depends on your state.

>What would a cop want me to do?

Drive a car.

>What's the safest thing to do?

It depends on the situation.

In general, when I'm driving, I object to cyclists passing on the
right in traffic and then cutting back in front of me after I have
passed them courteously once... I'm *much* less considerate the second
time. Nobody should gripe about the right turn, though. I do as you
describe when I think it's safe.

Jones

[Kinky Cowboy]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:49:53 -0000, landotter <landotter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>> or I could get
>> off and walk.
>
>That gives you all the rights of a ped, which definitely is the best
>legal option.
>

Maybe. I thought wheeling a bicycle was still "conducting a carriage",
e.g. you don't have right of way on a ped xing if you're wheeling a
bike, but if you carry it you become a pedestrian.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

[Clive George]

"Kinky Cowboy" <user@domain.com> wrote in message
news:97ije39fl362f9oh8e3245184i9gj0g0m5@4ax.com...

> Maybe. I thought wheeling a bicycle was still "conducting a carriage",
> e.g. you don't have right of way on a ped xing if you're wheeling a
> bike, but if you carry it you become a pedestrian.

Which country? You can definitely wheel a bike as a pedestrian in
England/Wales - Crank vs Brooks.

cheers,
clive

[JG]

I doubt that moving past a stopped line of cars to make a right turn
is "overtaking" in the sense of the UVC rule. After all, if I was
riding a car and intended to turn, I'd have no compunction about
moving up to the line on the right if there was room. OTOH if going
straight, I strongly recommend taking your place in line. You can
anticipate the start, can accelerate from a stop quite comparably with
cars, and once up to speed, move to the right. Drivers will
appreciate not having to cautiously pass twice, and you lose very
little time/distance doing this.

JG

[Frank Drackman]

"JG" <jchg@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1189786284.822674.306930@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>I doubt that moving past a stopped line of cars to make a right turn
> is "overtaking" in the sense of the UVC rule. After all, if I was
> riding a car and intended to turn, I'd have no compunction about
> moving up to the line on the right if there was room. OTOH if going
> straight, I strongly recommend taking your place in line. You can
> anticipate the start, can accelerate from a stop quite comparably with
> cars, and once up to speed, move to the right. Drivers will
> appreciate not having to cautiously pass twice, and you lose very
> little time/distance doing this.
>
> JG
>
>

If you were driving a car and wanted to make a right turn, and there wasn't
a right turn lane, would you squeeze by on the right using the shoulder?

[Chalo]

JG wrote:
>
> OTOH if going
> straight, I strongly recommend taking your place in line. You can
> anticipate the start, can accelerate from a stop quite comparably with
> cars, and once up to speed, move to the right. Drivers will
> appreciate not having to cautiously pass twice, and you lose very
> little time/distance doing this.

I usually move to the front just to escape the worst of the fumes.

Chalo

[Paul Myron Hobson]

> "JG" <jchg@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1189786284.822674.306930@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>> I doubt that moving past a stopped line of cars to make a right turn
>> is "overtaking" in the sense of the UVC rule. After all, if I was
>> riding a car and intended to turn, I'd have no compunction about
>> moving up to the line on the right if there was room. OTOH if going
>> straight, I strongly recommend taking your place in line. You can
>> anticipate the start, can accelerate from a stop quite comparably with
>> cars, and once up to speed, move to the right. Drivers will
>> appreciate not having to cautiously pass twice, and you lose very
>> little time/distance doing this.


Frank Drackman wrote:
> If you were driving a car and wanted to make a right turn, and there wasn't
> a right turn lane, would you squeeze by on the right using the shoulder?


At least in Atlanta, some roads have on the street parking that several
meters before the intersection. Though there is no marked turn lane,
there certainly is ample room room to squeeze by -- roughly a car's worth ;)

Perhaps this is what JG meant.

\\paul

[Paul Myron Hobson]

> "JG" <jchg@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1189786284.822674.306930@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>> I doubt that moving past a stopped line of cars to make a right turn
>> is "overtaking" in the sense of the UVC rule. After all, if I was
>> riding a car and intended to turn, I'd have no compunction about
>> moving up to the line on the right if there was room. OTOH if going
>> straight, I strongly recommend taking your place in line. You can
>> anticipate the start, can accelerate from a stop quite comparably with
>> cars, and once up to speed, move to the right. Drivers will
>> appreciate not having to cautiously pass twice, and you lose very
>> little time/distance doing this.

Frank Drackman wrote:
> If you were driving a car and wanted to make a right turn, and there wasn't
> a right turn lane, would you squeeze by on the right using the shoulder?


At least in Atlanta, some roads have on the street parking that ends
several meters before the intersection. Though there is no marked turn
lane, there certainly is ample room room to squeeze by -- roughly a
car's worth ;)

Perhaps this is what JG meant.

\\paul

[JG]

I drive in an urban area, so "shoulders" are pretty rare...

In re-reading the OP I realize the stopped cars are intending to turn
right on red, but there is too much traffic on the cross street to do
so. While there may be room for a bicycle to make the turn, popping
out like that is going to startle and irritate the cross traffic
(since drivers _are_ concerned about bicyclists safety and it stesses
them out.) And it's going to make all the cars that passed you
already, pass you again.

OTOH if the backup is such that it will take more than one cycle to
get through the light then I'd go to the front since I did choose a
more flexible means of transportation...

Not sure why Greens wants to pull into traffic so soon, when he seems
to really dislike it...

JG

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Sep 14, 11:08 pm, JG <j...@cox.net> wrote:

> OTOH if the backup is such that it will take more than one cycle to
> get through the light then I'd go to the front since I did choose a
> more flexible means of transportation...

I think we have a winner!

When driving a car and you get stuck behind a lumbering tractor, do
you just drive behind the tractor because it happens to be in front of
you and it is bigger? No, you pass it because a car is more flexible
in traffic than a tractor. Does a pedestrian walking along a road with
no sidewalk wait their turn in a row of cars working their way through
a 4-way stop sign? Each mode of transport has it's limitations and
advantages. Cars go fast but are big and cumbersome and thus prone to
waiting due to lack of space. Bikes go slow but are not inhibited by
lack of space. Waiting like a car is the worst of both worlds. Slow
when going, and lots of downtime waiting for the cars in front.

Joseph

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per joseph.santaniello@gmail.com:
>Does a pedestrian walking along a road with
>no sidewalk wait their turn in a row of cars working their way through
>a 4-way stop sign? Each mode of transport has it's limitations and
>advantages. Cars go fast but are big and cumbersome and thus prone to
>waiting due to lack of space. Bikes go slow but are not inhibited by
>lack of space. Waiting like a car is the worst of both worlds. Slow
>when going, and lots of downtime waiting for the cars in front.

But sometimes it gets confusing. Last year, driving up from the
shore and caught in a massive traffic jam, I just barely resisted
a sudden urge to yank back on the steering wheel, jump a curb to
the right of me, and go around it all.
--
PeteCresswell

[Greens]

"!Jones" <piss@off.com> wrote in message
news:ms9pe3tpkmn23srp3l9ecqrh9ca4s5bro7@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:29:22 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Greens"
> <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>What's the right thing to do legally? (so that if I get hurt, it's not my
>>fault)
>
> That depends on your state.
>
>>What would a cop want me to do?
>
> Drive a car.
>
>>What's the safest thing to do?
>
> It depends on the situation.

No. The correct answer is stay home and eat potato chips.
>
> In general, when I'm driving, I object to cyclists passing on the
> right in traffic and then cutting back in front of me after I have
> passed them courteously once... I'm *much* less considerate the second
> time. Nobody should gripe about the right turn, though. I do as you
> describe when I think it's safe.
>
> Jones
>
I see what you're saying there. I've been annoyed by cyclists and also
trucks that I've had to pass repeatedly because trucks slow going up hills
and cyclists are slower than cars. Legally though, it doesn't matter how
many times you're forced to pass. You never have the right to bully or
endanger people as vulnerable as cyclists. (We are after all green saints of
the vehicle world). I think it would serve us and everyeone if cops watched
for this sort of thing and punished it (this stuff where a motorist gets mad
and starts acting very aggressively). People operating huge missles need to
know they have a responsibility to be more sane than the lightweights. Cops
like to stop speeders because it's easy to document speeding but often it
isn't that dangerous. A sunny day on a dry, straight road with no potholes
and no pedestrians - there just isn't much danger when going 75mph in 60mph
zone. Pushing a cyclist up against a curb while going round a corner creates
a very real danger to one person and it's not the driver of the car who's
creating the danger. Like I said, it's a form of assault with vehicle. I
don't care if they've been aggravated or they're in a hurry. I like the
Dutch and German attitude. It's always to a large extent the motorist's
fault.

[!Jones]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 01:30:41 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Greens"
<prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:

> It's always to a large extent the motorist's fault.

While I will agree with you that there are aggressive drivers of MVs
out there, I have also witnessed cyclists behaving in such a manner;
therefore, based on my anecdotal experience, anyway, that statement
simply does not hold. I'd put it about 50-50.

Jones

[Greens]

"!Jones" <piss@off.com> wrote in message
news:a9bqe3lq7d37ifunathbvvj5313mdgqr6u@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 01:30:41 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Greens"
> <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> It's always to a large extent the motorist's fault.
>
> While I will agree with you that there are aggressive drivers of MVs
> out there, I have also witnessed cyclists behaving in such a manner;
> therefore, based on my anecdotal experience, anyway, that statement
> simply does not hold. I'd put it about 50-50.
>
> Jones
>

Looks like you only read the last line of my post.

What I said was the USA needs to adopt the Dutch and German attitude that
it's largely the motorist's fault when peds and cyclists get hurt. It
doesn't matter that you think the cyclist is 50% at fault. Over there it's
legally up to the motorist to watch out for the little guys whereas over
here the law treats the little guys like they're blocking traffic and
shouldn't even be on the road.

[!Jones]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:56:46 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Greens"
<prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:

>Looks like you only read the last line of my post.

Most of the time, people only read the first sentence or so.
Actually, I did read it; I thought the last line summed it up by
design.

>What I said was the USA needs to adopt the Dutch and German attitude that
>it's largely the motorist's fault when peds and cyclists get hurt. It
>doesn't matter that you think the cyclist is 50% at fault. Over there it's
>legally up to the motorist to watch out for the little guys whereas over
>here the law treats the little guys like they're blocking traffic and
>shouldn't even be on the road.

Now, I went back and read it again... and I don't think that's what
you said. Further, I don't think that's quite an accurate statement
of European law. Bicycles are better accepted by society at large,
though, and are seen as having equal rights to the road, which is as
it should be.

So, when a cyclist hits a ped, is it always the cyclist's fault? I
used to teach at UT, Austin, and that was a daily occurrence.

Jones

[Greens]

"!Jones" <piss@off.com> wrote in message
news:8sgre3dc95otbmu9i84e8l0gtgnagi4p8r@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:56:46 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Greens"
> <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>Looks like you only read the last line of my post.
>
> Most of the time, people only read the first sentence or so.
> Actually, I did read it; I thought the last line summed it up by
> design.
>
>>What I said was the USA needs to adopt the Dutch and German attitude that
>>it's largely the motorist's fault when peds and cyclists get hurt. It
>>doesn't matter that you think the cyclist is 50% at fault. Over there it's
>>legally up to the motorist to watch out for the little guys whereas over
>>here the law treats the little guys like they're blocking traffic and
>>shouldn't even be on the road.
>
> Now, I went back and read it again... and I don't think that's what
> you said. Further, I don't think that's quite an accurate statement
> of European law. Bicycles are better accepted by society at large,
> though, and are seen as having equal rights to the road, which is as
> it should be.
>
> So, when a cyclist hits a ped, is it always the cyclist's fault? I
> used to teach at UT, Austin, and that was a daily occurrence.
>
> Jones
>

I was talking about Dutch and German law.
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/NatBSMotorists.htm

"2.1 Affirm the Right of Citizens to Ride Bicycle in Traffic
Komanoff asserts that "American cyclists cannot be certain that their legal
right-of-way will be observed by drivers, enforced by the police, or upheld
by the courts. In [Komanoff's] view, the practical lack of this right is the
single greatest impediment to widespread cycling and cycling safety. ... The
first step to help cycling thrive is to affirm the right of citizens to ride
bicycles in traffic." "



"Fatality rate per trip, 3 times for cyclists than for motorists.

"Fewer than 1% of streets have bicycle lanes."

"New York police rarely enforce the cyclist's right of way."

Cyclists adopt unlawful tactics in search of self-preservation, not to break
the law."



"Dutch and German laws "require motorists to anticipate unsafe walking and
cycling." If a car-bike collision involves a child or a elderly person, "the
motorist is usually judged to be entirely at fault." "When a crash is caused
by an illegal move by a cyclist or a pedestrian, the motorist is almost
always judged to be partly at fault.""

[!Jones]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:54:21 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Greens"
<prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:

>I was talking about Dutch and German law.
>http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/NatBSMotorists.htm

If you're going to quote Komanoff, then perhaps you should refer to
one of *his* writings. I think that most of your quotes come from a
1993 article titled: "The Bicycle Blueprint -- A Plan to Bring the
Bicycle into the Mainstream in New York City". It was heavily
excerpted and extended in the 2000 paper. I think that the 1993
article is your primary source.

The article you cite (Forester, ND) is actually highly critical of
Komanoff's ideas and conclusions. If you'll read the author's
conclusion, you'll see that he says: "It is difficult to place much
credibility in [Komanoff's] thought processes..."

Whether you do or you don't, Komanoff is certainly quotable and
controversial; he takes a strong position. Quoting Komanoff as an
authority on bicycle philosophy is a bit like quoting the NRA on the
gun rights debate. He's an important voice; however, many question
his objectivity. In fact, the Forester article (see your citation)
pretty well articulates these concerns. I tend to think that the
criticism is justified.

Jones

[Greens]

"!Jones" <piss@off.com> wrote in message
news:ou0ue3901e27assmo53ocpqhjcd1i0ralf@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:54:21 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Greens"
> <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>I was talking about Dutch and German law.
>>http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/NatBSMotorists.htm
>
> If you're going to quote Komanoff, then perhaps you should refer to
> one of *his* writings. I think that most of your quotes come from a
> 1993 article titled: "The Bicycle Blueprint -- A Plan to Bring the
> Bicycle into the Mainstream in New York City". It was heavily
> excerpted and extended in the 2000 paper. I think that the 1993
> article is your primary source.
>
> The article you cite (Forester, ND) is actually highly critical of
> Komanoff's ideas and conclusions. If you'll read the author's
> conclusion, you'll see that he says: "It is difficult to place much
> credibility in [Komanoff's] thought processes..."
>
> Whether you do or you don't, Komanoff is certainly quotable and
> controversial; he takes a strong position. Quoting Komanoff as an
> authority on bicycle philosophy is a bit like quoting the NRA on the
> gun rights debate. He's an important voice; however, many question
> his objectivity. In fact, the Forester article (see your citation)
> pretty well articulates these concerns. I tend to think that the
> criticism is justified.
>
> Jones
>

I was aware of the fact that the article I linked to was highly critical of
Komanoff. There are always people that are highly critical of someone who
has something to say. I thought Komanoff was right. I thought he had better
credentials and was more professional. Komanoff's site was more
professional. (I did go to it) I'm not afraid to let other people see the
other side of the argument unlike Frank who thinks it's important to
suppress info that suggests cycling is anthing less than safe, uh, not worth
worrying about, errr, lots less deaths than motoring or ah, comparing quite
favorably to base jumping as long as you spend as much time falling out of
the sky as you do riding a bike.

In other words I don't hold you down and shove my stats down your throat
like Frank does. I don't think lying is necessary or admirable.