Driver refusing to yield, best approach?

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

Driver refusing to yield, best approach?

On my way into work I ride along a main road that has on/off ramps to
a major 4 lane highway. Heading NE along that road (toward work), the
SL is 35 at the Interstate junction, raising to 45 within 100 feet of
where the last off ramp “yields” onto the main road. It’s not
uncommon for drivers approaching the yield sign to see me coming on a
bicycle and refuse to yield, requiring me to brake hard so they can
merge into my ROW under acceleration, as opposed to yielding. (Side
note: if they have time to accelerate and get in front of me without
requiring me to slam the brakes I really don’t care, it only bothers
me when I am forced to slam on the brake because they refuse to
yield). Today I ran into something a bit different: I was already
past the yield sign and the line marking the separation of the off
ramp and the main road (and my lane) when a minivan blew through the
yield, right tires by the white line on the right of the road,
drifting into me. A yell from me got the driver to look at me, but
still not yield, and his looking at me caused his vehicle to drift
left (toward me) even farther. I ended up braking, but was still
required to pull left into the middle of the lane which could have
been rather unpleasant had there been a car in the process of passing
me on the left. I checked of course, but had there been I’d have been
in an emergency stop situation trying to avoid 2 different vehicles.
Thankfully there was no other traffic so the incident was relatively
minor. I’m wondering how the rest of you would handle such a
situation.

Seems to me the options are

1) slow to a near-stop for the merge, even though I’m not the one with
the merge sign. Not my favorite idea since this is on an incline, and
I don’t like having to regain my speed uphill in a location where I
shouldn’t have to yield in the first place.

2) Take the lane through here. Not a very good idea for 2 reasons,
first because the situation could still happen (though it’d be less
likely I’d be being overtaken on the left) and because this is a major
road where traffic and LEO are not going to take kindly to me taking
the lane and slowing them down, nor do I have any desire to slow down
the traffic through there to bicycling speed.

3) Hold my line. I did this for as long as prudent today, along with
an audible warning to the yielding vehicle they were about to collide
with me. Had I held the line any longer I’d have been sideswiped by a
minivan doing 40+ while I was doing 20. Not a good time in my book.

Any other ideas on how to handle? Here’s a pic of the situation,
where the red box represents the minivan and the blue line represents
me. http://i37.tinypic.com/msm3nm.jpg

[SMS]

DanKMTB@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Any other ideas on how to handle? Here’s a pic of the situation,
> where the red box represents the minivan and the blue line represents
> me. http://i37.tinypic.com/msm3nm.jpg

I don't know if it's the best approach, but it's one that works very
well for me.

See my commute bike at "http://www.nordicgroup.us/s78/images/img_0281.jpg"

The black horn under the lights is
"http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/item/ES-14/12-VDC-SIREN-MULTI-TONE/-/1.html"

It's incredibly loud, and it hasn't failed to stop errant motorists that
are about to fail to yield right-of-way, including in a situation very
similar to the one you describe, see "http://i36.tinypic.com/2igja8o.jpg".

[Peter Cole]

DanKMTB@gmail.com wrote:
> Driver refusing to yield, best approach?
>
> On my way into work I ride along a main road that has on/off ramps to
> a major 4 lane highway.

> I was already
> past the yield sign and the line marking the separation of the off
> ramp and the main road (and my lane) when a minivan blew through the
> yield, right tires by the white line on the right of the road,
> drifting into me.
>
> Seems to me the options are
>
> 1) slow to a near-stop for the merge,
>
> 2) Take the lane through here.
>
> 3) Hold my line.

> Any other ideas on how to handle?

I find merges are always tough. I don't ride often on roads with ramps,
but we have a lot of rotaries here (MA) that present a similar
situation. Usually I'm one to hold my line, but merges strike me as a
different situation. The big problem that I see is the unreliability of
a motorist judging a cyclist's speed. As Sheldon used to say, never
attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence (or something
like that).

Most motorists seem to assume that cyclists are moving very slowly, so
that when you approach a merge at a higher speed than they expect
they're apt to misjudge the closing rate and merge into you. I'm not
sure that taking the lane improves the situation. Like it or not, I've
always felt that I had to take responsibility for the merge in these
circumstances and modify my speed accordingly. If the motorist is not
yet within striking distance, I'll often signal a right turn and move
across the merge lane to its shoulder. Usually the motorist will slow
down and let you get out of their way if you clearly signal that intention.

[bigjimpack@gmail.com]

Hitting the side of the car with a fist usually helps.

On Jul 15, 8:59*am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Driver refusing to yield, best approach?
>
> On my way into work I ride along a main road that has on/off ramps to
> a major 4 lane highway. *Heading NE along that road (toward work), the
> SL is 35 at the Interstate junction, raising to 45 within 100 feet of
> where the last off ramp “yields” onto the main road. *It’s not
> uncommon for drivers approaching the yield sign to see me coming on a
> bicycle and refuse to yield, requiring me to brake hard so they can
> merge into my ROW under acceleration, as opposed to yielding. *(Side
> note: *if they have time to accelerate and get in front of me without
> requiring me to slam the brakes I really don’t care, it only bothers
> me when I am forced to slam on the brake because they refuse to
> yield). *Today I ran into something a bit different: *I was already
> past the yield sign and the line marking the separation of the off
> ramp and the main road (and my lane) when a minivan blew through the
> yield, right tires by the white line on the right of the road,
> drifting into me. *A yell from me got the driver to look at me, but
> still not yield, and his looking at me caused his vehicle to drift
> left (toward me) even farther. *I ended up braking, but was still
> required to pull left into the middle of the lane which could have
> been rather unpleasant had there been a car in the process of passing
> me on the left. *I checked of course, but had there been I’d have been
> in an emergency stop situation trying to avoid 2 different vehicles.
> Thankfully there was no other traffic so the incident was relatively
> minor. *I’m wondering how the rest of you would handle such a
> situation.
>
> Seems to me the options are
>
> 1) slow to a near-stop for the merge, even though I’m not the one with
> the merge sign. *Not my favorite idea since this is on an incline, and
> I don’t like having to regain my speed uphill in a location where I
> shouldn’t have to yield in the first place.
>
> 2) Take the lane through here. *Not a very good idea for 2 reasons,
> first because the situation could still happen (though it’d be less
> likely I’d be being overtaken on the left) and because this is a major
> road where traffic and LEO are not going to take kindly to me taking
> the lane and slowing them down, nor do I have any desire to slow down
> the traffic through there to bicycling speed.
>
> 3) Hold my line. *I did this for as long as prudent today, along with
> an audible warning to the yielding vehicle they were about to collide
> with me. *Had I held the line any longer I’d have been sideswiped by a
> minivan doing 40+ while I was doing 20. *Not a good time in my book.
>
> Any other ideas on how to handle? *Here’s a pic of the situation,
> where the red box represents the minivan and the blue line represents
> me. *http://i37.tinypic.com/msm3nm.jpg

[Mike A Schwab]

On Jul 15, 7:59 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Driver refusing to yield, best approach?
>
> On my way into work I ride along a main road that has on/off ramps to
> a major 4 lane highway.

I only do about 10mph on low traffic volume roads, so for the on ramp
off ramp I stay on the shoulder and cross the ramp lanes at a right
angle to the other shoulder (one is usually between the road and the
ramp).

[Bob]

On Jul 15, 7:59*am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Driver refusing to yield, best approach?
>
> On my way into work I ride along a main road that has on/off ramps to
> a major 4 lane highway. *Heading NE along that road (toward work), the
> SL is 35 at the Interstate junction, raising to 45 within 100 feet of
> where the last off ramp “yields” onto the main road. *It’s not
> uncommon for drivers approaching the yield sign to see me coming on a
> bicycle and refuse to yield, requiring me to brake hard so they can
> merge into my ROW under acceleration, as opposed to yielding. *(Side
> note: *if they have time to accelerate and get in front of me without
> requiring me to slam the brakes I really don’t care, it only bothers
> me when I am forced to slam on the brake because they refuse to
> yield). *Today I ran into something a bit different: *I was already
> past the yield sign and the line marking the separation of the off
> ramp and the main road (and my lane) when a minivan blew through the
> yield, right tires by the white line on the right of the road,
> drifting into me. *A yell from me got the driver to look at me, but
> still not yield, and his looking at me caused his vehicle to drift
> left (toward me) even farther. *I ended up braking, but was still
> required to pull left into the middle of the lane which could have
> been rather unpleasant had there been a car in the process of passing
> me on the left. *I checked of course, but had there been I’d have been
> in an emergency stop situation trying to avoid 2 different vehicles.
> Thankfully there was no other traffic so the incident was relatively
> minor. *I’m wondering how the rest of you would handle such a
> situation.
>
> Seems to me the options are
>
> 1) slow to a near-stop for the merge, even though I’m not the one with
> the merge sign. *Not my favorite idea since this is on an incline, and
> I don’t like having to regain my speed uphill in a location where I
> shouldn’t have to yield in the first place.
>
> 2) Take the lane through here. *Not a very good idea for 2 reasons,
> first because the situation could still happen (though it’d be less
> likely I’d be being overtaken on the left) and because this is a major
> road where traffic and LEO are not going to take kindly to me taking
> the lane and slowing them down, nor do I have any desire to slow down
> the traffic through there to bicycling speed.
>
> 3) Hold my line. *I did this for as long as prudent today, along with
> an audible warning to the yielding vehicle they were about to collide
> with me. *Had I held the line any longer I’d have been sideswiped by a
> minivan doing 40+ while I was doing 20. *Not a good time in my book.
>
> Any other ideas on how to handle? *Here’s a pic of the situation,
> where the red box represents the minivan and the blue line represents
> me. *http://i37.tinypic.com/msm3nm.jpg

Merge ramps are always a pain regardless of one's choice in vehicles.
That said, if I *had* to ride that route (i.e., I couldn't find an
acceptable alternate) I think I'd hit the right shoulder before I got
to the ramp, cut across the ramp itself, and ride on the shoulder
until I was past the merge zone. It is better to risk a flat tire than
a flattened body.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Sherman]

DanKMTB@gmail.com wrote:
> Driver refusing to yield, best approach?
> ...

Fake your way into the local Army Reserve or National Guard armory.

- Spiro Bikopolus

[Dennis P. Harris]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:59:09 -0700 (PDT) in rec.bicycles.misc,
"DanKMTB@gmail.com" <DanKMTB@gmail.com> wrote:

> Any other ideas on how to handle?

take the lane. if they try to force you over, break their window
with your tire pump or some other handy tool.

carry a highly visible handgun.

[TomP]

Mount a self contained lipstick camera and record your rides to and from
work. When something happens and it's recorded, you have evidence of the
offense. Maybe the police will do something.

"DanKMTB@gmail.com" wrote:

> Driver refusing to yield, best approach?
>
> On my way into work I ride along a main road that has on/off ramps to
> a major 4 lane highway. Heading NE along that road (toward work), the
> SL is 35 at the Interstate junction, raising to 45 within 100 feet of
> where the last off ramp “yields” onto the main road. It’s not
> uncommon for drivers approaching the yield sign to see me coming on a
> bicycle and refuse to yield, requiring me to brake hard so they can
> merge into my ROW under acceleration, as opposed to yielding. (Side
> note: if they have time to accelerate and get in front of me without
> requiring me to slam the brakes I really don’t care, it only bothers
> me when I am forced to slam on the brake because they refuse to
> yield). Today I ran into something a bit different: I was already
> past the yield sign and the line marking the separation of the off
> ramp and the main road (and my lane) when a minivan blew through the
> yield, right tires by the white line on the right of the road,
> drifting into me. A yell from me got the driver to look at me, but
> still not yield, and his looking at me caused his vehicle to drift
> left (toward me) even farther. I ended up braking, but was still
> required to pull left into the middle of the lane which could have
> been rather unpleasant had there been a car in the process of passing
> me on the left. I checked of course, but had there been I’d have been
> in an emergency stop situation trying to avoid 2 different vehicles.
> Thankfully there was no other traffic so the incident was relatively
> minor. I’m wondering how the rest of you would handle such a
> situation.
>
> Seems to me the options are
>
> 1) slow to a near-stop for the merge, even though I’m not the one with
> the merge sign. Not my favorite idea since this is on an incline, and
> I don’t like having to regain my speed uphill in a location where I
> shouldn’t have to yield in the first place.
>
> 2) Take the lane through here. Not a very good idea for 2 reasons,
> first because the situation could still happen (though it’d be less
> likely I’d be being overtaken on the left) and because this is a major
> road where traffic and LEO are not going to take kindly to me taking
> the lane and slowing them down, nor do I have any desire to slow down
> the traffic through there to bicycling speed.
>
> 3) Hold my line. I did this for as long as prudent today, along with
> an audible warning to the yielding vehicle they were about to collide
> with me. Had I held the line any longer I’d have been sideswiped by a
> minivan doing 40+ while I was doing 20. Not a good time in my book.
>
> Any other ideas on how to handle? Here’s a pic of the situation,
> where the red box represents the minivan and the blue line represents
> me. http://i37.tinypic.com/msm3nm.jpg

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

On Jul 15, 11:04*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> DanK...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Any other ideas on how to handle? *Here’s a pic of the situation,
> > where the red box represents the minivan and the blue line represents
> > me. *http://i37.tinypic.com/msm3nm.jpg
>
> I don't know if it's the best approach, but it's one that works very
> well for me.
>
> See my commute bike at "http://www.nordicgroup.us/s78/images/img_0281.jpg"
>
> The black horn under the lights is
> "http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/item/ES-14/12-VDC-SIREN-MU..."
>
> It's incredibly loud, and it hasn't failed to stop errant motorists that
> * are about to fail to yield right-of-way, including in a situation very
> similar to the one you describe, see "http://i36.tinypic.com/2igja8o.jpg"..

I've considered adding a loud horn, but just don't want to. 90% of my
riding is in the sticks, where it'd be totally unnecessary. It may
come to that though.

[D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch]

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> DanKMTB@gmail.com wrote:
> See my commute bike at "http://www.nordicgroup.us/s78/images/img_0281.jpg"

> The black horn under the lights is
> "http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/item/ES-14/12-VDC-SIREN-MULTI-TONE/-/1.html"

> It's incredibly loud, and it hasn't failed to stop errant motorists that
> are about to fail to yield right-of-way, including in a situation very
> similar to the one you describe, see "http://i36.tinypic.com/2igja8o.jpg".

In the jurisdictions where I have read the cycling laws I would
seriously question the legality of that gadget on a bicycle. Way too
close to a siren for any bike not being ridden by a police officer.
Unless you have the more police-like whoops and wails disabled, anyway.


Bill

__o |Weaning our nation from fossil fuels should be understood as
_`\(,_ |the most patriotic policy to which we can commit ourselves.
(_)/ (_) | -Robert Redford

[brink]

"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cd3fk.261$Cw5.226@trnddc01...
> DanKMTB@gmail.com wrote:
>> Driver refusing to yield, best approach?
>>
>> On my way into work I ride along a main road that has on/off ramps to
>> a major 4 lane highway.
>
>> I was already
>> past the yield sign and the line marking the separation of the off
>> ramp and the main road (and my lane) when a minivan blew through the
>> yield, right tires by the white line on the right of the road,
>> drifting into me.
>>
>> Seems to me the options are
>>
>> 1) slow to a near-stop for the merge, 2) Take the lane through here. 3)
>> Hold my line.
>
>> Any other ideas on how to handle?
>
> I find merges are always tough. I don't ride often on roads with ramps,
> but we have a lot of rotaries here (MA) that present a similar situation.
> Usually I'm one to hold my line, but merges strike me as a different
> situation. The big problem that I see is the unreliability of a motorist
> judging a cyclist's speed. As Sheldon used to say, never attribute to
> malice what can be explained by incompetence (or something like that).
>
> Most motorists seem to assume that cyclists are moving very slowly, so
> that when you approach a merge at a higher speed than they expect they're
> apt to misjudge the closing rate and merge into you. I'm not sure that
> taking the lane improves the situation. Like it or not, I've always felt
> that I had to take responsibility for the merge in these circumstances and
> modify my speed accordingly. If the motorist is not yet within striking
> distance, I'll often signal a right turn and move across the merge lane to
> its shoulder. Usually the motorist will slow down and let you get out of
> their way if you clearly signal that intention.

Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with merging...
I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists and so is right of
way. I see poor merging happen all the time when I'm on my bike AND when
I'm in my car, and while the dynamics certainly change when it's car vs.
bike, I think most motorists who merge poorly car vs. bike likely would
merge poorly when it's car vs. car as well.

I think proactive hand signals and biking very defensively is the best you
can hope for.

One other thing: if you really feel it is a major problem at that particular
intersection, you might document your experiences and bring them to the
attention of the police and traffic engineer in a letter -- very
respectfully of course. The YIELD sign is already there but many
intersections like that would be what you'd call "problem intersections"
with high levels of noncompliance... the way to combat that is through
re-design (not likely), improving awareness through better signage (now this
could happen), and increased enforcement (who knows, perhaps the police
would agree to monitor that intersection and hand out tickets -- that *does*
have an effect on motorists both to educate and dissuade).

brink

[Ron Wallenfang]

On Jul 15, 10:18*am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
Like it or not, I've
> always felt that I had to take responsibility for the merge in these
> circumstances and modify my speed accordingly. If the motorist is not
> yet within striking distance, I'll often signal a right turn and move
> across the merge lane to its shoulder. Usually the motorist will slow
> down and let you get out of their way if you clearly signal that intention.-

I agree with this approach. Notwithstanding the convention that says
to signal a right turn with you left arm, I stick my right arm
straight out prominently and point, which clearly reveals my
intentions. If a car let's me, I'll cross the merging lane "early";
in any event, I've signaled early enough that I can keep going, at
least for a while, while waiting for someone to let me in. Rarely,
I've had to stop and wait.

[raamman@gmail.com]

On Jul 15, 11:24*am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 11:04*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > DanK...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Any other ideas on how to handle? *Here’s a pic of the situation,
> > > where the red box represents the minivan and the blue line represents
> > > me. *http://i37.tinypic.com/msm3nm.jpg
>
> > I don't know if it's the best approach, but it's one that works very
> > well for me.
>
> > See my commute bike at "http://www.nordicgroup.us/s78/images/img_0281.jpg"
>
> > The black horn under the lights is
> > "http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/item/ES-14/12-VDC-SIREN-MU...."
>
> > It's incredibly loud, and it hasn't failed to stop errant motorists that
> > * are about to fail to yield right-of-way, including in a situation very
> > similar to the one you describe, see "http://i36.tinypic.com/2igja8o.jpg".
>
> I've considered adding a loud horn, but just don't want to. *90% of my
> riding is in the sticks, where it'd be totally unnecessary. *It may
> come to that though.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

horns are worse than useless, you need to train yourself to utter a
short sharp yell to grab a drivers attention while you need your hands
free to handle your bike/ braking or collision avoidance. the split
second you spend deciding to go for your horns lever or button could
make the difference between stopping in time or not stopping at all.
make sure you can use both brakes as a reflexive action the instant it
is necessary.

how to deal with that merge is to play it safe, even if you have the
right of way, bike vs car, car wins. just have to accept that, try to
tuck in behind the merging vehicle and go to the right. there are too
many yahoos who don't give a **** and think they have the obligation
to teach a cyclist a lesson if you annoy them. play it safe, live to
ride another day

[SMS]

DanKMTB@gmail.com wrote:

> I've considered adding a loud horn, but just don't want to. 90% of my
> riding is in the sticks, where it'd be totally unnecessary. It may
> come to that though.

I don't know any other way to get their attention. It doesn't have to be
an electric horn, it can be an air horn instead.

"http://www.buycostumes.com/Air-Horn/24501/ProductDetail.aspx?REF=SCE-froogle"
is available in the party supply section of Wal-Mart for under $4.
Fashion a mount with some conduit clamps, i.e.
"http://nordicgroup.us/s78/images/homemadebracket.jpg".

Of course the other option is to simply yield to the motorists, even
though they should be yielding to you. Maybe ask the governing body
responsible for that road to add a "yield to bicycles" sign, though I
doubt if it would have much effect.

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

On Jul 15, 4:03*pm, raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 15, 11:24*am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 11:04*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > DanK...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > Any other ideas on how to handle? *Here’s a pic of the situation,
> > > > where the red box represents the minivan and the blue line represents
> > > > me. *http://i37.tinypic.com/msm3nm.jpg
>
> > > I don't know if it's the best approach, but it's one that works very
> > > well for me.
>
> > > See my commute bike at "http://www.nordicgroup.us/s78/images/img_0281..jpg"
>
> > > The black horn under the lights is
> > > "http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/item/ES-14/12-VDC-SIREN-MU..."
>
> > > It's incredibly loud, and it hasn't failed to stop errant motorists that
> > > * are about to fail to yield right-of-way, including in a situation very
> > > similar to the one you describe, see "http://i36.tinypic.com/2igja8o.jpg".
>
> > I've considered adding a loud horn, but just don't want to. *90% of my
> > riding is in the sticks, where it'd be totally unnecessary. *It may
> > come to that though.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> horns are worse than useless, you need to train yourself to utter a
> short sharp yell to grab a drivers attention while you need your hands
> free to handle your bike/ braking or collision avoidance. the split
> second you spend deciding to go for your horns lever or button could
> make the difference between stopping in time or not stopping at all.
> make sure you can use both brakes as a reflexive action the instant it
> is necessary.
>
> how to deal with that merge is to play it safe, even if you have the
> right of way, bike vs car, car wins. just have to accept that, try to
> tuck in behind the merging vehicle and go to the right. there are too
> many yahoos who don't give a **** and think they have the obligation
> to teach a cyclist a lesson if you annoy them. play it safe, live to
> ride another day- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I did give a short sharp yell ("Hey!"), and it was heard and clearly
startled the driver. The problem is that this caused him to look at
me, and the car followed in the direction he looked, causing it to
drift toward me.

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

On Jul 15, 4:52 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> DanK...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I've considered adding a loud horn, but just don't want to. 90% of my
> > riding is in the sticks, where it'd be totally unnecessary. It may
> > come to that though.
>
> I don't know any other way to get their attention. It doesn't have to be
> an electric horn, it can be an air horn instead.

As mentioned, my shout got his attention. It just didn't do any
good. The only advantage I can think of that a horn would have had
that my voice didn't is that drivers usually instinctively swerve away
from an unexpected horn blast, instead of toward it like he did with
my voice. Honestly, it seems the only safe way to deal with this
merge is to slow enough that any vehicles on the off ramp merge ahead
of me. The problem is that since this is the main road into an
industrial park, and it's happening between 7:30 & 7:45 AM, this could
literally mean I stop there and wait for a while until a big enough
gap appears that any approaching car couldn't possibly hit me without
accelerating and trying to do so. It's a rather lousy solution.

> "http://www.buycostumes.com/Air-Horn/24501/ProductDetail.aspx?REF=SCE-..."
> is available in the party supply section of Wal-Mart for under $4.
> Fashion a mount with some conduit clamps, i.e.
> "http://nordicgroup.us/s78/images/homemadebracket.jpg".
>
> Of course the other option is to simply yield to the motorists, even
> though they should be yielding to you. Maybe ask the governing body
> responsible for that road to add a "yield to bicycles" sign, though I
> doubt if it would have much effect.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<1583a225-6c6a-4517-8f79-357c228dedeb@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"DanKMTB@gmail.com" <DanKMTB@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 15, 4:03*pm, raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 11:24*am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 15, 11:04*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > DanK...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > Any other ideas on how to handle? *Here¹s a pic of the situation,
> > > > > where the red box represents the minivan and the blue line represents
> > > > > me. *http://i37.tinypic.com/msm3nm.jpg
> >
> I did give a short sharp yell ("Hey!"), and it was heard and clearly
> startled the driver. The problem is that this caused him to look at
> me, and the car followed in the direction he looked, causing it to
> drift toward me.

Air Zound. I know you don't believe me, but first, it's more reusable
than a canned-air horn. Second, it's lighter than an electric horn. And
most importantly of all, it sounds a lot like the horn from an
18-wheeler.

115 dB tends to inspire different reactions than a shout. It's so loud
that at the ranges you're proposing, it would smack drivers like a sonic
Deus ex Machina, almost certainly activating every flight instinct
available.

There's no really good solution to your problem, but I'm confused as to
how these drivers are cutting you off if they're so much faster-moving
than you are. In similar situations, I start checking the ramp as early
as I can see the merging cars, and aggressively cross to the shoulder
whenever the way is clear, even if that means crossing the merge lane
well before it ends.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[raamman@gmail.com]

On Jul 15, 5:11*pm, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 4:52 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > DanK...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I've considered adding a loud horn, but just don't want to. *90% of my
> > > riding is in the sticks, where it'd be totally unnecessary. *It may
> > > come to that though.
>
> > I don't know any other way to get their attention. It doesn't have to be
> > an electric horn, it can be an air horn instead.
>
> As mentioned, my shout got his attention. *It just didn't do any
> good. *The only advantage I can think of that a horn would have had
> that my voice didn't is that drivers usually instinctively swerve away
> from an unexpected horn blast, instead of toward it like he did with
> my voice. *Honestly, it seems the only safe way to deal with this
> merge is to slow enough that any vehicles on the off ramp merge ahead
> of me. *The problem is that since this is the main road into an
> industrial park, and it's happening between 7:30 & 7:45 AM, this could
> literally mean I stop there and wait for a while until a big enough
> gap appears that any approaching car couldn't possibly hit me without
> accelerating and trying to do so. *It's a rather lousy solution.
>
>
>
> > "http://www.buycostumes.com/Air-Horn/24501/ProductDetail.aspx?REF=SCE-..."
> > is available in the party supply section of Wal-Mart for under $4.
> > Fashion a mount with some conduit clamps, i.e.
> > "http://nordicgroup.us/s78/images/homemadebracket.jpg".
>
> > Of course the other option is to simply yield to the motorists, even
> > though they should be yielding to you. Maybe ask the governing body
> > responsible for that road to add a "yield to bicycles" sign, though I
> > doubt if it would have much effect.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

because the merging vehicles aren't slowing down, does the straight
road you're on doesn't have as much traffic as the merge lane ? if
that's the case you can ride to the middle of your lane if there is
nothing behind you as you approach the merge then tuck in behind the
merging vehicle and go over to the right shoulder.

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

On Jul 15, 5:15*pm, bigjimp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hitting the side of the car with a fist usually helps.
>
> On Jul 15, 8:59*am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Driver refusing to yield, best approach?
>
> > On my way into work I ride along a main road that has on/off ramps to
> > a major 4 lane highway. *Heading NE along that road (toward work), the
> > SL is 35 at the Interstate junction, raising to 45 within 100 feet of
> > where the last off ramp “yields” onto the main road. *It’s not
> > uncommon for drivers approaching the yield sign to see me coming on a
> > bicycle and refuse to yield, requiring me to brake hard so they can
> > merge into my ROW under acceleration, as opposed to yielding. *(Side
> > note: *if they have time to accelerate and get in front of me without
> > requiring me to slam the brakes I really don’t care, it only bothers
> > me when I am forced to slam on the brake because they refuse to
> > yield). *Today I ran into something a bit different: *I was already
> > past the yield sign and the line marking the separation of the off
> > ramp and the main road (and my lane) when a minivan blew through the
> > yield, right tires by the white line on the right of the road,
> > drifting into me. *A yell from me got the driver to look at me, but
> > still not yield, and his looking at me caused his vehicle to drift
> > left (toward me) even farther. *I ended up braking, but was still
> > required to pull left into the middle of the lane which could have
> > been rather unpleasant had there been a car in the process of passing
> > me on the left. *I checked of course, but had there been I’d have been
> > in an emergency stop situation trying to avoid 2 different vehicles.
> > Thankfully there was no other traffic so the incident was relatively
> > minor. *I’m wondering how the rest of you would handle such a
> > situation.
>
> > Seems to me the options are
>
> > 1) slow to a near-stop for the merge, even though I’m not the one with
> > the merge sign. *Not my favorite idea since this is on an incline, and
> > I don’t like having to regain my speed uphill in a location where I
> > shouldn’t have to yield in the first place.
>
> > 2) Take the lane through here. *Not a very good idea for 2 reasons,
> > first because the situation could still happen (though it’d be less
> > likely I’d be being overtaken on the left) and because this is a major
> > road where traffic and LEO are not going to take kindly to me taking
> > the lane and slowing them down, nor do I have any desire to slow down
> > the traffic through there to bicycling speed.
>
> > 3) Hold my line. *I did this for as long as prudent today, along with
> > an audible warning to the yielding vehicle they were about to collide
> > with me. *Had I held the line any longer I’d have been sideswiped by a
> > minivan doing 40+ while I was doing 20. *Not a good time in my book.
>
> > Any other ideas on how to handle? *Here’s a pic of the situation,
> > where the red box represents the minivan and the blue line represents
> > me. *http://i37.tinypic.com/msm3nm.jpg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree. So does pushing off with a cleated riding shoe. However,
when I'm doing 20ish and the car is doing 40+ & accelerating, it's a
bit sketchy. In a lower speed situation it would be a whole different
story.

[Patrick Lamb]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:15:53 -0700 (PDT), bigjimpack@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Hitting the side of the car with a fist usually helps.

Maybe try holding an egg out at arm's length, visible to merging
traffic...

:)

Email address works as is.

[Tom Sherman]

brink wrote:
> ...
> Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
> merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists and
> so is right of way. I see poor merging happen all the time when I'm on
> my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics certainly change
> when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who merge poorly car vs.
> bike likely would merge poorly when it's car vs. car as well.
> ...

A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way over
a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the right-hand through
lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).

If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[bob syr]

Well I can't say much because I don't have the testicular fortitude to
get anywhere near an on/off ramp. I'll cross that "bridge" when I
have to. But regarding discourteous drivers, wait'll you hear what
happened to me. As I was approaching a four way stop sign my rule of
thumb is don't get in the way of a car unless they couldn't run over
you if they tried on purpose. A guy was approaching the stop in a
truck and I figured I had plenty of time ahead of him. As soon as I
started crossing, he floored it and tore right through the stop sign
giving me the finger and hollering obscenities all the way. Sheesh!
The only good news is I never saw him before and maybe I'll never see
him again I hope. - Bob

[raamman@gmail.com]

On Jul 16, 2:24*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Air Zound. I know you don't believe me, but first, it's more reusable
> than a canned-air horn. Second, it's lighter than an electric horn. And
> most importantly of all, it sounds a lot like the horn from an
> 18-wheeler.
>
> 115 dB tends to inspire different reactions than a shout. It's so loud
> that at the ranges you're proposing, it would smack drivers like a sonic
> Deus ex Machina, almost certainly activating every flight instinct
> available.
>

but you need to ride with hearing protection

[SMS]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> Air Zound. I know you don't believe me, but first, it's more reusable
> than a canned-air horn. Second, it's lighter than an electric horn. And
> most importantly of all, it sounds a lot like the horn from an
> 18-wheeler.
>
> 115 dB tends to inspire different reactions than a shout. It's so loud
> that at the ranges you're proposing, it would smack drivers like a sonic
> Deus ex Machina, almost certainly activating every flight instinct
> available.

This is true. The air horns, whether re-usable or canned cause the
reaction that is needed.

For a while I would carry one when walking my child to school, and it
worked very well on driver's that were about to not "yield to
pedestrians in crosswalk." The reaction is to stop to see where it's
coming from.

But it looks as if the original poster is actually not looking for an
approach that will cause the driver to yield, because there is no other
approach than a super loud horn.

[Tom Sherman]

raamman@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2:24 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Air Zound. I know you don't believe me, but first, it's more reusable
>> than a canned-air horn. Second, it's lighter than an electric horn. And
>> most importantly of all, it sounds a lot like the horn from an
>> 18-wheeler.
>>
>> 115 dB tends to inspire different reactions than a shout. It's so loud
>> that at the ranges you're proposing, it would smack drivers like a sonic
>> Deus ex Machina, almost certainly activating every flight instinct
>> available.
>>
>
> but you need to ride with hearing protection

I managed to bump the horn button on an Air Zound with my head while
adjusting the front derailer - not recommended.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Bob]

On Jul 16, 8:48*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> brink wrote:
> > ...
> > Good points all. *Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
> > merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists and
> > so is right of way. *I see poor merging happen all the time when I'm on
> > my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics certainly change
> > when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who merge poorly car vs.
> > bike likely would merge poorly when it's car vs. car as well.
> > ...
>
> A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way over
> a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the right-hand through
> lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).
>
> If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
> dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage. In
that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
*should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Sherman]

Bob Hunt wrote:
> On Jul 16, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> brink wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
>>> merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists and
>>> so is right of way. I see poor merging happen all the time when I'm on
>>> my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics certainly change
>>> when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who merge poorly car vs.
>>> bike likely would merge poorly when it's car vs. car as well.
>>> ...
>> A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way over
>> a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the right-hand through
>> lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).
>>
>> If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
>> dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail.
>>
>
> The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
> when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage. In
> that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
> are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
> to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
> *should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
> speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)
>
Does not Illinois law also allow for passing on the right on controlled
access roads? That violates traditional and sensible right-of-way rules
for such roads.

Furthermore, in Illinois, bicycles are not even intended users of the road.

Springfield has always been more about personal fiefdoms of power (e.g.
Mike Madigan) than anything else. To use their decisions as an arbiter
of correctness is hardly a wise course. As governments are composed of
fallible men and women, legal should never be confused with correct or
moral.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[brink]

Bob wrote:
> On Jul 16, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> brink wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
>>> merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists
>>> and so is right of way. I see poor merging happen all the time when
>>> I'm on my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics
>>> certainly change when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who
>>> merge poorly car vs. bike likely would merge poorly when it's car
>>> vs. car as well. ...
>>
>> A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way
>> over a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the
>> right-hand through lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).
>>
>> If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
>> dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> "People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.
>
> The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
> when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage. In
> that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
> are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
> to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
> *should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
> speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)

Is the OP in Illinois?

The way the traffic laws are written and interpreted in most states seems to
be that "through" traffic has right of way and merging traffic is obligated
to yield right of way, regardless of whether a YIELD sign exists or not.

This makes the most sense to me since -- especially out here in Calif. --
such a large number of vehicles in the right lane on freeways are
18-wheelers who can't and shouldn't be changing lanes at every merge ramp
just to accomodate traffic filtering onto the freeway. The volume of
traffic is simply too high and those 18-wheelers aren't maneuverable enough
to begin with.

I'm sure some states have the laws written differently but they are backward
IMO.

brink

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

On Jul 17, 8:09 pm, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:59:09 -0700 (PDT) in rec.bicycles.misc,
>
> "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Any other ideas on how to handle?
>
> take the lane.

Is it just me, or do some people see this as the solution to all
problems, even when irrelevant? Taking the lane here would do nothing
to diffuse my problem, and would actually do the opposite. It would
extend the time I was in the merge situation where the other traffic
was supposed to yield to me.


> if they try to force you over, break their window
> with your tire pump or some other handy tool.

As mentioned, I’m traveling under 20MPH and the traffic is moving
40-50. Any contact is liable to end up with me in some seriously
undesirable positions.


> carry a highly visible handgun.

1) Wrong state. This is happening in MA, and it’s damn near
impossible for a non-MA resident to get permission to carry in MA. In
my home state of NH I could do that, but wouldn’t need to, I have
never encountered a repeating problem like this in NH.

2) Wouldn’t help. These people are not inspecting the cyclist to see
if they’re armed. I think the head check goes something like “Car?
Nope. Bike? Screw em. Hit the gas.”

3) And then do what? Start shooting? “Well, officer, he wasn’t
yielding, which threatened my life and safety, so I shot ‘em.” I can
hear the cell door slamming shut now.


Anyway, I think the best solution presented here is to slow down and
then cut across the merging lane perpendicularly, getting over to the
shoulder as directly as possible. Not an ideal solution, but probably
the best offered for this situation. I lucked out today and didn’t
have any approaching traffic as I cleared the curb, so I cut right
between the end of the curb and the meeting of the two white lines at
a 45 degree to the shoulder and continued on my way.

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

On Jul 18, 12:28 am, "brink" <brinknos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
> > when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage. In
> > that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
> > are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
> > to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
> > *should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
> > speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)
>
> Is the OP in Illinois?

Nope. Situation takes place in MA.


> The way the traffic laws are written and interpreted in most states seems to
> be that "through" traffic has right of way and merging traffic is obligated
> to yield right of way, regardless of whether a YIELD sign exists or not.

That is MA law, not to mention the merging traffic does have a yield
sign.


> This makes the most sense to me since -- especially out here in Calif. --
> such a large number of vehicles in the right lane on freeways are
> 18-wheelers who can't and shouldn't be changing lanes at every merge ramp
> just to accomodate traffic filtering onto the freeway. The volume of
> traffic is simply too high and those 18-wheelers aren't maneuverable enough
> to begin with.
>
> I'm sure some states have the laws written differently but they are backward
> IMO.

MA is pretty backward, but they’ve got this one correct.

[Tom Sherman]

brink ? wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> brink wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
>>>> merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists
>>>> and so is right of way. I see poor merging happen all the time when
>>>> I'm on my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics
>>>> certainly change when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who
>>>> merge poorly car vs. bike likely would merge poorly when it's car
>>>> vs. car as well. ...
>>>
>>> A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way
>>> over a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the
>>> right-hand through lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).
>>>
>>> If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
>>> dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>>> "People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.
>>
>> The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
>> when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage. In
>> that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
>> are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
>> to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
>> *should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
>> speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)
>
> Is the OP in Illinois?
>
> The way the traffic laws are written and interpreted in most states
> seems to be that "through" traffic has right of way and merging traffic
> is obligated to yield right of way, regardless of whether a YIELD sign
> exists or not.
>
> This makes the most sense to me since -- especially out here in Calif.
> -- such a large number of vehicles in the right lane on freeways are
> 18-wheelers who can't and shouldn't be changing lanes at every merge
> ramp just to accomodate traffic filtering onto the freeway. The volume
> of traffic is simply too high and those 18-wheelers aren't maneuverable
> enough to begin with.
>
> I'm sure some states have the laws written differently but they are
> backward IMO.
>
Indeed. There is much in Illinois state politics NOT to be proud of.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Bob]

On Jul 17, 11:28*pm, "brink" <brinknos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> brink wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
> >>> merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists
> >>> and so is right of way. I see poor merging happen all the time when
> >>> I'm on my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics
> >>> certainly change when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who
> >>> merge poorly car vs. bike likely would merge poorly when it's car
> >>> vs. car as well. ...
>
> >> A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way
> >> over a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the
> >> right-hand through lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).
>
> >> If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
> >> dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail.
>
> >> --
> >> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> >> "People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.
>
> > The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
> > when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage. In
> > that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
> > are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
> > to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
> > *should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
> > speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)
>
> Is the OP in Illinois?
>
> The way the traffic laws are written and interpreted in most states seems to
> be that "through" traffic has right of way and merging traffic is obligated
> to yield right of way, regardless of whether a YIELD sign exists or not.
>
> This makes the most sense to me since -- especially out here in Calif. -- *
> such a large number of vehicles in the right lane on freeways are
> 18-wheelers who can't and shouldn't be changing lanes at every merge ramp
> just to accomodate traffic filtering onto the freeway. *The volume of
> traffic is simply too high and those 18-wheelers aren't maneuverable enough
> to begin with.
>
> I'm sure some states have the laws written differently but they are backward
> IMO.
>
> brink- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was taking a good natured jab at Illinois resident Tom Sherman for
his blanket statement that 90+% of all US drivers don't understand the
concept of right of way when he so obviously doesn't understand the
law in his own State.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jul 18, 8:30*am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 8:09 pm, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
> wrote:
>
> > take the lane.
>
> Is it just me, or do some people see this as the solution to all
> problems, even when irrelevant? *Taking the lane here would do nothing
> to diffuse my problem, and would actually do the opposite. *It would
> extend the time I was in the merge situation where the other traffic
> was supposed to yield to me.

If I'm visualizing things properly, I think taking the lane would
help. (Maybe a Google Maps link would make things clearer.)

Part of your worry was that the idiot driver would force you left,
into a vehicle that was passing you. If you took the lane, he'd have
to force you to move about 8 feet left before you'd have any worry
about contact with another vehicle.

BTW, I'm not a particularly aggressive lane-taker. That is, I think I
share a lot of lanes that some other folks would take. But I do it
dynamically, based on conditions. For example, I might share a lane
with a Geo Metro, then take the lane if I see a dump truck behind the
Geo.

Likewise, in your situation, I'd probably share the lane if there were
no merging cars, but take it if there were merging cars. Half a mile
from my house, I've got a merge-diverge cloverleaf to deal with, where
cars behind me are trying to merge right to enter the freeway, and
cars exiting the freeway are simultaneously trying to merge left. I
either take or share the lane based on the conditions I just
described. It's a judgment thing.

- Frank Krygowski

[bigjimpack@gmail.com]

You guys elected osama to congress. Says it all


On Jul 18, 11:26*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> Indeed. There is much in Illinois state politics NOT to be proud of.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

On Jul 19, 12:21 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 8:30 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 17, 8:09 pm, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
> > wrote:
>
> > > take the lane.
>
> > Is it just me, or do some people see this as the solution to all
> > problems, even when irrelevant? Taking the lane here would do nothing
> > to diffuse my problem, and would actually do the opposite. It would
> > extend the time I was in the merge situation where the other traffic
> > was supposed to yield to me.
>
> If I'm visualizing things properly, I think taking the lane would
> help. (Maybe a Google Maps link would make things clearer.)

There's a link to a google maps sat photo in the initial post. Here
it is again: http://i37.tinypic.com/msm3nm.jpg


> Part of your worry was that the idiot driver would force you left,
> into a vehicle that was passing you. If you took the lane, he'd have
> to force you to move about 8 feet left before you'd have any worry
> about contact with another vehicle.

True. There is just a real lot of traffic on that road going a whole
lot faster than me, so I really don't feel comfortable holding
everyone up.


> BTW, I'm not a particularly aggressive lane-taker. That is, I think I
> share a lot of lanes that some other folks would take. But I do it
> dynamically, based on conditions. For example, I might share a lane
> with a Geo Metro, then take the lane if I see a dump truck behind the
> Geo.

Better hope the dump truck driver is paying attention when you move
over!


> Likewise, in your situation, I'd probably share the lane if there were
> no merging cars, but take it if there were merging cars. Half a mile
> from my house, I've got a merge-diverge cloverleaf to deal with, where
> cars behind me are trying to merge right to enter the freeway, and
> cars exiting the freeway are simultaneously trying to merge left. I
> either take or share the lane based on the conditions I just
> described. It's a judgment thing.

The problem is that merging traffic appears quickly, as it's a fairly
straight off-ramp off of a 65MPH posted freeway. I could give it a
go.


Interestingly enough, I ran into the same driver in the same place
today. This time he had more than enough time to go through the yield
and end up plenty in front of me, but instead came to a complete
stop. Either

1) He's paying more attention since our last encounter.
2) He noticed the 5MPH increase in speed since this morning I was on
my new, geared bike.
3) The new bike looks faster.

I'm thinking #1 is most likely.

[Tom Sherman]

bigjimpack@gmail.com wrote:

[Top posting and failure to honor the signature separator corrected]
>
> On Jul 18, 11:26 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
>> Indeed. There is much in Illinois state politics NOT to be proud of.
>>
>
> You guys elected osama to congress. Says it all

That "Osama" joke is extremely childish. [Yawn]

I suppose "Jim" would have voted for Alan Keyes - now there is a real
winner!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Tom Sherman]

Bob Hunt of Ilenweewa wrote:
> On Jul 17, 11:28 pm, "brink" <brinknos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>>> On Jul 16, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> brink wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
>>>>> merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists
>>>>> and so is right of way. I see poor merging happen all the time when
>>>>> I'm on my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics
>>>>> certainly change when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who
>>>>> merge poorly car vs. bike likely would merge poorly when it's car
>>>>> vs. car as well. ...
>>>> A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way
>>>> over a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the
>>>> right-hand through lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).
>>>> If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
>>>> dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail.
>
>>> The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
>>> when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage. In
>>> that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
>>> are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
>>> to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
>>> *should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
>>> speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)
>> Is the OP in Illinois?
>>
>> The way the traffic laws are written and interpreted in most states seems to
>> be that "through" traffic has right of way and merging traffic is obligated
>> to yield right of way, regardless of whether a YIELD sign exists or not.
>>
>> This makes the most sense to me since -- especially out here in Calif. --
>> such a large number of vehicles in the right lane on freeways are
>> 18-wheelers who can't and shouldn't be changing lanes at every merge ramp
>> just to accomodate traffic filtering onto the freeway. The volume of
>> traffic is simply too high and those 18-wheelers aren't maneuverable enough
>> to begin with.
>>
>> I'm sure some states have the laws written differently but they are backward
>> IMO.
>>
>> brink- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I was taking a good natured jab at [former] Illinois resident Tom Sherman

Bob's statement corrected.

> for
> his blanket statement that 90+% of all US drivers don't understand the
> concept of right of way when he so obviously doesn't understand the
> law in his own State.
>
See other post in thread. Legal and correct are two different things.
For example, Illinois law [1] says that public roads are not intended
for the use of bicyclists, which of course is utterly ridiculous.

[1] Boub v. Wayne

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Bob]

On Jul 22, 3:40*am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Bob Hunt of Ilenweewa wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 11:28 pm, "brink" <brinknos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Bob wrote:
> >>> On Jul 16, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> brink wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
> >>>>> merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists
> >>>>> and so is right of way. I see poor merging happen all the time when
> >>>>> I'm on my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics
> >>>>> certainly change when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who
> >>>>> merge poorly car vs. bike likely would merge poorly when it's car
> >>>>> vs. car as well. ...
> >>>> A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way
> >>>> over a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the
> >>>> right-hand through lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).
> >>>> If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
> >>>> dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail.
>
> >>> The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
> >>> when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage. In
> >>> that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
> >>> are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
> >>> to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
> >>> *should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
> >>> speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)
> >> Is the OP in Illinois?
>
> >> The way the traffic laws are written and interpreted in most states seems to
> >> be that "through" traffic has right of way and merging traffic is obligated
> >> to yield right of way, regardless of whether a YIELD sign exists or not.
>
> >> This makes the most sense to me since -- especially out here in Calif. -- *
> >> such a large number of vehicles in the right lane on freeways are
> >> 18-wheelers who can't and shouldn't be changing lanes at every merge ramp
> >> just to accomodate traffic filtering onto the freeway. *The volume of
> >> traffic is simply too high and those 18-wheelers aren't maneuverable enough
> >> to begin with.
>
> >> I'm sure some states have the laws written differently but they are backward
> >> IMO.
>
> >> brink- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I was taking a good natured jab at [former] Illinois resident Tom Sherman
>
> Bob's statement corrected.
>
> > for
> > his blanket statement that 90+% of all US drivers don't understand the
> > concept of right of way when he so obviously doesn't understand the
> > law in his own State.
>
> See other post in thread. Legal and correct are two different things.

If you don't like the law get elected and change it.
A polite name for those that believe their own personal opinions carry
more weight than the law we all, through our legislators, have agreed
upon is "defendant". There are numerous other names but I'll leave it
at that.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jul 22, 8:26*am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 12:21 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > If I'm visualizing things properly, I think taking the lane would
> > help. *(Maybe a Google Maps link would make things clearer.)
>
> There's a link to a google maps sat photo in the initial post. *Here
> it is again: *http://i37.tinypic.com/msm3nm.jpg

Oops. Wonder how I missed that?

> > Part of your worry was that the idiot driver would force you left,
> > into a vehicle that was passing you. *If you took the lane, he'd have
> > to force you to move about 8 feet left before you'd have any worry
> > about contact with another vehicle.
>
> True. *There is just a real lot of traffic on that road going a whole
> lot faster than me, so I really don't feel comfortable holding
> everyone up.

I know what you mean. Lots of us were raised to be super-polite. And
it's a situation that makes even many impolite people nervous.

Thinking back, I believe I worked up to lane-taking rather gradually.
I did it at a time and place where my family and I were pretty much
the only cyclists around, and I learned about it from reading
Effective Cycling and related material. It took some mental pep
talks.

Try thinking things like "It's only going to delay them for ten
seconds or so," and "I've got a right to use this road safely."


>
> > BTW, I'm not a particularly aggressive lane-taker. *That is, I think I
> > share a lot of lanes that some other folks would take. *But I do it
> > dynamically, based on conditions. *For example, I might share a lane
> > with a Geo Metro, then take the lane if I see a dump truck behind the
> > Geo.
>
> Better hope the dump truck driver is paying attention when you move
> over!

To be clear, I wouldn't suddenly swerve in front of a big truck. If
it were literally a Geo then a truck, I'd be in a position that only
the Geo would fit. And BTW, I find a mirror very handy for such
judgments.

But when necessary, I've held back some rather impatient truck
drivers. Hell, they've certainly held me back often enough when I'm
motoring!

> > Likewise, in your situation, I'd probably share the lane if there were
> > no merging cars, but take it if there were merging cars. *Half a mile
> > from my house, I've got a merge-diverge cloverleaf to deal with, where
> > cars behind me are trying to merge right to enter the freeway, and
> > cars exiting the freeway are simultaneously trying to merge left. *I
> > either take or share the lane based on the conditions I just
> > described. *It's a judgment thing.
>
> The problem is that merging traffic appears quickly, as it's a fairly
> straight off-ramp off of a 65MPH posted freeway. *I could give it a
> go.

Looking at the aerial photo, I'd probably be taking the lane only for
a short while. If highway speeds and ramp speeds and traffic are both
high, I'd probably use a gap in ramp traffic to get to the right when
it was clear to do so, then just merge back into the highway. It
looks like plenty of lane width at upper right.

I don't do that for my merge-diverge, since I'd have to merge back
left after merging right, all in about 100 feet. Otherwise, I'd be
heading onto the freeway. You don't have that problem.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Sherman]

Bob Hunt wrote:
> On Jul 22, 3:40 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Bob Hunt of Ilenweewa wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 17, 11:28 pm, "brink" <brinknos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Bob wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 16, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> brink wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
>>>>>>> merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists
>>>>>>> and so is right of way. I see poor merging happen all the time when
>>>>>>> I'm on my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics
>>>>>>> certainly change when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who
>>>>>>> merge poorly car vs. bike likely would merge poorly when it's car
>>>>>>> vs. car as well. ...
>>>>>> A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way
>>>>>> over a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the
>>>>>> right-hand through lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).
>>>>>> If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
>>>>>> dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail.
>>>>> The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
>>>>> when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage. In
>>>>> that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
>>>>> are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
>>>>> to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
>>>>> *should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
>>>>> speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)
>>>> Is the OP in Illinois?
>>>> The way the traffic laws are written and interpreted in most states seems to
>>>> be that "through" traffic has right of way and merging traffic is obligated
>>>> to yield right of way, regardless of whether a YIELD sign exists or not.
>>>> This makes the most sense to me since -- especially out here in Calif. --
>>>> such a large number of vehicles in the right lane on freeways are
>>>> 18-wheelers who can't and shouldn't be changing lanes at every merge ramp
>>>> just to accomodate traffic filtering onto the freeway. The volume of
>>>> traffic is simply too high and those 18-wheelers aren't maneuverable enough
>>>> to begin with.
>>>> I'm sure some states have the laws written differently but they are backward
>>>> IMO.
>>>> brink- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I was taking a good natured jab at [former] Illinois resident Tom Sherman
>> Bob's statement corrected.
>>
>>> for
>>> his blanket statement that 90+% of all US drivers don't understand the
>>> concept of right of way when he so obviously doesn't understand the
>>> law in his own State.
>> See other post in thread. Legal and correct are two different things.
>
> If you don't like the law get elected and change it.

That would require more intelligent and informed voters.

> A polite name for those that believe their own personal opinions carry
> more weight than the law we all, through our legislators, have agreed
> upon is "defendant".

Bob apparently believes that it should be illegal to express dissent
about the existing laws. Or maybe dissent is OK, but only in a "free
speech pen" where no one can hear you?

> There are numerous other names but I'll leave it
> at that.
>
OK Bob, so slavery was moral in the US as long as it was legal, but then
suddenly became immoral once it was made illegal? Hey, by those
standards, internal genocide is moral as long as the government
sanctions it.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Bob]

On Jul 23, 1:08*am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Bob Hunt wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 3:40 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Bob Hunt of Ilenweewa wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 17, 11:28 pm, "brink" <brinknos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Bob wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 16, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> brink wrote:
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
> >>>>>>> merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists
> >>>>>>> and so is right of way. I see poor merging happen all the time when
> >>>>>>> I'm on my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics
> >>>>>>> certainly change when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who
> >>>>>>> merge poorly car vs. bike likely would merge poorly when it's car
> >>>>>>> vs. car as well. ...
> >>>>>> A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way
> >>>>>> over a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the
> >>>>>> right-hand through lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).
> >>>>>> If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
> >>>>>> dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail..
> >>>>> The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
> >>>>> when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage. In
> >>>>> that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
> >>>>> are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
> >>>>> to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
> >>>>> *should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
> >>>>> speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)
> >>>> Is the OP in Illinois?
> >>>> The way the traffic laws are written and interpreted in most states seems to
> >>>> be that "through" traffic has right of way and merging traffic is obligated
> >>>> to yield right of way, regardless of whether a YIELD sign exists or not.
> >>>> This makes the most sense to me since -- especially out here in Calif. -- *
> >>>> such a large number of vehicles in the right lane on freeways are
> >>>> 18-wheelers who can't and shouldn't be changing lanes at every merge ramp
> >>>> just to accomodate traffic filtering onto the freeway. *The volume of
> >>>> traffic is simply too high and those 18-wheelers aren't maneuverable enough
> >>>> to begin with.
> >>>> I'm sure some states have the laws written differently but they are backward
> >>>> IMO.
> >>>> brink- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> I was taking a good natured jab at [former] Illinois resident Tom Sherman
> >> Bob's statement corrected.
>
> >>> for
> >>> his blanket statement that 90+% of all US drivers don't understand the
> >>> concept of right of way when he so obviously doesn't understand the
> >>> law in his own State.
> >> See other post in thread. Legal and correct are two different things.
>
> > If you don't like the law get elected and change it.
>
> That would require more intelligent and informed voters.
>
> > A polite name for those that believe their own personal opinions carry
> > more weight than the law we all, through our legislators, have agreed
> > upon is "defendant".
>
> Bob apparently believes that it should be illegal to express dissent
> about the existing laws. Or maybe dissent is OK, but only in a "free
> speech pen" where no one can hear you?
>
> > There are numerous other names but I'll leave it
> > at that.
>
> OK Bob, so slavery was moral in the US as long as it was legal, but then
> suddenly became immoral once it was made illegal? Hey, by those
> standards, internal genocide is moral as long as the government
> sanctions it.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Tom, we were discussing legal concepts- right of way, yielding or not
yielding same, signage, roadway characteristics, and the like.
Philosophy, morality, genocide, and slavery never entered into the
discussion and your attempt to inject them is simply a transparent
attempt by you to avoid admitting you haven't a clue on what the rules
of the road in your own State are.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Sherman]

Bob Hunt wrote:
> On Jul 23, 1:08 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Bob Hunt wrote:
>>> On Jul 22, 3:40 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Bob Hunt of Ilenweewa wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 17, 11:28 pm, "brink" <brinknos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Bob wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 16, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> brink wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
>>>>>>>>> merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists
>>>>>>>>> and so is right of way. I see poor merging happen all the time when
>>>>>>>>> I'm on my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics
>>>>>>>>> certainly change when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who
>>>>>>>>> merge poorly car vs. bike likely would merge poorly when it's car
>>>>>>>>> vs. car as well. ...
>>>>>>>> A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way
>>>>>>>> over a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the
>>>>>>>> right-hand through lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).
>>>>>>>> If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
>>>>>>>> dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail.
>>>>>>> The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
>>>>>>> when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage. In
>>>>>>> that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
>>>>>>> are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
>>>>>>> to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
>>>>>>> *should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
>>>>>>> speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)
>>>>>> Is the OP in Illinois?
>>>>>> The way the traffic laws are written and interpreted in most states seems to
>>>>>> be that "through" traffic has right of way and merging traffic is obligated
>>>>>> to yield right of way, regardless of whether a YIELD sign exists or not.
>>>>>> This makes the most sense to me since -- especially out here in Calif. --
>>>>>> such a large number of vehicles in the right lane on freeways are
>>>>>> 18-wheelers who can't and shouldn't be changing lanes at every merge ramp
>>>>>> just to accomodate traffic filtering onto the freeway. The volume of
>>>>>> traffic is simply too high and those 18-wheelers aren't maneuverable enough
>>>>>> to begin with.
>>>>>> I'm sure some states have the laws written differently but they are backward
>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>> brink- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> I was taking a good natured jab at [former] Illinois resident Tom Sherman
>>>> Bob's statement corrected.
>>>>> for
>>>>> his blanket statement that 90+% of all US drivers don't understand the
>>>>> concept of right of way when he so obviously doesn't understand the
>>>>> law in his own State.
>>>> See other post in thread. Legal and correct are two different things.
>>> If you don't like the law get elected and change it.
>> That would require more intelligent and informed voters.
>>
>>> A polite name for those that believe their own personal opinions carry
>>> more weight than the law we all, through our legislators, have agreed
>>> upon is "defendant".
>> Bob apparently believes that it should be illegal to express dissent
>> about the existing laws. Or maybe dissent is OK, but only in a "free
>> speech pen" where no one can hear you?
>>
>>> There are numerous other names but I'll leave it
>>> at that.
>> OK Bob, so slavery was moral in the US as long as it was legal, but then
>> suddenly became immoral once it was made illegal? Hey, by those
>> standards, internal genocide is moral as long as the government
>> sanctions it.
>>
>
> Tom, we were discussing legal concepts- right of way, yielding or not
> yielding same, signage, roadway characteristics, and the like.

I was discussing right-of-way as has developed from centuries of common
use. The Legislature of Illinois has erred [1] in a couple of instances
- the vehicle in the traveling lane of a controlled access road not
having absolute right-of-way and allowing for passing on the right on
these same roads. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Illinois has erred in
not considering bicycles intended users of public roads.

> Philosophy, morality, genocide, and slavery never entered into the
> discussion and your attempt to inject them is simply a transparent
> attempt by you to avoid admitting you haven't a clue on what the rules
> of the road in your own State are.
>
Nonsense. I was making the point that equating legal as moral as you did
was improper, as governments are composed of less than perfect persons
who often make laws based on objectives not always logical, honorable
and yes, moral.

Furthermore, how does my pointing out the errors of The Legislature make
me unaware of the laws?

Finally, why would you assume I am in Illinois? What state is most
strongly associated with the Holstein-Friesian dairy cow?

[1] Please do not tell me you think that body always acts in a sensible
or even honorable way - how many Illinois politicians have ended up
spending time in a minimum security unit for "white collar" crimes?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Bob]

On Jul 25, 1:31*am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Bob Hunt wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 1:08 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Bob Hunt wrote:
> >>> On Jul 22, 3:40 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Bob Hunt of Ilenweewa wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 17, 11:28 pm, "brink" <brinknos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Bob wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 16, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> brink wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>> Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
> >>>>>>>>> merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists
> >>>>>>>>> and so is right of way. I see poor merging happen all the time when
> >>>>>>>>> I'm on my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics
> >>>>>>>>> certainly change when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who
> >>>>>>>>> merge poorly car vs. bike likely would merge poorly when it's car
> >>>>>>>>> vs. car as well. ...
> >>>>>>>> A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way
> >>>>>>>> over a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the
> >>>>>>>> right-hand through lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).
> >>>>>>>> If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
> >>>>>>>> dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail.
> >>>>>>> The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
> >>>>>>> when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage.. In
> >>>>>>> that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
> >>>>>>> are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
> >>>>>>> to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
> >>>>>>> *should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
> >>>>>>> speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)
> >>>>>> Is the OP in Illinois?
> >>>>>> The way the traffic laws are written and interpreted in most states seems to
> >>>>>> be that "through" traffic has right of way and merging traffic is obligated
> >>>>>> to yield right of way, regardless of whether a YIELD sign exists or not.
> >>>>>> This makes the most sense to me since -- especially out here in Calif. -- *
> >>>>>> such a large number of vehicles in the right lane on freeways are
> >>>>>> 18-wheelers who can't and shouldn't be changing lanes at every merge ramp
> >>>>>> just to accomodate traffic filtering onto the freeway. *The volume of
> >>>>>> traffic is simply too high and those 18-wheelers aren't maneuverable enough
> >>>>>> to begin with.
> >>>>>> I'm sure some states have the laws written differently but they are backward
> >>>>>> IMO.
> >>>>>> brink- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> I was taking a good natured jab at [former] Illinois resident Tom Sherman
> >>>> Bob's statement corrected.
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> his blanket statement that 90+% of all US drivers don't understand the
> >>>>> concept of right of way when he so obviously doesn't understand the
> >>>>> law in his own State.
> >>>> See other post in thread. Legal and correct are two different things..
> >>> If you don't like the law get elected and change it.
> >> That would require more intelligent and informed voters.
>
> >>> A polite name for those that believe their own personal opinions carry
> >>> more weight than the law we all, through our legislators, have agreed
> >>> upon is "defendant".
> >> Bob apparently believes that it should be illegal to express dissent
> >> about the existing laws. Or maybe dissent is OK, but only in a "free
> >> speech pen" where no one can hear you?
>
> >>> There are numerous other names but I'll leave it
> >>> at that.
> >> OK Bob, so slavery was moral in the US as long as it was legal, but then
> >> suddenly became immoral once it was made illegal? Hey, by those
> >> standards, internal genocide is moral as long as the government
> >> sanctions it.
>
> > Tom, we were discussing legal concepts- right of way, yielding or not
> > yielding same, signage, roadway characteristics, and the like.
>
> I was discussing right-of-way as has developed from centuries of common
> use. The Legislature of Illinois has erred [1] in a couple of instances
> - the vehicle in the traveling lane of a controlled access road not
> having absolute right-of-way and allowing for passing on the right on
> these same roads. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Illinois has erred in
> not considering bicycles intended users of public roads.
>
> > Philosophy, morality, genocide, and slavery never entered into the
> > discussion and your attempt to inject them is simply a transparent
> > attempt by you to avoid admitting you haven't a clue on what the rules
> > of the road in your own State are.
>
> Nonsense. I was making the point that equating legal as moral as you did
> was improper, as governments are composed of less than perfect persons
> who often make laws based on objectives not always logical, honorable
> and yes, moral.
>
> Furthermore, how does my pointing out the errors of The Legislature make
> me unaware of the laws?
>
> Finally, why would you assume I am in Illinois? What state is most
> strongly associated with the Holstein-Friesian dairy cow?
>
> [1] Please do not tell me you think that body always acts in a sensible
> or even honorable way - how many Illinois politicians have ended up
> spending time in a minimum security unit for "white collar" crimes?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You truly do not like to have any of your errors pointed out, do you?
The phrase "controlled access highway" is *legal* definition of a
specific type of roadway. Your use of the phrase here is the first
time it has appeared in this thread. Similarly, until you injected
morality into the discussion the emphasis was always on both
practicality and legality.
If you bothered to consider the many possible situations where traffic
must merge in some fashion you'd realize that what you term the "error
of the Legislature" is actually a very good rule because it is both
easily understood and flexible enough to be effective in all of those
possible situations. For example, under a "through traffic always has
the right-of-way" a bicycle merging safely onto the roadway described
by the OP would be at fault if a driver in the left lane of the
throughway drifted into the right lane and struck the merging cyclist.
In that situation, not only would the cyclist be judged at fault but
the driver would be able to sue his estate for damages.
If one really intends to point out an error, the usual and most
logical way to do so is to describe the error and then point out those
factors that make it an error. You didn't do that.
Finally, perhaps your frequent references to riding in Illinois,
specifically the Chicago area, made me think you are an Illinois
resident. I guess it is possible you are just a tourist who frequently
comes to ride here as it is a well-known cycling destination right up
there with the Napa Valley for roadies and Moab for the MTBers.
I'm going to let this drop now. Feel free to have the last word if you
must.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Sherman]

Bob Hunt wrote:
> On Jul 25, 1:31 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Bob Hunt wrote:
>>> On Jul 23, 1:08 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Bob Hunt wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 22, 3:40 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Bob Hunt of Ilenweewa wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 11:28 pm, "brink" <brinknos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bob wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 16, 8:48 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> brink wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Good points all. Honestly, American drivers are very poor with
>>>>>>>>>>> merging... I think YIELD signs are misunderstood by many motorists
>>>>>>>>>>> and so is right of way. I see poor merging happen all the time when
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm on my bike AND when I'm in my car, and while the dynamics
>>>>>>>>>>> certainly change when it's car vs. bike, I think most motorists who
>>>>>>>>>>> merge poorly car vs. bike likely would merge poorly when it's car
>>>>>>>>>>> vs. car as well. ...
>>>>>>>>>> A lot of people think that the merging vehicle has the right-of-way
>>>>>>>>>> over a vehicle in the through lane, and the vehicle in the
>>>>>>>>>> right-hand through lane should move over to the left. (Seriously).
>>>>>>>>>> If a test were given on the concept of right-of-way and vehicle
>>>>>>>>>> dynamics, 90+% of USians with current drivers' licenses would fail.
>>>>>>>>> The OP mentioned a yield sign but you seem to be talking about merging
>>>>>>>>> when neither the through lane nor the merge lane have any signage. In
>>>>>>>>> that case (under Illinois law- see 625 ILCS 5/11-905), *both* vehicles
>>>>>>>>> are required to adjust their speed and lateral position on the roadway
>>>>>>>>> to facilitate the merge. IOW, the right hand through lane traffic
>>>>>>>>> *should* move over if possible and both vehicles should adjust their
>>>>>>>>> speeds. Seriously. Maybe you're part of that 90+%? ;-)
>>>>>>>> Is the OP in Illinois?
>>>>>>>> The way the traffic laws are written and interpreted in most states seems to
>>>>>>>> be that "through" traffic has right of way and merging traffic is obligated
>>>>>>>> to yield right of way, regardless of whether a YIELD sign exists or not.
>>>>>>>> This makes the most sense to me since -- especially out here in Calif. --
>>>>>>>> such a large number of vehicles in the right lane on freeways are
>>>>>>>> 18-wheelers who can't and shouldn't be changing lanes at every merge ramp
>>>>>>>> just to accomodate traffic filtering onto the freeway. The volume of
>>>>>>>> traffic is simply too high and those 18-wheelers aren't maneuverable enough
>>>>>>>> to begin with.
>>>>>>>> I'm sure some states have the laws written differently but they are backward
>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>> brink- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> I was taking a good natured jab at [former] Illinois resident Tom Sherman
>>>>>> Bob's statement corrected.
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> his blanket statement that 90+% of all US drivers don't understand the
>>>>>>> concept of right of way when he so obviously doesn't understand the
>>>>>>> law in his own State.
>>>>>> See other post in thread. Legal and correct are two different things.
>>>>> If you don't like the law get elected and change it.
>>>> That would require more intelligent and informed voters.
>>>>> A polite name for those that believe their own personal opinions carry
>>>>> more weight than the law we all, through our legislators, have agreed
>>>>> upon is "defendant".
>>>> Bob apparently believes that it should be illegal to express dissent
>>>> about the existing laws. Or maybe dissent is OK, but only in a "free
>>>> speech pen" where no one can hear you?
>>>>> There are numerous other names but I'll leave it
>>>>> at that.
>>>> OK Bob, so slavery was moral in the US as long as it was legal, but then
>>>> suddenly became immoral once it was made illegal? Hey, by those
>>>> standards, internal genocide is moral as long as the government
>>>> sanctions it.
>>> Tom, we were discussing legal concepts- right of way, yielding or not
>>> yielding same, signage, roadway characteristics, and the like.
>> I was discussing right-of-way as has developed from centuries of common
>> use. The Legislature of Illinois has erred [1] in a couple of instances
>> - the vehicle in the traveling lane of a controlled access road not
>> having absolute right-of-way and allowing for passing on the right on
>> these same roads. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Illinois has erred in
>> not considering bicycles intended users of public roads.
>>
>>> Philosophy, morality, genocide, and slavery never entered into the
>>> discussion and your attempt to inject them is simply a transparent
>>> attempt by you to avoid admitting you haven't a clue on what the rules
>>> of the road in your own State are.
>> Nonsense. I was making the point that equating legal as moral as you did
>> was improper, as governments are composed of less than perfect persons
>> who often make laws based on objectives not always logical, honorable
>> and yes, moral.
>>
>> Furthermore, how does my pointing out the errors of The Legislature make
>> me unaware of the laws?
>>
>> Finally, why would you assume I am in Illinois? What state is most
>> strongly associated with the Holstein-Friesian dairy cow?
>>
>> [1] Please do not tell me you think that body always acts in a sensible
>> or even honorable way - how many Illinois politicians have ended up
>> spending time in a minimum security unit for "white collar" crimes?
>>
>
> You truly do not like to have any of your errors pointed out, do you?
> The phrase "controlled access highway" is *legal* definition of a
> specific type of roadway. Your use of the phrase here is the first
> time it has appeared in this thread. Similarly, until you injected
> morality into the discussion the emphasis was always on both
> practicality and legality.
>
Mr. Hunt by implication brought morality into the discussion.

> If you bothered to consider the many possible situations where traffic
> must merge in some fashion you'd realize that what you term the "error
> of the Legislature" is actually a very good rule because it is both
> easily understood and flexible enough to be effective in all of those
> possible situations. For example, under a "through traffic always has
> the right-of-way" a bicycle merging safely onto the roadway described
> by the OP would be at fault if a driver in the left lane of the
> throughway drifted into the right lane and struck the merging cyclist.
>
That is a completely different situation, since the motorist had not
established travel in the right lane before the cyclist started to merge.

> In that situation, not only would the cyclist be judged at fault but
> the driver would be able to sue his estate for damages.
> If one really intends to point out an error, the usual and most
> logical way to do so is to describe the error and then point out those
> factors that make it an error. You didn't do that.
>
Huh? I pointed out more than one error made by the government of Illinois.

> Finally, perhaps your frequent references to riding in Illinois,
> specifically the Chicago area, made me think you are an Illinois
> resident. I guess it is possible you are just a tourist who frequently
> comes to ride here as it is a well-known cycling destination right up
> there with the Napa Valley for roadies and Moab for the MTBers.
>
Please pay more attention. Above in the thread I put "former" in
brackets before your words "Illinois resident". It should be noted that
I am really an ex "down-stater" and not an ex-FIB, as my stay in the
Chicagoland area was only a few months in duration.

Actually, there are quite a few reasons (time and health permitting) why
I might travel to Illinois for a bicycle ride. There are actually a lot
of nice people in Illinois - the minority FIBS stand out due to their
obnoxiousness.

> I'm going to let this drop now. Feel free to have the last word if you
> must.
>
Now I am disappointed. I was hoping to exceed my personal record of more
than 200 posts by each participant during an Usenet argument.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.