[QUOTE=catsix]
“…the driver shall, at the first opportunity when and where it is reasonable and safe to do so and after giving appropriate signal, drive completely off the roadway and onto the berm or shoulder of the highway.”
[/QUOTE]
You said your 50mph blind curve has only guardrails on both sides, so obviously it’s legal for a cyclist to stay on the road until there is a shoulder that can be safely used by a bicycle. Also please remember that many factors that are not obvious from a car can make it unsafe, such as glass shards and slippery gravel on the shoulder.
And RTFirefly, avid bike rider, has stated that he will not ride somewhere that is dangerous even when it is perfectly legal for him to do so because, although it might be legal, it is not reasonable.
If you had read the entire post, you would see that I did provide cites. But, I guess your reading of my posts is every bit as selective as your reading of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, Chapter 33. You quoted subsection 3301(b) but did not read or take not of my cite, Pennsylvania Vehicle Code Chapter 33 Section 3364 subsections (a) and (b).
Once again, you should’ve read a few more paragraphs before being a dick.
There are many things that are perfectly legal to do, yet so unsafe that a reasonable person wouldn’t attempt them. I can’t imagine why you would want to expose yourself to the danger of riding your bike on some of the roads around here when there are much safer alternatives.
Well, as I’ve said several times already, I am aware that it is legal. It is also unsafe. I cannot understand why you are fighting tooth and nail to defend your legal right to do something that puts not only you, but others traveling the highway, at risk of injury or possibly death. I really don’t understand why you and lowbrass so stubbornly insist that no matter how much danger riding your bike in some of those areas creates for yourself and others, you will do it anyway.
Why wouldn’t you want to bike somewhere that you’re at a far lower risk of being cleaned up with a sponge after a tri-axle dump truck hauling 21 tons of limestone chips runs your ass over? And how can you blame the drivers who travel that road daily for saying that it’s just too dangerous for someone on a bike? Shit, I would say the same thing about someone who was walking there.
[QUOTE=catsix]
Why wouldn’t you want to bike somewhere that you’re at a far lower risk of being cleaned up with a sponge after a tri-axle dump truck hauling 21 tons of limestone chips runs your ass over?
[/quote]
Because my bike is not just a recreational activity, but also a mode of transport. Or should I just go to the park instead of my office tomorrow?
I would take the back roads if possible, except there’s no such thing as back roads in many newer American suburbs. It’s just cul-de-sac housing developments that feed off main highways.
Because it’s the drivers creating the danger, not the cyclists. Roads are built for both bikes and cars. If you can’t drive without hitting the cyclists, you shouldn’t be driving.
[QUOTE=scr4]
Because it’s the drivers creating the danger, not the cyclists.
[/quote]
If the road isn’t one on which cyclists aren’t normally encountered for whatever reason then, yeah, the cyclists are a danger. I was nearly run over while riding on a road where I had no business being. If I had been run over, it would have been as much my fault for being somewhere I should not have as the driver’s for not paying enough attention.
Some roads are better for biking than others. The time I was nearly run over was the first and last time for riding that road.
[QUOTE=catsix]
Doesn’t stop them from crawling up those hills at a snail’s pace while the car drivers who are traveling 50 mph have to slam their brakes on to avoid hitting the bike and or swerving into oncoming traffic.
[/QUOTE]
I wonder what you guys do if you encounter a stalled truck around one of those bends you obviously are going too fast around. Or maybe some sort of larger wildlife on the road?
[QUOTE=scr4]
Ah, so you’re just talking about the absolute danger level. How do you measure it, and what is the threshold for being too dangerous to ride?
[/QUOTE]
A road is considered too dangerous for bikes the moment a car is slowed down for more than .2 seconds.
OOoh look at you, pasting one whole sub-section from a website. Unfortunately for you, this is the relevant section
[/quote]
Bzzzt. Sorry, you lose. That is not the relevant section. Had you done 30 seconds of research before you imagined you were dressing me down, you wouldn’t have ended up looking like a fucking idiot.
THIS is the section applicable to bicycles:
The part that I bolded tells you to read the section and look for special provisions. Oh, looky - here’s one:
It says in accordance with 3301(b). Gee, I wonder which section I quoted earlier? Hmm… oh yeah, it was 3301(b), wasn’t it? Because I ACTUALLY READ WHAT THE VEHICLE CODE HAS TO SAY ABOUT BICYCLES BEFORE I SHOT MY MOUTH OFF.
Maybe next time you’ll educate yourself before you go blathering on about that for which you have no clue.
If you had read the entire post, you would see that I did provide cites.
[/quote]
Oh, cute. YOU told me to “go get a copy” of the driver’s manual. That’s what I was responding to. That’s not a cite. The cites you did provide were on a different subject. Doesn’t surprise me you would resort to taking things out of context.
Well that’s a nice strawman. I already said I would choose the safer of 2 routes, given the choice. But it’s not YOUR call, as a motorist, to decide whether bikes “belong on that road”. It’s THEIR call. If YOU make it unsafe because you blow through blind curves too fast, or because you have some ill-conceived notion that they don’t belong on the road, it’s not the bicyclist’s fault.
[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]
And sometimes the cyclist has little choice about what roads to use.
[/QUOTE]
In which case it would be prudent for the cyclist to ensure not being mistaken for an obstacle.
I’m driving that road at a speed that coincides with the flow of traffic so that I don’t get hammered by a tri-axle stone cowboy from the back end and because, get this, the state driver’s manual actually says that’s what you’re supposed to do.
[/quote]
What state do you live in?
I’d like to find the state driver’s manual that tells you explicitly that you ought sometimes to drive so fast that you would not have time to react to obstacles in the road.
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
What is it you would like me to respond to?
[/QUOTE]
That’s a fairly disingenuous response, but considering my point is essentially a hijack, I’ll leave you to fight with people who have an interest in the actual subject matter of the thread. Besides, there’s someone parked in the “no standing zone” on the street outside that needs lynching.
I’d like to find the state driver’s manual that tells you explicitly that you ought sometimes to drive so fast that you would not have time to react to obstacles in the road.
I’ve never seen a stalled truck there in my life. I’ve seen a lot of mangled deer carcasses.
Except that what you quoted was amended by the 3364.
And even what you pasted says ‘unless it is unsafe to do so’. Going 3 mph in a 50 mph zone is unsafe whether you’re in a car, walking, on a bike, or riding a fucking tricycle.
As you can see, it says to drive with the flow of traffic and within the posted speed limit. Which means that for that road, 50 mph is perfectly reasonable.
Being rear-ended is a greater danger to me than coming up on some moron on a bicycle who thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to do 3 mph in a 50 mph zone.
[QUOTE=catsix]
Being rear-ended is a greater danger to me than coming up on some moron on a bicycle who thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to do 3 mph in a 50 mph zone.
[/QUOTE]
Your logic is frankly just warped.
You refer to cyclists as being “self-entitled asshole[s]” for wanting to exercise their legal right to use the roads, and further claim that they’re causing a risk to you by doing so, as some cars might be travelling too quickly to stop if you slow down.
Really, I think you’ve got things rather askew here.
I refer to them in the same manner as I would anyone, in any type of vehicle, who thought it was reasonable to go 3 mph in the travel lanes of that road - self-absorbed moron.
