Cyclists who also drive cars are paying gasoline taxes as well.
Well, while I might bitch about what runners wear, I fear that there are far too many cyclists who are at the very least equal to runners in their gaudy finery.
Hell, looking at my Colorado Cyclist catalog demonstrates to me how many unfortunate clothing options exist for cyclists. Although, there’s a Red Square Vodka jersey that I think I could make look good.
Well, here’s a first hand account. . .I was hit in the neck by a guy who spit his gum at me. I was waiting for a light to change sitting in a left-turn only lane and the guy went driving by in the center lane. I also had 2 teens in a trans-am, travelling 2 lanes away in the opposite direction throw something across the road at me.
No, it doesn’t. As a matter of fact, what it says is much kinder to cyclists than that. It says this.
In other words, if us cyclists haven’t been provided a safe place to travel we can block the lane all we please.
If that annoys you as a driver, then YOU lobby for bike lanes. I’m within my rights.
Cycling clothing design, while practical, has the most hideous graphics of anything anywhere. The only thing that rivals it in terrible design is decals for teenager’s riced-up cars, and I’d still say cycling clothers are worse.
Shame that it REALLY is so useful to have good materials, zippers and pockets in a cycling shirt. You can find plain shirts if you look, though. It’s just that no one wears them.
Basic traffic rules. One vehicle, one slot in a lane. Lanes aren’t shared except in the case of vehicles with very small footprints like two bicycles or two motorcycles where they can ride abreast. A vehicle with a large footprint, like a car, and a small footprint, like a bicycle, can not safely share a lane a large part of the time. Want to pass a bicyclist? Wait until the lane on the left opens up. I’ve nearly been run down by vehicles trying to “share the lane” with me more times than I can count(and actually run down once) you betcha I “take the lane” whenever and wherever I feel the shoulder or drainage allotment is not large enough to isolate me safely from traffic(that’s a hell of a lot of places in a bike-unfriendly town like Dallas). I usually take it by riding in the center-left side of the lane about where I would be if I were driving my car. I’m not going back to the ER strapped to a back board any time soon thanks very much. If someone misconstrues this as vigilante justice against red-light rabbit-starters that’s their problem.
Enjoy,
Steven
And you, sir, would be oh so right.
Au contraire, mahn frare. I own a couple of plain cycling shirts and wear them. Of course, I also own a helluva lotta t-shirts that I usually wear. Nothing against cycling duds, but I ride my bike to places like the grocery store, and the movie theatre. And there’s nothing quite so uncomfortable as sitting and watching something that runs for 2+ hours while wearing cycling shorts and shirt.
Actually, I do too, but we’re not in the majority.
If you’ve ever done a big group ride, like an organized century, it’s real funny to see so many people walking around on their heels, in plasticky shoes, barf-ugly shorts, skin-tight shorts, big sunglasses, and helmets.
You’d think the martians had landed.
First of all, you shouldn’t “take the lane”. You are required to stay as far right as possible, with an exemption for your own safety. That means if there are hazards, you can stay clear of them. You still need to stay as far right as you can, though. This “taking the lane” thing isn’t referred to in the law at all. There is no such thing. The law only identifies situations where it would be unfair to cite you for not riding next to the shoulder; it’s not telling you get to be the alpha dog of the road.
As for going as fast as the cars - obviously, if no cars want to pass you, then this shouldn’t even enter the discussion. If there are no cars around, then the whole discussion is moot.
WTF? If a car is trying to pass you, then you are by definition going slower. Just because you use the words “gun it” doesn’t change the fact that you are, in that case, “moving slower”, as referenced in the statute. And while blocking the car and preventing it from going faster may technically mean that you are going the same speed, that doesn’t count and you know it.
What do you mean? I pass slow cars all the time.
But there is no part of the statute that allows you to do that to prevent cars from “gunning it to the next light” as you call it. It is not yours to decide whether you think other people are speeding. The police enforce the speed laws, not you.
My main bone of contention is not when the lane is too small, but when you claim you “take the lane” to prevent cars from “gunning it to the next light.” That’s the wrong thing to do. That’s the kind of shit that causes trouble.
You obviously don’t understand the vehicle code. Either that, or you live in a state with some really bizarre laws. Slow-moving vehicles staying to the right and being passed is an entirely different legal issue from “sharing a lane”. You really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Well then they broke the law. It doesn’t mean the rules are wrong; it means they broke the rules. It doesn’t mean we all get to be vigilantes.
And that’s exactly the problem - too much attitude on both sides of the equation. We have you biking vigilantes who want to enforce your view of what is and isn’t safe on everyone else on the one side, and we have the stubborn motorists like the OP on the other side, who stupidly believe that bikes don’t even belong on the road.
Geez, why does everyone have to take extreme sides like that? When I’m driving a car, I watch out for bikes and try to give them a wide berth. And when I’m riding my bike, I try to stay to the right and allow cars to pass me. I don’t ride around with a chip on my shoulder.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if you and Miskatonic are exactly the kind of bikers the OP is complaining about.
Blowero, with all the shit you’ve flung in the U-turn thread, do you really have to wonder about why people take extreme sides 
The law on a bike, through statutes and court cases, dictates riding to the right as far as is practicable and safe. If that means I have to take the lane because the right-hand third is a goddamn unsafe mess of potholes and gravel, and I know that you in the car behind me is going to try and pass me even when there’s no fucking room unless you force me off the road, I’m taking the lane, and while it may suck to be behind me, such is life. That’s what driving’s all about.
However I will go as far to the right-hand side as I determine safe as soon as I can
If you don’t think that’s what the spirit of the law entails, that’s why we have judges. Sometimes the laws passed have (possibly) unintended consequences.
Don’t like it? Lobby your politicians and tell them to pass legislation in real fucking
Engish for a change.
On the other hand, cyclists who fail to use lights, reflectors, and drive the wrong way on the road should be killed because they give the rest of us a bad reputation.
Since when is looking out for ones own safety within the confines of the law being a vigilantee? It is perfectly simple, the law says I can ride in the center of the lane, or left center, when it would not be safe to ride on the far right. The determination of what is safe and what is not is left up to the bicyclist. They are the operator of the vehicle and in the situation. In older neighborhoods where the streets are narrower, or anywhere where there are narrow streets and no bike lane(wanna guess the number of bike lanes in Dallas?), the safe thing to do is ride in the lane. That’s all there is to it. No chips on shoulders required to look out for your own safety.
As for being the type of cyclist the OP is complaining about, well at least some of the OP’s complaints were about behavior which is legal, safe, and entirely proper. If this is the kind of cyclist he’s pissed off about then put me in that category. For instance
Firstly, the bicycle is a street legal vehicle with as much right to the road as the car. This “my lane” stuff just doesn’t fly. I will “twitch and swerve”, after checking my surroundings and the other traffic, into MY lane any time the far right is unsafe(gravel, potholes, too damn narrow). Texas law explicitly grants the right for bicyclists to ride two abreast, and it is safer to do so from the bicyclists point of view as well. So if he’s pissed at me for operating a street legal vehicle in a legal, safe, and responsible manner then he can just be pissed at me.
Enjoy,
Steven
Every legal discussion I’ve heard about this refers to the cyclist as being ‘to the right’ or ‘taking the lane’. There is no limbo inbetween here. I take the lane becauase it is unsafe to share it with a car. The law states clearly that this is becuase the lane is too narrow to share, I am allowed to move out to prevent someone from trying to make me share the lane. Your interpetation is Bullshit.
Trouble is, when drivers see a bike in front of them, they assume they are being slowed down by the bike, even if it is moving at the same rate os speed. If there was a car in front of them they would deal with it. Heck if the road ahead of them was clear , they’d go at a normal pace. But put a bike in front of them and they assume they’re being slowed down and want to try and pass the cyclist, even when there is no reason to do so.
If I am going at the same rate as the cars in the lanes next to me I am going just fine thank you. Refer to the mentality I described above. If the car wants to pass me he can use the other lanes.
Except I am not. The driver is more often than not trying to ‘pass’ without cause or need. Ever seen those guys who weave in an out of lanes moderate traffic. They risk themselves and others to gain exactly one car length. Same mentality at work here.
He can pass me like he would pass another car then. Trouble is, the lanes next to him have cars that are going the same speed as me.
If a car in front of you is going the same speed as the cars in the lanes next to them in urban traffic, do you feel you have the right and need to pass them? Do you try to move up and squeeze the other car out of the lane? Or are you rational and assume that you’ll not really gain anything by doing so?
I don’t enforce them. I simply ensure that their (presumably temporary) irrational nature doesn’t lead them to try forcing their way around me.
Put it another way: Assume you are the driver of the front car in my above example. You are driving at a normal speed and matching the speed of the cars next to you. Are you acting as a vigilante because the guy behind you is not allowed to race ahead?
If your answer is no, then why am I considered to be in the wrong?
Perhaps my use of the word “prevent” was ill-chosen, I do not ride this way to slow people down. But if someone thinks they have some right to pass (through) me simply because I am on a bike, they are in the wrong.
I did not take an extreme position in that thread. Making a U-Turn is not extreme. It is a common, everyday occurence. I always exercise caution in any driving situation. But people who think they ever have the right of way on a red light are just fucking nuts. And this is the Pit, so I’m gonna call 'em on it. Don’t like it? Tough shit.
Yeah, but did you read what I wrote? I was mainly objecting to Miskatonic’s assertion that he hogs the lane to keep cars from “gunning it to the next light”. I believe what you are referring to is a road that is too narrow to allow a car to pass, which is not the same thing.
Good for you.
Well we obviously disagree as to the intent of the law, but as I said, I’m not really pursuing that aspect. It’s Miskatonic’s statement I disagree with.
Ha ha. In California, we DO have real legislation. You guys are operating off some goofy Texas law. That’s part of why I don’t live in Texas.
Personally, though - I think you guys are asking for trouble. If there really are that many dangerous drivers on the road, and you go out of your way to deliberately block them from passing you, you will undoubtedly create a situation where they will become angry, and end up doing something even more dangerous.
I think by now I have made it clear that I do not take the lane for the sake of slowing other drivers down. In the context of the OP’s comments (“my lane”) he did not consider the size of the lane. He merely considers cyclists to be in the way, and that they should meekly move aside or take some other action to allow him to do as he pleases. I do not feel that this is true, and the uniform vehicle code pretty much supports me.
You have tried to seperate out the issue of the lane being too small to share. Fine for you, but not what I was commenting on.
California Vehicle Code Chapter 1 Article 4
Looks pretty darn similar to me. Subsection 21656 says that if you’re taking up the lane because of poor conditions near the right-hand side then you should get off the road at the next opportunity and let people pass if there are five or more vehicles stacked up behind you. Aside from that California also grants the full rights and duties of any other vehicle to bicyclists on roadways.
Enjoy,
Steven
Legal discussion, or discussion you had on some sort of bicycle forum? I’m guessing the latter.
I’m not disputing the situation where the lane is too narrow. I’m disputing the situation where you assert that you are not “slower traffic” when you prevent a car from passing you. Don’t conflate the two situations.
Yours is not to determine their motivation for wanting to pass you, as if you could read their mind anyway. If they weren’t travelling faster than you, they would never catch up to you, and the situation would never occur.
If the lane is less than 14 inches, or too narrow for a car and bike to fit side by side, then I guess you’re o.k., but keeping the car from “gunning it to the next light” is not a proper justification.
Non sequitur. Whether the driver “needs” to pass, or whether he changes lanes more than you prefer has no bearing on whether you are moving slower relative to him. The law does not ask you to evaluate his state of mind.
Actually, if I’m one of those people who deliberately matches the speed of the car in the next lane to keep people from passing, then yes.
Maybe you just didn’t explain yourself right. If, as you have now said, there are 2 lanes in your direction, and the lane you are in is too narrow for a car to pass you, and the other lane is available for him to pass you, then I’ve got no problem with that. If that’s the only time you’re doing it, that doesn’t bother me. It didn’t sound like that was what you were saying before.
Heh. Another traffic-related thread in which blowero is arguing with his head in the sand.
Actually, there’s a pretty major difference. The California statute says, “When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions…”, the obvious meaning being that you must stay to the right unless you are unable to. It leaves a lot less room for interpreting it as, “Aha! The law says I don’t have to be to the right, so I’m taking the whole lane.” You can only move away from the curb if it’s “reasonably necessary”.
My pet hate with cyclists is that when I am on a busy road with lots of traffic lights, and some bozo on a bicycle decides he is going to ignore the red lights, I end up having to overtake the same bicycle multiple times.
Other than that, I don’t really want to take sides in this thread as I have been on both sides of this equation.
Heh. Another thread where Lute Skywatcher acts like a little bitch.