ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-23-2014, 04:12 PM   #4816
IdahoRenegade
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Sagle, Idaho
Oddometer: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdmichael View Post
Do so around here, you'll be reported to the police without hesitation. Or... do you think that a larger vehicle passing closely is a good idea? I'm willing to bet there would be plenty of motorists that think the same thing and would gladly do so to you on your motorcycle. Kinda obvious you don't work and play well with others. Threatening someone with a deadly weapon (motorcycle) isn't tolerated and highly illegal.
Here, state law is pretty clear. If you are holding up 3 or more vehicles you are requried to pull over and allow them to pass as soon as you can do so. Doesn't matter if you're in a truck pulling a trailer, in a car or on a bicycle. Only thing is, too many cyclists have turned into arrogant azzhats over the years. I used to ride a lot. On a two lane road with enough traffic that cars couldn't pass safely, we pull over, either onto the shoulder, in a driveway or on the grass. Our riding our toys wasn't reason enough to inconvenience everyone else on the road. A lot of cyclists dont' share that attitude any more. Some still do, but the percent of azzhats seems to be increasing every year. Common courtesey is all it is. Want to ride a slow-moving toy on a public road? Fine, do so. But have some consdieration for other people and share the road.
IdahoRenegade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2014, 04:47 PM   #4817
filmfan
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: live free or die
Oddometer: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoRenegade View Post
Here, state law is pretty clear. If you are holding up 3 or more vehicles you are requried to pull over and allow them to pass as soon as you can do so. Doesn't matter if you're in a truck pulling a trailer, in a car or on a bicycle. Only thing is, too many cyclists have turned into arrogant azzhats over the years. I used to ride a lot. On a two lane road with enough traffic that cars couldn't pass safely, we pull over, either onto the shoulder, in a driveway or on the grass. Our riding our toys wasn't reason enough to inconvenience everyone else on the road. A lot of cyclists dont' share that attitude any more. Some still do, but the percent of azzhats seems to be increasing every year. Common courtesey is all it is. Want to ride a slow-moving toy on a public road? Fine, do so. But have some consdieration for other people and share the road.
What does holding up other traffic, or not, have to do with intentional unsafe passes?
Where you live the limit is apparently 3 vehicles, in many places it's 5, not sure what it is here, but I've never impeded even single cars for more than a few seconds and I've rarely seen other cyclists impede a group of cars even on heavily traveled roads. OTH I have been forced off the road by a truck passing in a blind corner and nearly taking me out with his trailer.
filmfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2014, 05:14 PM   #4818
sdmichael
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, CA
Oddometer: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoRenegade View Post
Here, state law is pretty clear. If you are holding up 3 or more vehicles you are requried to pull over and allow them to pass as soon as you can do so. Doesn't matter if you're in a truck pulling a trailer, in a car or on a bicycle. Only thing is, too many cyclists have turned into arrogant azzhats over the years. I used to ride a lot. On a two lane road with enough traffic that cars couldn't pass safely, we pull over, either onto the shoulder, in a driveway or on the grass. Our riding our toys wasn't reason enough to inconvenience everyone else on the road. A lot of cyclists dont' share that attitude any more. Some still do, but the percent of azzhats seems to be increasing every year. Common courtesey is all it is. Want to ride a slow-moving toy on a public road? Fine, do so. But have some consdieration for other people and share the road.
A toy? Funny, I don't own a car. I haven't since 2011. I have two motorcycles and a bicycle. Prior to the motorcycles, I just had the bicycle. I don't consider my transportation a "toy", neither do I consider the motorcycles to be such. Riding to/from work isn't a "sport" nor is it on a "toy". Additionally, how tough it is to pass a cyclist? This question has been gone over many times and some still can't seem to figure how to do it.

This "toy" concept could also be applied to countless motorcycles. To some, they are a "toy". How about RV's? Sports cars? Bicycles are vehicles, not "toys".
__________________
Exploring California by motorcycle and bicycle, one road at time.
socalregion.com
sdmichael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2014, 06:59 PM   #4819
Mike Vaughan
Jagermeister
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Irvine, CA
Oddometer: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdmichael View Post
Bicycles are vehicles, not "toys".
My vehicle carries a 12 pack on ice with drink holders and another passenger pedaling too. It's very serious business.
Mike Vaughan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2014, 07:33 PM   #4820
sdmichael
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, CA
Oddometer: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Vaughan View Post
My vehicle carries a 12 pack on ice with drink holders and another passenger pedaling too. It's very serious business.
And who's to say that the choice of bicycle (or even motorcycle) as transport (not as a toy) can't be fun! I enjoy riding either one.
__________________
Exploring California by motorcycle and bicycle, one road at time.
socalregion.com
sdmichael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2014, 08:23 PM   #4821
Gummee!
That's MR. Toothless
 
Gummee!'s Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: NoVA for now...
Oddometer: 28,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoRenegade View Post
Here, state law is pretty clear. If you are holding up 3 or more vehicles you are requried to pull over and allow them to pass as soon as you can do so. Doesn't matter if you're in a truck pulling a trailer, in a car or on a bicycle. Only thing is, too many cyclists have turned into arrogant azzhats over the years. I used to ride a lot. On a two lane road with enough traffic that cars couldn't pass safely, we pull over, either onto the shoulder, in a driveway or on the grass. Our riding our toys wasn't reason enough to inconvenience everyone else on the road. A lot of cyclists dont' share that attitude any more. Some still do, but the percent of azzhats seems to be increasing every year. Common courtesey is all it is. Want to ride a slow-moving toy on a public road? Fine, do so. But have some consdieration for other people and share the road.
You need to go do some more digging into your laws. There's parts of the law that applies to bicycles, and parts that don't.

I'd be willing to bet that the 'holding up traffic' part doesn't apply. Its been decided in other courts that that part doesn't apply to farm equipment, bicycles, etc

M
__________________
I'm a cyclist that rides motos, not a moto rider that rides bicycles.
Gummee! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2014, 08:47 PM   #4822
LittleRedToyota
Yinzer
 
LittleRedToyota's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Oddometer: 2,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gummee! View Post
You need to go do some more digging into your laws.

...

I'd be willing to bet that the 'holding up traffic' part doesn't apply.
no, he doesn't.

you, however, should do so if you are going to imply he is wrong and make claims about what laws say or do not say.

you would lose the bet.

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/ids...SECT49-639.htm

Idaho Statutes; Title 49: Motor Vehicles

"49-639. Turning out of slow moving vehicles. On a two-lane highway outside an urban area where passing is unsafe due to oncoming traffic or other conditions, the driver of a vehicle traveling slower than the normal speed of traffic and behind which three (3) or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the following vehicles to pass."

and it does apply to bicycles:

"49-714. Traffic laws apply to persons on bicycles and other human-powered vehicles -- Due care.

(1) Every person operating a vehicle propelled by human power or riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under the provisions of chapters 6 and 8 of this title, except as otherwise provided in this chapter and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application.

(2) Every operator or rider of a bicycle or human-powered vehicle shall exercise due care."

Note that section 49-639 does NOT exempt bicycles. therefore, section 49-714 means section 49-639 does apply to bicycles.

Quote:
Its been decided in other courts that that part doesn't apply to farm equipment, bicycles, etc
unless it's an idaho court that is high enough up to set precedence, it doesn't matter. so, if you are going to continue claiming the idaho law does not apply to bicycles, let's see such a case.
__________________
2009 KTM 450 xc-w (plated)
2009 DRZ400s
LittleRedToyota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2014, 09:16 PM   #4823
sdmichael
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, CA
Oddometer: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota View Post
no, he doesn't.

you, however, should do so if you are going to imply he is wrong and make claims about what laws say or do not say.

you would lose the bet.

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/ids...SECT49-639.htm

Idaho Statutes; Title 49: Motor Vehicles

"49-639. Turning out of slow moving vehicles. On a two-lane highway outside an urban area where passing is unsafe due to oncoming traffic or other conditions, the driver of a vehicle traveling slower than the normal speed of traffic and behind which three (3) or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the following vehicles to pass."

and it does apply to bicycles:

"49-714. Traffic laws apply to persons on bicycles and other human-powered vehicles -- Due care.

(1) Every person operating a vehicle propelled by human power or riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under the provisions of chapters 6 and 8 of this title, except as otherwise provided in this chapter and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application.

(2) Every operator or rider of a bicycle or human-powered vehicle shall exercise due care."

Note that section 49-639 does NOT exempt bicycles. therefore, section 49-714 means section 49-639 does apply to bicycles.

unless it's an idaho court that is high enough up to set precedence, it doesn't matter. so, if you are going to continue claiming the idaho law does not apply to bicycles, let's see such a case.
Ok... however, you are in Pennsylvania and I am in California. Idaho law does not apply to either state. I'm only concerned with California law unless I am travelling elsewhere. The "slow vehicle" statutes do not apply in California to cyclists, mostly due to the ease to which you can pass a cyclist. Idaho also has a law that allows cyclists to treat stop signs as "yield" signs and signals as "stop" signs. Those don't apply outside of Idaho either.
__________________
Exploring California by motorcycle and bicycle, one road at time.
socalregion.com
sdmichael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2014, 11:45 PM   #4824
aalexander
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Anchorage
Oddometer: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdmichael View Post
Ok... however, you are in Pennsylvania and I am in California. Idaho law does not apply to either state.
Ummm, you told IdahoRenagade that he needed to

Quote:
....go do some more digging into your laws.
in response to his statement that
Quote:
Here, state law is pretty clear.
Now, I realize that it's an assumption, but I'm guessing that when a guy who posts under the screenname "IdahoRenegade" and lists his location as "Sagle, Idaho" says "Here, state law is pretty clear. " , the state law he's referring to is Idaho State law.
aalexander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2014, 11:58 PM   #4825
sdmichael
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, CA
Oddometer: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by aalexander View Post
Ummm, you told IdahoRenagade that he needed to

in response to his statement that Now, I realize that it's an assumption, but I'm guessing that when a guy who posts under the screenname "IdahoRenegade" and lists his location as "Sagle, Idaho" says "Here, state law is pretty clear. " , the state law he's referring to is Idaho State law.
No, I didn't tell IdahoRenegade to go digging, nor anything about state law being clear. Try reading posts better next time. Either way, stating that "law is clear" isn't quite accurate considering the differences between states. Some states have a "mandatory side path" law, California doesn't have that. I am in California and only care about how California laws apply to my riding in California. You know, the only state you can legally "split lanes" on your motorcycle in.
__________________
Exploring California by motorcycle and bicycle, one road at time.
socalregion.com
sdmichael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 12:30 AM   #4826
aalexander
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Anchorage
Oddometer: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgconner View Post
John Forrester, Effective Cycling.

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles...ansQuart01.htm

1/6 of accidents are car-bike, 7% of those are car overtaking cyclist, which is really like 1.16%, but did it in my head and rounded up.

"Because the general accident argument does not support the bikeway argument, bikeway advocates have started to rely on the fatal accident argument with modern statistics. (Geary 2000) With the decline of child cycling in the U. S., child casualties are a smaller proportion of the total. Fatal accidents are only about 0.2% of accidents to cyclists, and only about 1% of car-bike collisions involving injury or death." - from above link.
Well, a couple of observations about that article.

First, it's pretty obvious from reading that article and scanning a couple of other by the same author that he's a pretty passionate crusader *against* bikeways, and for bikes in the roads as part of traffic. As such he has an agenda, and may be spinning the statistics to support his passion.

Probably more importantly, his statistics are not presented in a coherent, understandable manner.

One example of this is that in his table 1, which he describes as representing "....... (t) he general causes of accidents to cyclists."

the first category (All) is listed as being 1/2 the proportion of bicycle accidents, which is obviously a logical impossibility. In absence of clarification of what that table really represents, I'd not place much weight on conclusions drawn from it.

The other thing is, he bandies about numbers pretty loosely, but often he's pretty vague about where they come from (except when it suits him) When he's talking about total accidents, it's not clear what type of accidents he's referring to, and it seems that his numbers probably encompass accidents with very minor injuries .

Personally, I don't worry too much about minor scrapes, abrasions, or even a trip to the doc-in-the-box for a couple of stitches. What I consider "danger" is getting broken bones, crippled, paralyzed or killed.

So, I would consider that a study which meaningfully assesed the dangers to cyclists would be a study of accidents that generally fit this approximate description:

"Accidents involving cyclists over the age of 15 which resulted in death or injuries requiring overnight hospitalization," or something of a similar nature.

I don't see anything of that nature in the article you linked, but I'd be willing to wager that if such a study were available and presented in a coherent manner, you'd find that cars were much more of a danger than this article lets on.


If there's any doubt about the author's impartiality , (or even rationality) one only has to read the section entitled: "Empirical Evidence, actual sidepath test" where, in an attempt to prove his point (bicycle paths are bad, bicycists are safer riding in road traffic) he rides down a bike lane alongside a busy road like a complete lunatic (reading between the lines here) riding in and out into oncoming automobile traffic, and from that one singe "test" concludes that "
...the risk rate was at least 1,000 times greater on the sidepath than on the roadway".










aalexander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 12:39 AM   #4827
aalexander
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Anchorage
Oddometer: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdmichael View Post
No, I didn't tell IdahoRenegade to go digging, nor anything about state law being clear.

Oops, sorry, I got posters mixed up, it was "gummee" who told IdahoRenegdae he needed to do more digging.
aalexander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 05:17 AM   #4828
Rgconner
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Oddometer: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by aalexander View Post
Well, a couple of observations about that article.

First, it's pretty obvious from reading that article and scanning a couple of other by the same author that he's a pretty passionate crusader *against* bikeways, and for bikes in the roads as part of traffic. As such he has an agenda, and may be spinning the statistics to support his passion.

Probably more importantly, his statistics are not presented in a coherent, understandable manner.

One example of this is that in his table 1, which he describes as represe[SIZE=2]nting "....... (t) he general causes of accidents to cyclists."

the first category (All) is listed as being 1/2 the proportion of bicycle accidents, which is obviously a logical impossibility. In absence of clarification of what that table really represents, I'd not place much weight on conclusions drawn from it.
The category "all", not (All), is a typo, it is Fall. Just like Motorcyclists, many accidents are caused by the mishandling of the bike independent of other vehicles.

Yes, he is anti bike path, because in general they are more dangerous than roadways. In many cities where they do build them, cyclists are then required to use them by law.

Sacramento's own bike trail (originally built and maintained by the local bike clubs and then seized under Emanate Domain) is invaded by equestrians, runners, walkers, and skaters.

They do not respect the bikes and it is more dangerous to ride the trail during peak non-cyclist hours than the roads. I spent 10 years commuting and pleasure riding on it.

Davis has them, they are poorly maintained and abused by foot traffic just like Sacramento's bike trail.

You will note that he was proven absolutely correct in what you call an irrational test:

For whatever reasons, Palo Alto then repealed their mandatory sidepath law. In 1994, Wachtel, Lewiston and Likens showed that even at low cycling speeds the bikeways that I had tested in 1975 produced a car-bike collision rate 1.8 times that for the adjacent roadways.
__________________
Undersecretary of the Ministry of Silly Posts.

Rgconner screwed with this post 07-24-2014 at 05:22 AM
Rgconner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 05:55 AM   #4829
manfromthestix
Lost in Space
 
manfromthestix's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Oddometer: 2,181
I guess I'm extremely lucky to live in an area with fabulous cycling roads and very little traffic. I work from home most days and try to take a nice ride over my lunch break when time and weather allow and I average about 50 to 75 miles a week doing that. When I have time on my days off or weekends I'll head out for longer rides, maybe up onto the Blue Ridge Parkway (a glorious if quite hilly ride!) or a nice 50 mile loop around the area. Leaving from my driveway Tuesday I rode a little 25 mile hill route and in that time/distance saw five (5.0) other vehicles, most of whom were being courteous and respectful of my right to be on the road. To be sure we have idiot rednecks in trucks (a kid "rolled coal" on me a couple days ago - I know where he lives and he'll be getting a visit from me soon ), deaf-dumb-blind people driving with no concept of other traffic, logging trucks, farm equipment, dogs and other critters, crappy roads, no shoulders, and all the other hazards to watch out for on the roads around here, but generally I feel pretty safe. Even though it's very rural and typically low traffic I do take precautions like bright colorful riding clothes, flashing lights, proper roadie manners, high level of situational awareness, etc.

I love cycling and have been doing it since I was a little kid, but when I read some of the stories on this thread I have to wonder if I would even bother to try to ride my bike in some of the places you guys and gals ride. It sounds like combat and the odds are not with the person on a bicycle.

Be safe!

Doug
__________________
"If it doesn't blow smoke and make noise, it isn't a sport!" - radio ad for shop in Bozeman, MT
manfromthestix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 08:42 AM   #4830
LittleRedToyota
Yinzer
 
LittleRedToyota's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Oddometer: 2,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdmichael View Post
Either way, stating that "law is clear" isn't quite accurate
IdahoRenegade said "Here [Idaho], state law is pretty clear".

that is 100% accurate.

gummee tried to call IdahoRenegade out for being wrong, but really it was gummee who was wrong.

(neither CA law nor PA law nor any state's laws other than idaho factor into gummee incorrectly trying to correct IdahoRenegade.)
__________________
2009 KTM 450 xc-w (plated)
2009 DRZ400s
LittleRedToyota is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 02:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014