GUILTY!

Not any more.

 

The thread had drifted to cyclists insisting they will NOT exercise such choice but prefer to make the driver "suffer".

I see this is symtomatic of this country and the way it has become. It's all about ME. Screw the consequence to others.

 Here I thought I was using a bicycle to move freight across town because I can do it faster and cheaper than a car can do it, plus I use less natural resources, contribute less to global warming, and contribute less to traffic. But, alas it turns out I was only causing the suffering of motorists. The drivers actually appreciate it, because it frees them up  for longer, better paying jobs. It's not easy to get around downtown (because of the bicyclists? or it it all the cars?) and finding parking is hard. 

I get honked at everyday, but I get smiles, thumbs ups and shouts of encouragement much more. Because of the trailer, I get noticed, but I have to assume the same goodwill is felt towards every rider who is each  "one less car". 

If you have legs good enough to ski on and you are using a car for trips of less than 15 miles, you are a lazy, selfish person. Don't forget to thank the widows and children of the Americans who died in Iraq fighting to keep your gasoline flowing and those who returned with legs blown off, etc.


Photo courtesy of Joel Gwadz. Gwadzilla.blogspot.com
Edited by telerod15 - 11/7/09 at 4:54am

 Who's car is this?

 I was going to for a ride today till I read this thread.

Not mine, but definately Australian by the koala, roos and cyclist count (The "P" indicates the driver holds a provisional licence, i.e. they have just got their licence). 

Without adding too much to the discusion, in a case of man bits dog, there was a major media discussion here last week after a cyclist biffed a bus driver for a high speed close pass on an otherwise empty T-way (bus only) at 5:30 am in the morning.  Drivers in Sydney are so inconsiderate, I'll pretty much only ride multi-lane roads very early on weekend mornings i.e. before the weekend bottle necks occur. And if riding mid-week in peak hour, I more than keep up with the traffic and assert my right to the full lane I'm riding in (other wise I'd end up another casualty).  I don't lane split (ride up the inside of traffice that just passed me) and I stop at and don't jump lights.  In other words, I following the road rules, which unfortunately is more than can be said for most cyclists I see here.

Last weekend I had a great road ride (along with 10,000 others) with the annual Sydney to Wollongong ride (which raises awarnes and donations for MS research).  A wonderful 95km (105km for me) ride from Sydney to Wollongong, including great stretches  through the Royal National Park (second in World after Yellowstone) and along the coast road.  I would love to do this ride every weekend, but unfortunately it is only safe to do once a year when they close the route for cyclists.

No.

The relevant section of UT law reads:

41-6a-1105 - State of Utah Operation of bicycle or moped on and use of roadway

(1) A person operating a bicycle or a moped on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway except when:      (a) overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction;      (b) preparing to make a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;      (c) traveling straight through an intersection that has a right-turn only lane that is in conflict with the straight through movement; or      (d) reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge of the roadway including:      (i) fixed or moving objects;      (ii) parked or moving vehicles;      (iii) bicycles;      (iv) pedestrians;      (v) animals;      (vi) surface hazards; or      (vii) a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. (2) A person operating a bicycle or moped on a highway shall operate in the designated direction of traffic. (3) (a) A person riding a bicycle or moped on a roadway may not ride more than two abreast with another person except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.      (b) If allowed under Subsection (3)(a), a person riding two abreast with another person may not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and shall ride within a single lane.

If, as is normally the case, a cyclist is travelling at far less than the speed of traffic, the plan language in UT, as elsewhere, is you are not legally entitled to take the whole lane.  The 3' bubble tromano references is also not absolute, again under the plain language of the relevant portion of the UT statute.  If you're not holding up traffic, yes you can ride two abreast.

Again, it should be up to the police, not drivers, to regulate.  But the reason for all these statutes saying you need to be on the right if you're otherwise going to hold up traffic is because among other things hogging the lane and backing up traffic as a matter of normal practice (not temporarily because there's, briefly, a safety issue that requires you to take the lane only for a bit) is a dick thing to do.

These laws are very easily "findable," btw.  The reason I quoted the whole text is it makes it harder for people to misstate what the law says when the plain language is right there. 

http://www.le.utah.gov/UtahCode/getCodeSection?code=41-6a-1105

I want one of these!


And +1 on sharing going in both directions.

CTKook

I think you missed 1(d)(vii) which states if the lane is too narrow to accommodate both a vehicle and a bike, you are entitled to take the lane.

It is important that both cyclists and drivers be respectful of one another.  It is not safe to ride against the right edge of the road -- there is no place to go if someone brushes you.  A cyclist also needs to allow for road debry as well.  While I don't condone taking the lane when it isn't necessary, there are times when it is and it increases the safety for both the cyclist and the driver.

What's particularly bad is when either cyclists or vehiclists get an attitude toward the other.  That's a recipe for disaster.

That being said, I have pounded on the window of a guy who tried to squeeze me off of a viaduct -- and the lane next to him was open!  Some people are just assholes.

Mike

Uhh...if I'd missed it, I probably wouldn't have quoted it 2 posts up.  If you have problems understanding how to read the statute -- it's pretty clear, but whatever --  feel free to pm me though and I'll help you out.

Whatever.  

Mike

The plain meaning of the statute is not what you claim.  Try reading it again, or try a reading comprehension course.

It says that you have to ride you bike on the right hand side of the lane except for when it's too narrow to do that safely. 
Most people would think that means when it's too narrow to stick to the right side, you ride your bicycle so that it takes up the whole lane.  Some people might think it means you ride in the ditch?

Lame.  The plain meaning of the statute is basically, ride on the right as far as possible when there's traffic travelling faster than you.  But, it's acknowledged there are a number of instances where doing so may not be reasonable.  It even uses the magic word "including" to show that the list of exceptions given is not exhaustive.  The language is quite clear.  An exception does not define what the general rule is, it's an exception.  Comprende?

So, if this thread were about the right of cyclists to take a whole lane on super-narrow roadways, yes the narrow lane exception would be quite relevant.  On most roads, most of the time, it's not relevant.  And this thread has not been focused on narrow lanes.  Your basic one lane each way state road, for instance, is perfectly safe for the cyclist to ride on the right and be passed.

The basic principle is that cyclists are entitled to use the roads but are not a privileged class and are not entitled to needlessly inconvenience others.  For those who want to be a privileged class, that may be upsetting -- certainly it is counter to what people were arguing should be the norm -- but the law is quite clear.

Crystal.

     41-6a-706.5.   Operation of motor vehicle near bicycle prohibited.
     An operator of a motor vehicle may not knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly operate a motor vehicle within three feet of a moving bicycle, unless the operator of the motor vehicle operates the motor vehicle within a reasonable and safe distance of the bicycle.

Enacted by Chapter 216, 2005 General Session

And here's the 3' bubble -- which ain't exactly a bubble, more an injunction not to buzz the cyclist.  Note the use of the word "unless."  Cars can pass closer than 3', they just need to be safe doing so.

Purty clear again.

One practical point on some of the socioeconomic backdrop here:  this is often less of an issue for good bike riders, who can control their bike and so don't mind being passed closely by cars so much, and who also ride enough to understand the need to get along with cars.  Many yuppies don't have good bike handling skills, so being close to cars is actually more dangerous for them, and they also seem more prone to have trouble with the play-nicely-with-others part, particularly when riding in groups.    Thus some of the socioeconomic friction.

CO also has much the same provisions in its statute.  Because of people riding like dicks, CO also has an active effort to allow counties to ban cycling on county roads. 

Sticking it to the car-driving-man sounds cool on the web, but aside from irritated drivers going off on you, in the real world the political backlash is also worth considering. 

I have NO agenda with bicycles however,last Summer in Colo. Hwy 13/789 Meeker,CO I came around a blind corner with no shoulder,under the speed limit in a low-boy loaded and legal just as another truck did. There was a bicycle rider in the road in the other lane! Got sketchy real fast. Bike rider was sucking tire smoke. It was a bike race on a crooked,narrow road w/ heavy truck traffic. No signs,pilot cars,nothing. Now that's using the noggen. Like I said before. Right or wrong you'll stll dead. What ever happen to common sense?

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/70126797.html

The above link is to a article in the Phila. Inquirer this past Sunday. It describes 3 recent incidents, an injury and two deaths where the hit person was a pedestrian and the hitter was a cyclist. In one fatality, the cyclist was going against traffic, and, still not charged. In the other fatality, the cyclist hit and ran. Someday, I'd like to see GUILTY applied to both people.

I'm just curious about something. Would you, or do you, tell another cyclist along the road that he/she is riding in an irresponsible manner?

If you drive a car or a bike, be responsible. Our only protection is an uncommon amount of common sense.

Quote:
Yeah, my old friends from Philly mentioned the above incident to me. Though I think the cyclists should be charged, I think some lawmakers' responses (they proposed requiring cyclists buy license plates...) are taking it a bit far.

I would, and do, tell other cyclists if they're being irresponsible. We're really lucky in NYC to have so many new bike lanes, and despite a couple setbacks (like a bike shelter near my apartment being taken down), the bike infrastructure in New York is really expanding in phenomenal ways.

I'm a firm believer that in order for cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians to share the streets, everyone needs to follow the rules. So when I see drivers idling on the street (which is now illegal in NYC if you idle for over 3 minutes...1 minute if you're near a school), I'll tap on the window and let them know of the new law. If I'm riding in a lane and a messenger or delivery guy is riding against traffic, I'll ask him to please move to a lane that's moving in the proper direction. And yes, I am also guilty of yelling at pedestrians who have wandered into the bike lane.

All forms of transportation have a right to use the roads built with our taxes in a safe, efficient manner. To me that means cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers alike need to be aware that each has the right to use the road and not be in a heightened state of fear of other road users threatening their lives with unsafe practices.