The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
David Suro said:Good. I hope the story gets international media attention.
I hope the cyclists involved have recovered from their injuries.
his response was "**** yourself, you don't pay road taxes!" I explained I had ridden on this road for 30 years, owned several vehicles, owned a company that paid sales tax on million$ in revenue. He still thought that wasn't enough until his wife (bless her) told him he was wrong in front of his kids. Hopefully they won't be my next assailant.
This is a great triumph for the jury system. The prosecutors also deserve high praise for a job obviously very well done.gttim! said:
Why? Why are the exceptions shortened? Please answer this question. Why does everyone just skim the exceptions, as if they're not important? Please tell me. I'm really anxious to know. Not to put you on the spot, but if you can explain why you essentially dismissed their importance, maybe I'll understand why so many others seem to do that too. So, please answer this question.Psalmon said:Here's an excerpt from the CA code:
Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway...except when passing, turning left, avoiding obstructions. - Note: exceptions shortened
Not necessarily, and I'll go so far as to say probably not. Again, more on this later.Psalmon said:If you're riding three abreast, maybe abreast but not yielding to passing cars, riding through stops, not making clear hand signals, etc. you're in the wrong.
I agree with you in general here. Practically speaking, road rage normally takes some time to escalate, and either party can usually do something to prevent it from getting to the physical stage well before it's too late.Psalmon said:Further, if you're doing these things and reacting to complaints by flipping off drivers, yelling, squirting water...I've seen it all...you affect the tolerance for all bikes on the road. You endanger other riders indirectly.
I'm not saying you have to be polite while some guy tries to run you over, or that these riders did any of this or anything antagonistic.
I've been hit by cars twice. I was forced off the road recently 2 miles from my house while doing the speed limit. Someone in a passing car threw a bottle of water at me last year. So, I've had my share.
I am saying we all should do what we can to be considerate and think about how your actions may affect everybody (driving or riding). It is a two-way street most of the time.
The first one is not really an exception, but is part of the main law. So, as long as you're moving at the "normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time", then you have no obligation to ride "as close as practicable to the right".21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
Can anyone say "clockwise rotating paceline" in which you're constantly either keeping right, or in a state of "passing another bicycle". Either way, you're in compliance.(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
No-brainer. 'Nuff said.(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
Here is the biggy, in particular the bolded part. The law does not specify the actual width the lane has to be to allow for travel safely side by side, presumably because that depends on circumstances. But in general traffic cycling experts agree that a lane has to be at least 14 feet wide to be safe for within-lane passing, othewise it is "too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.". See the article on the topic of the wide outside lane, and read the references too if you're skeptical. One rule of thumb is that a lane wide enough for safe passing is wide enough for a 4-5' wide bike lane to be painted on the edge of it. That is, if it's not wide enough to be divided into a traffic lane and a bike lane, then it's not wide enough for safe side-by-side travel.(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
This one is a biggy too. On pretty much any residential street driveways are 25-100 feet apart, right? And rights turns into driveways are authorized, right? That means that when you're riding on such a street, you are constantly "approaching a place where a right turn is authorized". Similar situation on any urban or suburban street with frequent alleys and commercial driveway entrances, etc. So, anytime you're not on such a road, you're not required to keep right.(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
ggusta said:No photos on Velonews that I can find. Are thy doing this to protect him from retribution?
Ninety5rpm said:Too many people in general believe bicyclists belong at the curb, but at least bicyclists need to stop thinking (and riding!) this way.
Ninety5,
I abbreviated the exceptions only for brevity, not to diminish their importance. My focus was that I think often cyclists view this issue as persecution, while they can also be at fault, an attitude which unnecessarily aggravates the situation, something I think will get more people hurt, even if they have right of way.
ladyvader said:Good, I am glad the jury found him guilty. He needs to sit for 10 year the max, but I bet he only gets five.
Psalmon said:I believe that this driver's actions were inexcusable, and the judge should make sure the punishment fits the crime and serves as an example. I also hope everybody learns from it.
However, before everybody cheers hang 'em high, cyclists should consider how they conduct themselves as well. Here's an excerpt from the CA code:
Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway...except when passing, turning left, avoiding obstructions. - Note: exceptions shortened
If you're riding three abreast, maybe abreast but not yielding to passing cars, riding through stops, not making clear hand signals, etc. you're in the wrong.
Further, if you're doing these things and reacting to complaints by flipping off drivers, yelling, squirting water...I've seen it all...you affect the tolerance for all bikes on the road. You endanger other riders indirectly.
I'm not saying you have to be polite while some guy tries to run you over, or that these riders did any of this or anything antagonistic.
I've been hit by cars twice. I was forced off the road recently 2 miles from my house while doing the speed limit. Someone in a passing car threw a bottle of water at me last year. So, I've had my share.
I am saying we all should do what we can to be considerate and think about how your actions may affect everybody (driving or riding). It is a two-way street most of the time.
shawnrohrbach said:Well put. I am a firece advocate of allowing bicycles to use any roadway in a safe manner, and I have been riding seriously for over 40 years, and i still ride 100 miles a month, and I am angered at arrogant cyclists who do not observe even the basic rules of the road. Road rage is not the answer, but let's hear that question again; why do so many F******G cyclists thyink they are immune from the rules of the road?
Ninety5rpm said:Again, the lawmakers probably did not intend to stop requiring bicyclists from keeping right on so many roads, but that is the effect of their reasonable words. This exception is in there to prevent right hooks, because the best way to reduce (not eliminate) your chance of being right hooked is to move left out into the lane. And it's perfectly legal according to the exceptions that are SO IMPORTANT!
Too many people in general believe bicyclists belong at the curb, but at least bicyclists need to stop thinking (and riding!) this way.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/Vehicular_cycling
- Using the full lane unless overtaking traffic is likely to be delayed and the marked traffic lane is wide enough to share.
Great question!md2020 said:I'm a big proponent of vehicular cycling but what's interesting is that if you look at the Wiki link you provided there is also quite a big exception as to when you should take the entire lane:
Isn't the first exception most of the time when you're in an urban situation and isn't that the biggie in terms of angry motorists?Using the full lane unless overtaking traffic is likely to be delayed and the marked traffic lane is wide enough to share.
Ninety5rpm said:It's cyclists riding too far right in unsharable lanes, practically inviting overtaking motorists to share that unsharable lane, that seems to be the cause of much consternation.
Most urban roads have curbs and not striped shoulders, and I'm not suggesting we should be taking the lane when doing so holds up motor traffic for more than a few seconds, and it's safe and reasonable to move aside into a shoulder or bike lane or whatever. However, as soon as there is any kind of gap in traffic of greater length than 10-15 seconds or so, I'm back in my default primary lane-controlling position, especially if there is any upcoming intersection or midblock driveway or something. Some people understandably get the impression that this means a lot of back and forth, but it really doesn't work out that way once you get the right balance worked out. The balance to work out is between using an accommodating sharing position that is less conspicuous, has poorer sight lines and usually worse surface conditions with using the clear and conspicuous lane-controlling position but which might impede others. It's quite manageable, especially if you use a rear view mirror, and helps your mind stay focussed on traffic rather than drift, which is good.md2020 said:That hasn't been my experience. The anger and road rage I usually hear about always seems to be related more to the misconception that cyclists think they "own the road" because they are taking up too much of a lane and disregard stop signs and stop lights. It's definitely counter intuitive that taking up an entire lane incites drivers less than staying to the right of a lane. The end result may be safer for the cyclist but I think that has nothing to do with driver consternation.
I definitely don't have a problem taking up a lane when there are multiple lanes available and right curb is lined with parked cars. The problem I have is when there is only a single lane available and a road shoulder with no parked cars and the speed limit is high. In that instance I would rather ride to the right of the white line in the crap than to try and stake a claim to the lane.
Yeah, read them over, sleep on it, then read them again. Ride around thinking about them, then review them again. It can be an illuminating process. If any one of those conditions is true, then there is no legal obligation to keep right, and there should never be a safety reason to keep right. The only reason to ever keep right is for the convenience of overtaking traffic, which should never take a higher priority than your safety.md2020 said:As for your explanation of the exceptions, I understand what you're saying. I read them as independent conditions but it makes sense that they are to be taken together.
Great. They're designed to address the questions of the skeptics.md2020 said:BTW, those CyclistLorax videos are great. Thanks for pointing them out.
Kennf1 said:I'd be surprised if he did any actual jail time, probably just a suspended sentence and probation. But, with multiple felony convictions, he should lose his medical license, and there will be a pricey civil suit to follow, that should have a hefty punitive damage component. His auto liability insurer won't pay for his defense because of the finding that this was an intentional act. He will be bankrupt soon.
csalapatas said:I was in the courtroom yesterday...
...SO GENTLEMEN - REMEMBER MY WORDS WELL EVERY TIME LIFE BEGINS TO FAIL YOU... Oh yeah - enjoy your bike ride...