Whazup with bicycles?

[Chucktshoes]

Y'know, all this thread really proves is that people are indeed very much "tribal", and that no matter the situation or subject... guns, bicycles, you-name-it... it ultimately comes down to "us vs. them", and who has the most/better/more powerful "rights". ( "Us" being whichever side you're on, and "them" being everyone else. )

No damned wonder the human race is such a train wreck. Good sense is long gone, if it was ever here to begin with.

Why doesn't somebody close this mess, before it gets more embarrassing than it already is?

I agree ,at this point this point I would say this thread has devolved into a measuring contest.

[TGO David]

Daniel and I haven't spoken but clearly he and I are on the same page. I've grown very tired of closing threads. People need to think ahead about the potential [social] ramifications of what they are about to post -and- be willing to put up with whatever may come to pass as a result of their statements. Forums are an anomaly in that people feel a certain freedom to speak before they think, with the assurance that a moderator will strike their comments from the record later if it hindsight bears out that they shouldn't have said it to begin with.

I can think of several threads lately where moderators have been put on the spot to save someone from themselves. It gets kind of old.

In this thread, clearly there are two camps of thought. I would propose that there is one camp that has the support of logic and common sense. Since Erik88 finds this whole thing rather tedious now, I'll throw a life preserver into the waters:

1. Cyclists have as much right to be on a roadway as any motorist does unless that roadway expressly prohibits one or the other of them.

2. Any member of either camp who endeavors to terrorize or assault the other because they cannot share the roadway deserves to find the full weight of the law bearing down on them as a consequence of their actions.

3. Further, common sense dictates that a person driving a several-thousand pound vehicle should show the common courtesy of yielding to the person riding a several-pound bicycle since the person in the vehicle could easily, accidentally, injure or kill the person on the bicycle by crowding them or -- worse -- throwing objects at them.

All of which brings me back to my original statement, albeit with much less efficiency: If you throw things at or crowd a cyclist from the confines of your vehicle, you are a world-class a**hole and you deserve to be fined, incarcerated and, honestly, beaten for it. If I saw you do any of those things to a child of mine on a bicycle, you would be fortunate for the police to arrive before I finished kicking their bike up your ass.

Is this cerebral enough for anyone?

[JReedEsq]

Thanks David. We are in agreement. I'm sorry I couldn't have been as diplomatic as you.

[TGO David]

Thanks David. We are in agreement. I'm sorry I couldn't have been as diplomatic as you.

No apologies necessary. I'm far from diplomatic.

[Guest Jamie]

Daniel and I haven't spoken but clearly he and I are on the same page. I've grown very tired of closing threads. People need to think ahead about the potential [social] ramifications of what they are about to post -and- be willing to put up with whatever may come to pass as a result of their statements. Forums are an anomaly in that people feel a certain freedom to speak before they think, with the assurance that a moderator will strike their comments from the record later if it hindsight bears out that they shouldn't have said it to begin with.

I can think of several threads lately where moderators have been put on the spot to save someone from themselves. It gets kind of old.

Oh I'm not for protecting idiots - or anyone else - from themselves. I firmly believe that stupidity should be painful... fatally so, if that's what it takes to eliminate it.

No, the reason I suggested the thread should be closed has to do with the rules here not allowing those idiots to get the beatings they've earned and deserved.

Leaving the thread open tempts others to administer the required "education", and also implies consent to do so... even though the rules may forbid it. At least that's my view of it.

In this thread, clearly there are two camps of thought. I would propose that there is one camp that has the support of logic and common sense. Since Erik88 finds this whole thing rather tedious now, I'll throw a life preserver into the waters:

Well, let me further relieve the tedium by representing a third camp... One that we've heard from many times during conversations concerning Voldemort, open carry, etc.

1. Cyclists have as much right to be on a roadway as any motorist does unless that roadway expressly prohibits one or the other of them.

Legally, yes, a cyclist might have the right to be on a particular roadway... however, there are certain stretches of road, and certain times, that only a self-centered, suicidal idiot would even consider riding a bike there. And by doing so, put not only themselves in danger, but others as well as they try to deal with them and avoid running over them.

Remember, just because something's legal doesn't mean it's a good idea.

2. Any member of either camp who endeavors to terrorize or assault the other because they cannot share the roadway deserves to find the full weight of the law bearing down on them as a consequence of their actions.

Yes... but sometimes it's tough to tell who was actually terrorizing who...

That fellow all wadded up in the ditch might very well have brought it on himself. And that person who's trapped in an overturned vehicle might very well have ended up that way by trying to dodge some putz on a bike that was behaving in a dangerous manner.

Still, it's likely to be the person in the 3500 pound SUV who's gonna take the heat and get the blame, at least initially.

3. Further, common sense dictates that a person driving a several-thousand pound vehicle should show the common courtesy of yielding to the person riding a several-pound bicycle since the person in the vehicle could easily, accidentally, injure or kill the person on the bicycle by crowding them or -- worse -- throwing objects at them.

Common sense also dictates that when the other vehicle outweighs you and yours by more than a small percentage, and/or travels at a considerably higher speed, then it has the right-of-way, no matter what the law allows. And that forcing the issue just because you "have a right" isn't very bright.

Oh, and the throwing things works both ways too... I've had folks on both bikes and motorcycles fling things my direction, even though I was posing no threat to them, or causing them any discomfort.

All of which brings me back to my original statement, albeit with much less efficiency: If you throw things at or crowd a cyclist from the confines of your vehicle, you are a world-class a**hole and you deserve to be fined, incarcerated and, honestly, beaten for it. If I saw you do any of those things to a child of mine on a bicycle, you would be fortunate for the police to arrive before I finished kicking their bike up your ass.

If your kid is in the right, and didn't do anything to encourage it or bring it on themselves, then absolutely. If that's not the case though... well... see my earlier statement concerning the 3500 pound SUV and the assumption of guilt.

Having worked accidents where a driver crashed because they were trying to avoid squirrels, dogs, kids, deer, etc., I'm not so quick to automatically blame the driver. Especially since so many other motorized vehicles - and pedestrians - aren't allowed on public roadways, but for some strange reason bicycles are...

Is this cerebral enough for anyone?

It'll do.

Oh, and one last thing, to Mr. Reed:

If a person wanted to hire you to defend them in a legal case where they had an entanglement with a cyclist while they were driving... would you take the case? And if so, how would you go about defending them?

[Guest mustangdave]

Man..has this thread DELIVERED...in spades

[TGO David]

Is it really any different to consider the same situations, substituting a pedestrian for the cyclist? I'm trying to determine how a person can have the freedom to walk wherever he might want to walk without fear of impunity, but a cyclist should consider the setting or risk taking a cola bottle upside the skull for riding on a busy street.

[Guest Jamie]

Is it really any different to consider the same situations, substituting a pedestrian for the cyclist? I'm trying to determine how a person can have the freedom to walk wherever he might want to walk without fear of impunity, but a cyclist should consider the setting or risk taking a cola bottle upside the skull for riding on a busy street.

Is a pedestrian automatically given a 3 ft. path on any public roadway?

Also, having biked and walked all over this county as a kid, I can tell you that just walking down the shoulder of the road makes you a target for all sorts of things... and pedestrians don't usually have the benefit of a helmet.

Hell, even a marked patrol car is a target for anybody with a throwing arm, during a traffic stop.

[bubbadavis]

Is it really any different to consider the same situations, substituting a pedestrian for the cyclist? I'm trying to determine how a person can have the freedom to walk wherever he might want to walk without fear of impunity, but a cyclist should consider the setting or risk taking a cola bottle upside the skull for riding on a busy street.

I think a pedestrian that is walking down the road, in the lane, and not getting out of the way of traffic could very well risk taking a cola bottle upside the head! The biggest problem here is that cyclists and motorists are supposed to share the road. Pedestrians can usually travel out of the way of traffic.

I **still** believe the problem is that some motorists and some cyclists are idiots. Most of both groups have no problem getting along, safely, with each other. There are some jerks on both sides that cause all of the trouble.

It seems that some on this forum lean to the "cyclist is always right" or the "motorist is always right" camp. In reality, most of the world is not so cut and dried.

Edit: Dang it, Jamie stole some of my thunder... Too slow again.

[Guest Jamie]

The biggest problem here is that cyclists and motorists are supposed to share the road.

That's exactly the problem; bicycles are the exception to the rule. They're "special".

Everybody else is either expected to keep up with the flow of traffic, or stay the hell out of the way.

Edit: Dang it, Jamie stole some of my thunder... Too slow again.

Sorry 'bout that...

[Lumber_Jack]

That's exactly the problem; bicycles are the exception to the rule. They're "special".

Everybody else is either expected to keep up with the flow of traffic, or stay the hell out of the way.

Sorry 'bout that...

You say "everybody is expected to keep up with the flow of traffic." "Expected' and "legally bound" are two seperate things. Too many times when driving vehicles we assume everyone should travel at the same rate of speed. I do it, when somone is driving excessively slow in the left lane, etc. But the questions is where do we derive the notion that we have a right to get angry at them for traveling at their own pace. As I stated before there is no MINIMUM speed on city and rural roads. There is a pedal near the floor that is rectangular in shape, its called the brake, we all know how to use it, and it would hurt us to use it a little more often.

[Guest Jamie]

You say "everybody is expected to keep up with the flow of traffic." "Expected' and "legally bound" are two seperate things. Too many times when driving vehicles we assume everyone should travel at the same rate of speed. I do it, when somone is driving excessively slow in the left lane, etc. But the questions is where do we derive the notion that we have a right to get angry at them for traveling at their own pace. As I stated before there is no MINIMUM speed on city and rural roads. There is a pedal near the floor that is rectangular in shape, its called the brake, we all know how to use it, and it would hurt us to use it a little more often.

"Obstructing the through flow of traffic"... You can be written a citation for that here...

I know 'cause I've done it.

If a motor vehicle is traveling slow enough to be a hazard, and doesn't have flashers on or isn't displaying the proper placards, it can be removed from the roadway by any responding officer.

[Lumber_Jack]

"Obstructing the through flow of traffic"... You can be written a citation for that here...

I know 'cause I've done it.

If a motor vehicle is traveling slow enough to be a hazard, and doesn't have flashers on or isn't displaying the proper placards, it can be removed from the roadway by any responding officer.

true, but most cyclist dont ride on 65MPH+ roads, I would venture to say 55 is the most common, I dont think your gonna get pulled over going 20 in 55.

[Guest adventureRon]

Bicycle Riders are to be praised! They make transportation cheaper and less crowded for all of us. They save Gasoline by using Human power, They lower health care costs by taking care of their health,and have a low impact on road surface and infer-structure. With gasoline only going to increase in price as the Peak Oil phase enters

more of us need to grab a Bike and improve the Country!

[Guest Jamie]

true, but most cyclist dont ride on 65MPH+ roads, I would venture to say 55 is the most common, I dont think your gonna get pulled over going 20 in 55.

What I posted applies to any state or county roadway, regardless of the posted speed limit. It's a judgment call by the officer, concerning the particular road and circumstances.

Oh, and I've never worked traffic enforcement on any interstate... That's THP's job, around here. The instance I mentioned was on an old county highway. A 2-lane, where the posted limit ranged from 30 in spots, to a high of about 50 in a couple of others.

Come around a blind curve doing a (posted) speed of 45 to 50 mph, and discover a ragged old pickup truck doing 15 to 20 mph in your lane, with oncoming traffic in the other... A rock face on one side, a steep drop on the opposite, with a guard rail that's held in place by 3 spoons full'a dirt and a lot of hope, between traffic and a long rolling fall...

What sort of outcome do you think that'll most likely lead to?

Now, substitute a bicycle for the truck.... They have a right to be there, after all.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Jamie

[JReedEsq]

"Obstructing the through flow of traffic"... You can be written a citation for that here...

I know 'cause I've done it.

That citation would likely be pre-empted by the T.C.A. Statute that I posted earlier in the thread. The only way it would fly is if cyclists are riding more than 2 abreast or if there is obviously room to pass and the cyclist is intentionally blocking. Tennesse's statute is a compromise IMHO. It prevents the sort of "critical mass" rolling protests that have occured in some states but allows a cyclist to ride in the lane as far to the right as practicable and safe. In other words, the cyclist doesn't have to ride on the shoulder and has a right to "take a lane" when a road is too narrow to allow traffic to safely pass. However, the rider should allow traffic to pass as soon as it is safe for the cyclist. In other words, I don't see it sticking unless the rider is on video in the middle of the lane, intentioinally blocking. As a cyclist, I'd have no problem with someone being ticketed for intentional blocking. I think the statute is actually well written. People just need to respect that cyclists have a place on the road, they shouldn't intentionally block, traffic when it's not necessary, but the law allows them to do so when it is necessary to ensure their safety. I hope this was a friendly enough post for everyone.* *(Except those encouraging assaulting cyclists, you guys can reread my old posts if you've forgotten how I feel about you.)

[bubbadavis]

Sorry 'bout that...

Its not your fault I'm slow on the draw...

[Guest Jamie]

That citation would likely be pre-empted by the T.C.A. Statute that I posted earlier in the thread. The only way it would fly is if cyclists are riding more than 2 abreast or if there is obviously room to pass and the cyclist is intentionally blocking.

All I can tell you is that it "flew" here, about 12 years ago. Went through General Sessions court with no problem. The judge agreed the vehicle and situation were dangerous, and that the driver should have known better.

And on some of these roads, there is no room to pass and no where to go if you come up on a slow vehicle of any kind. See my previous description, then add the fact it's a fairly steep hill with several curves in it. Oh, and there is no shoulder, just a ditch the other side of the white line at the side of the road.

And yes, I see cyclists on it fairly regularly. Been at least a couple of accidents because of 'em as well.

So, where I understand that the law allows them to ride there, I see very practical reasons for why the law is wrong, and should be changed.

Doesn't really matter to me though... I don't have to work that crap anymore, and my biking days are long behind me.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Jamie

[JReedEsq]

Oh, and one last thing, to Mr. Reed:

If a person wanted to hire you to defend them in a legal case where they had an entanglement with a cyclist while they were driving... would you take the case? And if so, how would you go about defending them?

What did you do? And what are you charged with? Seriously, I don't represent child sex-offenders or people who assault cyclists. I have represented cyclists in personal injury suits after they were hit by cars though. FYI, name calling will double your retainer.

[Guest Jamie]

What did you do? And what are you charged with? Seriously, I don't represent child sex-offenders or people who assault cyclists. I have represented cyclists in personal injury suits after they were hit by cars though. FYI, name calling will double your retainer.

Why are you assuming this person "assaulted" the cyclist? Maybe the cyclist is the one who caused the accident and is now trying to milk your potential client for something his own behavior caused?

Sorry, but you're playing right into "the SUV driver must be at fault" here.

After all, it's not like people never lie to the police, or that the police have a means of divining the truth past what the evidence at the scene supports... which is sometimes very little.

But then you know all that....

Edited March 7, 2011 by Jamie

[JReedEsq]

Is a pedestrian automatically given a 3 ft. path on any public roadway?

The 3 ft rule was put in place after a cyclist was killed. If you are passing within three feet you are putting someone in danger period. As far as your comparisons to open carry, cycling has a few things in common with OC. First, some areas are more appropriate than others. Second, they are both legal even though they make some people uncomfortable. You have a choice to participate or not. But either way you have no right to threaten, harass or assault someone because they've made a different choice than you. You don't like cyclists, don't buy a bike. It's your loss. I could care less. There are some people who may have been genuinely interested to know why someone would ride a bike on a public roadway. I hope I've provided some food for thought for those folks. Jaime, you seem dead set against understanding someone different than you. All you need to know is they have a right to be there. They pose no threat to you and all you have to do is leave them alone.

[Guest Jamie]

Jaime, you seem dead set against understanding someone different than you.

Wrong. I have no bias concerning this at all. I simply recognize that the law regarding cyclists isn't always very practical, or even correct, and that in certain circumstances someone who is following the letter of the law is putting themselves and others in danger through their actions.

I'm also trying to get folks to see that there is indeed a bias, and that in a car vs. bicycle accident, it's automatically assumed, in most cases, that it's the car driver who's at fault.

Again, bicycles are pretty much an exception to the rules of the road. Roads which, these days anyway, are designed, built, and maintained for motor traffic.

It's little wonder than some people get so irate at cyclists, given the burden they have to deal with if they are involved in an accident with one.

Oh, and don't worry about your retainer doubling... the only name I'd be apt to call you is one you already have, and that I've been known to use as a curse or insult, now and then: Lawyer.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Jamie

[bubbadavis]

They pose no threat to you and all you have to do is leave them alone.

I'll agree that this is most often the case. However, I have seen cyclists whose behavior I considered a threat to me - I lagged well behind them until I could (safely) pass them with a very wide berth. All it takes is a cyclist to swerve at the wrong time to be a threat to a motorist (and themselves).

[Guest Jamie]

... all you have to do is leave them alone.

Meant to address this part, and lost it in the shuffle.

I'd love to, and make every effort to do so... but since they're often on the only roads I have to use, it's not always possible. It's not simply a case where I can go on about my business, and not have to deal with 'em. ... unlike open carry, and a few other things that only require one to do just that; mind their own business.

[JReedEsq]

Jamie:

Where do you get the idea that it is assumed that the motorist is at fault in a bike vs car accident? This has to be something you've imagined. Part of my practice is personal injury and I can tell you nothing is further from the truth. I've had clients who had dufficulty getting a lawyer to even take their case simply because they were on a bike. I've even had one insurance adjuster flat out tell me that they don't "deal" with bike cases, since a jury might think the cyclist shouldn't have been on the road. I filed the lawsuit and they eventually changed their mind. This was in a case with a head-on collision where the driver admitted fault at the scene! Don't worry, we got ours, but not easily. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you might be referring to when a cyclist is hit from behind. This the only time I can think of where there is a presumption the driver is at fault and in this instance the law is just treating the cyclist like any other vehicle on the road. As for you not being able top avoid some cyclists, sorry. I fail to see how it's any different than any other driver on the road. Certainly you aren't in fear of being hit by my 17lb bike? If you fear being hit while trying to pass a cyclist, just make sure it's safe to pass before you do. It's just common courtesy, but it's not that common anymore.

FYI: I've had bottles thrown at me, had people swerve at me, I've been brushed by a rear-view mirror at speed, and I've had a driver pull over and threaten me before retreating in surprise when I didn't cower in fear. You might take these things more seriously if they happened to you.

On a positive note, if you divide the miles I've ridden by the number of incidents, you'll probably reach the conclusion that a huge majority of drivers aren't out to get cyclists.

HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART: Not one of these incidents occured when I was blocking traffic or doing anything to "bring it on myself", as you would say. You can justify these things all you want, but I'm completely convinced they are the result of cowardly, insecure people who are utter losers. They think someone is vunerable because they are on a bike so here is the driver's chance to exercise a power-trip. It's not about someone having to wait to pass. If that were the case, why don't people throw glass bottles at the folks buying lottery tickets when you buy gas? I'm always getting gas and coffee, I'm in line to pay and somebody takes forever because they are buying stupid lotto tickets. I don't play the lotto so I don't understand right? Would this mean they "brought it on themselves" if I threw hot coffee and/or a glass bottle at them. I don't think so. It's not about time, it's about basic respect for someone different than you.