Fu*king Cyclists

[old goat]

Agreed that there's not nearly enough context here. But I'll note that honking is almost never nice and almost always startling. Also, cyclists are not required to ride single file and are have every right to ride in the lane--even if there is a bike lane. (At least in the places where I've checked the laws.) Drivers should pass cyclists just as they would a piece of farm machinery--safely, after changing lanes.

I was told by a sheriff deputy recently to ride single file on a road where maybe 3 cars will pass in 30 minutes. I started to correct him but he sped off. Even the popo doesn't know the law.

From the California Vehicle Code
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:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(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.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
edge of that roadway as practicable.

I would interpret "as close as possible to the right edge of the roadway" to mean single file, although I would give bikes a pass if both are in the bike lane.
It's probably a good thing the cop sped off before you could "correct" them. You'd probably have gotten a ticket instead of a warning.

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

I'll grant that the 3 sec interval was either omitted or edited out, but the absence of evidence leads to no conclusion except by unsupported assumptions skewed to bias.

I hate to keep picking at this terrible scab, but the belief that only 3 seconds took place between edits and that there ever even was a honk in the first place are like flashing bright red lights for unsupported assumptions skewed to bias.

But I'm a cyclist and laughed out loud when they crashed. So I'm not sure where that leaves me. Either way, thanks for sharing?

[anotherVTskibum]

From the California Vehicle Code
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:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(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.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
edge of that roadway as practicable.

I would interpret "as close as possible to the right edge of the roadway" to mean single file, although I would give bikes a pass if both are in the bike lane.
It's probably a good thing the cop sped off before you could "correct" them. You'd probably have gotten a ticket instead of a warning.

Note that the law you quoted
a. Says "as close as practicable", not "possible"
b. Specifically calls out lanes "too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane" as a situation in which the bicyclist has no obligation to ride far right

It gets more honks, but riding further out in the lane tends to get more people to realize there's not enough room to (safely) squeeze by within the lane, even if you're riding hard to the right edge. There are a fair number of places near me where, if I'm pedaling, I'll ride basically in the right wheel track because otherwise I end up with mirrors going by less than a foot from my arm that, by law, should be waiting until they have room to use the other lane and go around with at least three feet of separation.

Sent from my SM-G892A using TGR Forums mobile app

[::: :::]

I hate to keep picking at this terrible scab, but the belief that only 3 seconds took place between edits is like a flashing red light for unsupported assumptions skewed to bias.

agreed

[old goat]

Note that the law you quoted
a. Says "as close as practicable", not "possible"
b. Specifically calls out lanes "too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane" as a situation in which the bicyclist has no obligation to ride far right

It gets more honks, but riding further out in the lane tends to get more people to realize there's not enough room to (safely) squeeze by within the lane, even if you're riding hard to the right edge. There are a fair number of places near me where, if I'm pedaling, I'll ride basically in the right wheel track because otherwise I end up with mirrors going by less than a foot from my arm that, by law, should be waiting until they have room to use the other lane and go around with at least three feet of separation.

Sent from my SM-G892A using TGR Forums mobile app

Thanks for catching my mistake. I can't see that it makes any practical difference in the meaning though.
I certainly agree that if there's not enough room for a car and a bike to occupy their side of the road side by side the bike should fully occupy the lane. I do that a lot lately, due to all the construction narrowing the road around here. And around here people don't seem to get upset about it, probably because 90% are bike riders in their other lives.
But that's not what climbereven was talking about.

[jono]

I'm not a big road rider these days, but the relics around Pulverbatch seem like they may be popular. Anyone ridden there?

"Church Pulverbatch is a small village and civil parish in central Shropshire, England. The population of the parish was 344 at the time of the 2001 census,[1] increasing to 361 at the 2011 Census.[2]

It is located near Habberley and Picklescott. The nearest towns are Shrewsbury and Church Stretton; both are approximately 8 miles by road.

Castle Pulverbatch

Also within the parish is the village of Pulverbatch, which is situated on the Shrewsbury-Longden-Bridges road and has a public house, called the White Horse. The villages of Church Pulverbatch (also known as Churton) and Pulverbatch are less than half a mile apart. The hamlet of Wrentnall is situated to the north of Pulverbatch, also within the parish. The current Lord of Wrentnall, and Lord of Great Lyth, is also the Baron of Pulverbatch (Farrow, M. W. MA (Cantab), 7 April 2003, Lordships of Wrentnall and Pulverbatch).

The Church of England parish church of St Edith, built of mauve rubblestone with Grinshill stone dressings, has an ornate west tower of 1773, but most of the present building, the nave and chancel, was restored in 1852-53 and a north aisle added by Shrewsbury architect Edward Haycock. Inside is a plain wooden west gallery and box pews,[3] besides a framed Roll of Honour to parish men who served in World War I, and electric lighting that was fitted in memory of five men of the parish who died serving in World War II.[4] The churchyard contains a Commonwealth war grave of a Canadian airman of World War II.[5]

On a hill to the south of Pulverbatch are the earthwork remains of Castle Pulverbatch, a medieval motte-and-bailey castle."

[jono]

Thanks for catching my mistake. I can't see that it makes any practical difference in the meaning though.
I certainly agree that if there's not enough room for a car and a bike to occupy their side of the road side by side the bike should fully occupy the lane. I do that a lot lately, due to all the construction narrowing the road around here.
But that's not what climbereven was talking about.

On the topic of single file, the typical group ride configuration looks like 2 lines with one slowly passing the other, which gets them in under that passing exception.

[climberevan]

Note that the law you quoted
a. Says "as close as practicable", not "possible"
b. Specifically calls out lanes "too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane" as a situation in which the bicyclist has no obligation to ride far right

It gets more honks, but riding further out in the lane tends to get more people to realize there's not enough room to (safely) squeeze by within the lane, even if you're riding hard to the right edge. There are a fair number of places near me where, if I'm pedaling, I'll ride basically in the right wheel track because otherwise I end up with mirrors going by less than a foot from my arm that, by law, should be waiting until they have room to use the other lane and go around with at least three feet of separation.

Sent from my SM-G892A using TGR Forums mobile app

This. Taking the lane is my standard practice when there is not a full sized bike lane or a huge shoulder. Almost no roads have lanes wide enough to safely share with a car if they give the required 3 feet of passing clearance, so by taking the lane one just acknowledges the reality that the driver must cross the line to pass. (Crossing a double yellow, despite what some believe, is legal to get around show moving traffic, which is what bicycles are.)

[climberevan]

I would interpret "as close as possible to the right edge of the roadway" to mean single file, although I would give bikes a pass if both are in the bike lane.
It's probably a good thing the cop sped off before you could "correct" them. You'd probably have gotten a ticket instead of a warning.

OG, you might find this interesting. There is no California law requiring that cyclists ride single file.

https://www.bicyclelaw.com/non-exist...0single%20file.

Further, there is a whole world out there beyond California that you may or may not be aware of. Here in Nevada, for example, the vehicle code is very similar to that of CA, except that it explicitly addresses the issue of riding 2 abreast, saying that it's permitted when the lane is not wide enough to safely share with a motor vehicle, which is almost always as I explained earlier. I think that they include this because the practical effect of safely passing one or two cyclists is the same: drivers must change lanes.

" (b) When a lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

3.  Persons riding bicycles, electric bicycles or electric scooters upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, electric bicycles and electric scooters."

I have screenshots of the full vehicle code with me so that I can educate drivers, whether they are deputy sheriffs or just other ignorant road users.

Do drivers become apoplectic when they are slowed by farm machinery? What is it about bicycles that is so triggering to some?

[muted reborn]

farmers don't blow through red lights, run stop signs, go to a crosswalk and press the walk signal to become pedestrians then ride across on bikes, and they stay as far right as possible and don't ride 2 abreast?

C'mon while I'm joking here of course but you have to know human behavior enough to know the answer to your question.

[Lvovsky]

When cars make a right turn they're supposed to do it from as close to the curb as possible, including the bike lane, so that bikes can pass them on the left rather than having to stop or being taken out. At least that's the law in CA. i'd be shocked if even one car in ten does that. Personally I prefer to wait to let a cyclist I just passed pass me before I pull over to make the right turn.

Same in NM or at least in Abq. The dumb thi g about ABQ bike lanes is that they are marked with solid line that doesn’t turn dashed before intersections. Your post made me look up the ordinance to confirm:

§ 8-3-3-12 MOTORIST TURNING ACROSS BICYCLE LANE.
(A) Whenever a motorist is turning across a bicycle lane or path, such motorist shall maintain a proper lookout for bicyclists and shall yield the right-of-way to any bicyclist traveling in a bicycle lane or path and, prior to turning right, shall merge, if practicable, into the bicycle lane to his right, if any, before the start of the turning movement.
(B) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to relieve the motorist of duties imposed by § 8-2-2- 2, in particular, but not limited to, 8-2-2-2(A) (1), (B)(1) and (E)(1).

[old goat]

OG, you might find this interesting. There is no California law requiring that cyclists ride single file.

https://www.bicyclelaw.com/non-exist...0single%20file.

Further, there is a whole world out there beyond California that you may or may not be aware of. Here in Nevada, for example, the vehicle code is very similar to that of CA, except that it explicitly addresses the issue of riding 2 abreast, saying that it's permitted when the lane is not wide enough to safely share with a motor vehicle, which is almost always as I explained earlier. I think that they include this because the practical effect of safely passing one or two cyclists is the same: drivers must change lanes.

" (b) When a lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

3.  Persons riding bicycles, electric bicycles or electric scooters upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, electric bicycles and electric scooters."

I have screenshots of the full vehicle code with me so that I can educate drivers, whether they are deputy sheriffs or just other ignorant road users.

Do drivers become apoplectic when they are slowed by farm machinery? What is it about bicycles that is so triggering to some?

Re the CA statute--you're citing a bike advocacy site's interpretation of the CA statute. I'm citing the statute itself. As close as practicable to the right edge of the pavement seems pretty clear cut to me but if you want to argue a ticket be my guest. In any case I doubt you'd get ticketed for riding double if you're not actually obstructing traffic.

As far as blocking the lane when the road is narrow ---the farther to the left you ride the harder you make it for a car to pass safely by crossing the center line. And guess what the car is going to do if the driver misjudges the speed and distance and has to choose between a head on collision and swerving to the right and taking you out. You have a better chance of not being taken out if you're near the right--especially if the oncoming car has a little room to move to its right. I assume that since your location is Tahoe-ish you ride in CA from time to time.

thank you for educating me on NV law. If I ever ride in NV, which is unlikely, I'll keep that in mind. On a lot of the desolate roads I've driven in NV I don't think it makes a difference how many abreast you ride. Those roads are straight enough and empty enough that a car should have no trouble getting by a bunch of bikes.

I bet the cops are going to love it when you whip out your phone to show them the law. I hope you're white so you only get a ticket instead of getting shot because the cop thought it was a gun.

As far as me being aware that there are other states besides CA--that is why I always specify CA if the discussion is on a matter pertaining to state law. And why I even bothered to reply to your post, because of where you say is your location. I am sure nothing I say is going to change what you do but there are a lot of CA bike riders here and they should have accurate information.

And none of this changes the fact that regardless of the laws, riding a bicycle in traffic in most places in CA is fairly dangerous and gettng more so all the time. Ride defensively first, worry about the law second.

[jono]

100% agree about safety first and law second--maybe third, even.

As far as blocking the lane when the road is narrow ---the farther to the left you ride the harder you make it for a car to pass safely by crossing the center line. And guess what the car is going to do if the driver misjudges the speed and distance and has to choose between a head on collision and swerving to the right and taking you out. You have a better chance of not being taken out if you're near the right--especially if the oncoming car has a little room to move to its right.

This used to be the conventional wisdom and certainly still drives some people to ride far right at all times. But to look at total risk you have to consider how often riding to the left prevents an unsafe pass from happening in the first place. Riding hard over to the right implies to drivers that there's room to pass, whether that's true or not, and a surprising number of drivers seem to take that signal with no further thought.

IME (and granted, most of that experience comes from cruising a back road on my mountain bike, not commuting etc) "taking the lane" until I can see that the road ahead is clear (which I can see first, especially over hills) is about 80-90% effective at preventing those passes. In some cases probably because being more visible helps drivers plan ahead. And if I'm situated to the left I have room to move right. That leaves a space to go in an emergency, as well as the option to move right to signal both that the road ahead is clear and that I'm expecting a pass. Communication without gesticulation.

Every close call I can remember came when I was riding far to the right. Though the samples are skewed: I definitely have way more time on the right edge.

[doebedoe]

+1 to Jono. You cannot look at the very low likelihood event that a car tries to overtake, swerves back and hits you without comparing the total risk of far more likely event someone thinks they can sneak by you in the shared lane and hits you.

My evidence? I don't think there are any published papers on the subject. I've bike commuted near daily for two decades now in Chicago, Minneapolis, London and Denver. I've bike toured across the eastern US and good chunks of Europe. I've had people try to push through in the same lane and hit me thrice.

I've never had someone using the other lane to overtake hit me. Lots of middle fingers and angry horns? Sure. But i'll take that all day over road rash and a broken collar bone.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Driving into afternoon sun.

Come to a shaded, signed roundabout, stop. start but when something doesn't seem right, slowed down just as a black dude on a black bike runs the stop sign to my left.
Guy was maybe 3 feet off my bumper.

Gave me pause.

Where’s this roundabout with stop signs?

[MagnificentUnicorn]

It works shockingly well in Montreal. Pedestrians aren't put in the line of fire and it's way easier to turn right without them in the intersection. Seems like a no brainer in the city cores....

Yesterday in Seattle’s U district, I noticed that all intersections with stoplights had no turn on red signs. Also, there’s a significant lag between the “walk” sign changing until the light turns green, I’m assuming it’s so right turners don’t race to beat pedestrians. It’s kinda refreshing knowing you’re less likely to get run over in a cross walk.

[oldnew_guy]

Yesterdays commute to work -> cut off several times on freeway (not in left lane), multiple red light runners (my light green, them entering intersection still) and people weaving through traffic recklessly. This is normal everyday behavior of people traveling at high speeds in steel boxes. Saw a couple of bike riders in the bike lane, some people turning right even yielded to one.

This weekend saw a three fatality head on which was probably due to a distracted driver crossing the centerline.

I’ll take the bike riders running stop signs, taking the lane occasionally and transitioning between pedestrian and bike (this is actually a safety strategy in many locations with crap bike infrastructure) over the dumbass drivers as their overall threat to me and my kids lives is way way lower. As in non-existent.

[oldnew_guy]

Yesterday in Seattle’s U district, I noticed that all intersections with stoplights had no turn on red signs. Also, there’s a significant lag between the “walk” sign changing until the light turns green, I’m assuming it’s so right turners don’t race to beat pedestrians. It’s kinda refreshing knowing you’re less likely to get run over in a cross walk.

It’s called a leading pedestrian interval and it should be required on any signalized crosswalk IMO.

Glad to see these easy to implement strategies becoming more widespread.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

The big problem I always experienced was when several cars wanted to turn right but - despite signaling - none would give me any space to get to between them and continue straight.

Or when car in front turns right, stops (blocking me off) because pedestrians are in the crosswalk, then another car pulls right behind the first and stops and blocks the lane.

So i get to hold my bike overhead and shuffle between bumpers to get out of the blockage. Or remain a sitting duck stopped in the street.

That’s when I dismount and jump in the crosswalk and walk my bike through the intersection. They can wait for the pedestrian.

[doebedoe]

....
I’ll take the bike riders running stop signs, taking the lane occasionally and transitioning between pedestrian and bike (this is actually a safety strategy in many locations with crap bike infrastructure) over the dumbass drivers as their overall threat to me and my kids lives is way way lower. As in non-existent.

[climberevan]

100% agree about safety first and law second--maybe third, even.
This used to be the conventional wisdom and certainly still drives some people to ride far right at all times. But to look at total risk you have to consider how often riding to the left prevents an unsafe pass from happening in the first place. Riding hard over to the right implies to drivers that there's room to pass, whether that's true or not, and a surprising number of drivers seem to take that signal with no further thought.

IME (and granted, most of that experience comes from cruising a back road on my mountain bike, not commuting etc) "taking the lane" until I can see that the road ahead is clear (which I can see first, especially over hills) is about 80-90% effective at preventing those passes. In some cases probably because being more visible helps drivers plan ahead. And if I'm situated to the left I have room to move right. That leaves a space to go in an emergency, as well as the option to move right to signal both that the road ahead is clear and that I'm expecting a pass. Communication without gesticulation.

Every close call I can remember came when I was riding far to the right. Though the samples are skewed: I definitely have way more time on the right edge.

+1 to Jono. You cannot look at the very low likelihood event that a car tries to overtake, swerves back and hits you without comparing the total risk of far more likely event someone thinks they can sneak by you in the shared lane and hits you.
I've never had someone using the other lane to overtake hit me. Lots of middle fingers and angry horns? Sure. But i'll take that all day over road rash and a broken collar bone.

These deserve to be quoted. Removing of squeezing might make people who already have a problem with cyclists mad, but I think it's safer. My own experience agrees with yours: close passes pretty much never happen when I'm taking the lane but as soon as I lose focus and drift to the right: bam.

[climberevan]

As far as blocking the lane when the road is narrow ---the farther to the left you ride the harder you make it for a car to pass safely by crossing the center line. And guess what the car is going to do if the driver misjudges the speed and distance and has to choose between a head on collision and swerving to the right and taking you out. You have a better chance of not being taken out if you're near the right--especially if the oncoming car has a little room to move to its right. I assume that since your location is Tahoe-ish you ride in CA from time to time.
.

What? By your logic it must be nigh impossible for a car to pass another car-- they would have to completely change lanes to do so! Perish the thought!

As those of us who actually ride on the road have said, our experience very clearly tells us that we are safer when we force drivers to change lanes when passing instead of giving them the opportunity to squeeze by without fully changing lanes. Once they start passing I usually move over to the right to give even more space in case they haven't done so or in case they swerve back over too soon. I only have that room if I started out farther left.

I ride a lot in Marin and other Bay Area places. All of this is even more true when traffic is heavier.

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

As far as blocking the lane when the road is narrow ---the farther to the left you ride the harder you make it for a car to pass safely by crossing the center line.

As others have pointed out - this is a feature, not a bug, of this riding style. If you want to pass a bike on a road with poor sight lines then you should be aware enough of your surroundings to do it in the opposing lane. I also move immediately to the right as soon as it's safe to pass and always give a smile/wave to the driver I had held up. Never been honked at/flipped off doing this, but who knows, I'm sure that'll happen eventually, and I'm sure I'll make a quick recovery from that emotional damage.

And guess what the car is going to do if the driver misjudges the speed and distance and has to choose between a head on collision and swerving to the right and taking you out.

While your hypothetical has never once happened to me, a few times a year I'll see an oncoming car that the vehicle behind me can't see (like on a very twisty road), I'll take the lane to shut down a dangerous pass, the car behind still goes for the pass, realizes they're about to cause a head-on collision and ducks back into the lane behind me. In that scenario, if I was far to the right as you suggest you know what happens? The car behind me is far more likely to make the pass and take me out.

[dunfree]

Do drivers become apoplectic when they are slowed by farm machinery? What is it about bicycles that is so triggering to some?

yes, yes they do. If you ever get stuck behind a combine doing 15mph while blocking the shoulder, your lane, and enough of the opposing lane to make passing impossible you might too

[jono]

yes, yes they do. If you ever get stuck behind a combine doing 15mph while blocking the shoulder, your lane, and enough of the opposing lane to make passing impossible you might too

Apoplectic? Nah. I've been there a few times and I notice that the longer I sit there waiting the calmer I get.

Maybe that's the problem for bikes: these horrifying encounters are over before anyone has a chance to reflect and calm down.