Why the hate for Cyclists?

[DoggyDaddy]

At least it's not chip-n-seal.

 

[jamil]

View attachment 342682 View attachment 342683

That's got to be the funnest thing all day.

Thanks for that.

 

[jamil]

This thread just keeps giving.

 

[Ingomike]

Was this not you?

Why the hate for Cyclists?

www.indianagunowners.com

Would this not fall under choosing not to ride as far right as practicable? (And note that riding left of "as far right as is practicable" is all I ever stated. I never said anything about riding "left either in the lane or left lane".)

My safety is part of practicable. The Texas law explains what is meant by practicable.

a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:

1. the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
2. the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
3. a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or
4. the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
   
   1. less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
   2. too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

 

[Ingomike]

Pedestrians aren't a monolithic group either. And a vehicle that can only maintain a 20mph speed is an appropriate user of a road with a 45 mph or higher speed limit?

And at least you admit to trying to police the roads, well "manage" anyway.

You don’t manage your driving?

I never said anything about multipurpose trails/paths. I specifically stated bike lane, as in a lane of the road designated specifically for the use of bikes.

Got it, misunderstood. Rarely ever saw those lanes when I rode regularly.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You don’t manage your driving?

Of course I manage my driving, I don't attempt to manage others on the road.

Got it, misunderstood. Rarely ever saw those lanes when I rode regularly.

Okay, now that is cleared up. Would you support it?

My safety is part of practicable. The Texas law explains what is meant by practicable.

a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:

1. the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
2. the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
3. a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or
4. the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
   
   1. less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
   2. too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

One, why are you quoting TX law in an IN thread?

Two, does Rhino now owe @KirkFreeman more .45 acp ammo?

 

[jamil]

Of course I manage my driving, I don't attempt to manage others on the road.

Okay, now that is cleared up. Would you support it?

One, why are you quoting TX law in an IN thread?

Two, does Rhino now owe @KirkFreeman more .45 acp ammo?

Wait a minute. How does one get Rhino to owe him .45 ammo?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Wait a minute. How does one get Rhino to owe him .45 ammo?

You'll have to ask Kirk that. Kirk swears that every time someone quotes TX gun law in relation to IN, Rhino owes him ammo. At least originally. I think it's changed to any time anyone quotes law from anywhere else in regards to anything IN law related.

 

[Ingomike]

One, why are you quoting TX law in an IN thread?

Because they went further than the typical vehicle code and explained practicable and other examples. Most states, Indiana, just hang it out there without any explanation…

 

[Hatin Since 87]

My safety is part of practicable. The Texas law explains what is meant by practicable.

a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:

1. the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
2. the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
3. a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or
4. the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
   
   1. less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
   2. too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

“Practicable” does not translate to being whatever you perceive as safe. If thats the case, why ever ride to the right of the lane?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Because they went further than the typical vehicle code and explained practicable and other examples. Most states, Indiana, just hang it out there without any explanation…

No, they listed exceptions, not examples. Hence the except as provided by subsection (b). Along with it stating an outside lane, which implies at least to me more than a two lane road.

 

[BugI02]

The law is the same in OH. Almost if not verbatim. OC 4511.50. Not all roads have sidewalks, even in residential neighborhoods. Heck I know a few near me that don't.

But for my question, since I have shown that pedestrians are required to use sidewalks when available. Would you support the same for bicycles? Road with a bike lane, bikes are required to use said lane.

No

 

[Ingomike]

“Practicable” does not translate to being whatever you perceive as safe. If thats the case, why ever ride to the right of the lane?

There certainly is a balance. The disconnect is most here believe they know where the cyclist should be and will not even consider that the cyclist has the right to decide what is practicable. Kind of like this example.

“There is the occasional driver who may see a cyclist riding further from the curb, or edge of the road, as being belligerent. Cyclists have a right to be on the road, and riding further from the edge is simply a matter of safety—for the cyclist, for motorists and for other road users.”

 

[jamil]

“Practicable” does not translate to being whatever you perceive as safe. If thats the case, why ever ride to the right of the lane?

The idea is apparently, if the lane is narrow enough that the automobile would have to get into the other lane anyway, in for a penny, in for a pound. It is plausible that a rider in the middle of the lane is more visible than one riding 18 inches from the right edge. Reliably better?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No

Mind if I ask why not? And just to make sure I'm clear, I'm referring to a dedicated lane for bicycles not a multipurpose path/trail/etc.

 

[BugI02]

It's literally (from your own quote of the regulation) the non-traffic-lane part of the road.

This is the exact quote:
Grate inlets and depression of curb opening inlets should be located outside the through traffic lanes to minimize the shifting of vehicles attempting to avoid them. All grate inlets shall be bicycle safe when used on roadways that allow bicycle travel.

What does 'through traffic', as in 'through traffic lanes' mean to you, Chip? Arguing that not being in a through traffic lane is equivalent to being in a non-traffic lane part of the road is specious

Ya' think maybe those grates might also be located in turn lanes or lanes that are either/or? Ya' think bicycles might be in those lanes - legally? Is there a part of a lane besides a shoulder that isn't designed to carry traffic? On a two-lane country road, what lane would be the through lane and could bicyclists use it?

Your attempts to somehow be not wrong are getting pathetic. Maybe next time don't post in absolutes

 

[Hatin Since 87]

There certainly is a balance. The disconnect is most here believe they know where the cyclist should be and will not even consider that the cyclist has the right to decide what is practicable. Kind of like this example.

“There is the occasional driver who may see a cyclist riding further from the curb, or edge of the road, as being belligerent. Cyclists have a right to be on the road, and riding further from the edge is simply a matter of safety—for the cyclist, for motorists and for other road users.”

But, the law states as far to the right as practicable. Using your own opinion to determine riding further left for safety is not following the law. The law does not specify lane width, road activity, or area…

And, if it were truly for safety and that was the main concern, you would want to use bike lanes that are strictly for bikes only. But that isnt the case. So it leaves one to believe safety is not the main concern but rather doing something to annoy people just because you can might be a motivator.

 

[BugI02]

Mind if I ask why not? And just to make sure I'm clear, I'm referring to a dedicated lane for bicycles not a multipurpose path/trail/etc.

Understood. I think motorists pay even less attention to you in a bike lane, expect that you're somehow always going to stay there, can't seem to turn right at a corner without encroaching on that space, and there is a problem with making left turns from there. I especially hate bike lanes with a raised edge or curb.

One thing I don't think is thought much about is my crank arms and pedals hang out to the side of the frame centerline and they need clearance to rotate because that's how I deliver motive power. A pedal strike on a curb would likely put me down in the road, so there is a limit to how close to the curb I'm willing to ride plus I want a bit of margin to maneuver in my part of the lane. With a marked bike lane people think that's all you get and are even more willing to cut you close. If you are a motorcyclist, how close to the curb with the sidewalls of your tires would you like to be expected to ride?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Understood. I think motorists pay even less attention to you in a bike lane, expect that you're somehow always going to stay there, can't seem to turn right at a corner without encroaching on that space, and there is a problem with making left turns from there. I especially hate bike lanes with a raised edge or curb.

One thing I don't think is thought much about is my crank arms and pedals hang out to the side of the frame centerline and they need clearance to rotate because that's how I deliver motive power. A pedal strike on a curb would likely put me down in the road, so there is a limit to how close to the curb I'm willing to ride plus I want a bit of margin to maneuver in my part of the lane. With a marked bike lane people think that's all you get and are even more willing to cut you close. If you are a motorcyclist, how close to the curb with the sidewalls of your tires would you like to be expected to ride?

I understand curb/petal, unfortunately more than I would like to.

Left turns you have a point, but that iirc is already an exception to the stay right as far as practical for bikes. I see no reason why it wouldn't be the same.

For right turns, I am can't see any difference. If they are going to encroach on you in a bike lane they will do so regardless.

 

[jamil]