Why the hate for Cyclists?

[Ingomike]

Yep, some disagree. And no, if they were getting alongside matching speed and forcing them over. That would be policing the road. Riding on the left side to prevent people from passing is no different than doing the speed limit and stopping people from passing. And depending may actually be a crime in IN see IC 9-21-8-52 (a) (1) (b) driving at an unreasonably low rate of speed and blocking the proper flow of traffic.

Who said riding on the left side? Strawman!

Still trying to police where riders can ride I see.

The time I got hit by a car I was too far right and he thought he could squeeze through with me in the right hand lane while an oncoming car was in the left and hit me. NEVER AGAIN!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Who said riding on the left side? Strawman…

Riding on the left side of the lane.

 

[actaeon277]

Whats the law on that?

Indiana Code 9-21-8-5. Overtaking and passing; limitations; exceptions » LawServer

www.lawserver.com

Indiana Code 9-21-8-5. Overtaking and passing; limitations; exceptions​

(3) The operator of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle or electric bicycle shall:

(A) allow at least three (3) feet of clearance between the vehicle and the bicycle; and

(B) not return the vehicle to the vehicle’s original lane of travel until the vehicle is safely clear of the bicycle.

 

[BugI02]

Pedestrians are not allowed in the roadway if there is a sidewalk. Should bikes be required to use bike lanes if they are available?

I believe you are incorrect and pedestrians are allowed to use any road under any circumstances except where specifically prohibited such as interstates

Could you please cite whatever part of IC or other official source you think supports your viewpoint

 

[BugI02]

I concede that for the road you cited, the design of the areas outside of the traffic lanes explicitly considers bicycles.

I'll let you work out the implication of that.

True Scotsman. You say bicycles are not considered in road design, proof is offered that they are, you pivot to it isn't truly about the design of the road so it doesn't matter

And I didn't cite just one road, those are the INDOT standards for all roads constructed in the state of Indiana except limited access highways. That is essentially what 'all roads where bicycles are allowed' means

I'm sure you're right and the grapes were probably sour anyway

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I believe you are incorrect and pedestrians are allowed to use any road under any circumstances except where specifically prohibited such as interstates

Could you please cite whatever part of IC or other official source you think supports your viewpoint

IC 9-21-17-12
If a sidewalk is provided and the sidewalk's use is practicable, a pedestrian may not walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.

So about my question?

 

[jamil]

“Cyclists are generally required to ride ‘as near as practicable’ to the right side of the highway. Note that it does not say ‘as far to the right as possible.’ A significant body of case law has shown that a proper interpretation is "as far to the right as is safe and reasonable."

The cyclist gets to determine what is practicable followed by LEO and the judge if people have a difference of opinion.

Some states offer examples of what the above means.

(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.

(b) A person operating a bicycle on a one-way roadway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of the roadway.

Where should I ride? | The Center for Cycling Education

Contrary to a common misconception, cyclists do not have to (and are not recommended to) ride as far to the right side of the road as they can.

thecce.org

I was told on INGO that “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” was a hallucination.

So. When you impose your own law on other people, are you saying that this is as far to the right as is practicable? You did say you do this to force other drivers to behave the way you want them to. Which is conspicuously missing from the law you cited.

Maybe you think this makes you safer. All it does is **** the

Apparently others disagree with you.

“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.”

“If you were riding on the road and were trying to hide from traffic, would you ride further to the right, or further to the left? In courses for all ages, we constantly get a response of “you’d ride further to the right”. Do we want to hide from traffic? Here’s a hint: the vast majority of collisions occur when a driver simply does not see a cyclist.”

“Riding further left makes a cyclist more visible to drivers in front and behind, reducing the likelihood of a collision.”

“Cyclists have just as much right — no more and no less — to be on the roadway as do motorists. They also have a right to an expectation of being treated safely by others.”

“How close to (or far from) the side of the road we ride to be safe depends on a number of elements”

The ones policing are those telling cyclists they must ride to the far right.

Riding further to the left makes it more likely to have a chevy bowtie imprinted on your corpse when the driver of the chevy is inattentive. Is the cyclist in the right? Yeah. The dead right.

I think sometimes a road is just incompatible with cycling. Not by matter of law. Just by matter of common sense and practicality. @Ingomike admitted this when he said he doesn't ride on roads anymore, because of too many close calls. I don't know what can be done about inattentive drivers. They affect other drivers as well.

It's a practically insolvable problem. If roads were actually designed with cycling in mind, they'd make bike lanes that separate the two as much as is practicable and affordable. So as it is, it makes it up to cyclists to fend for their own safety. If you think it makes you safer to ride in the middle of the lane, maybe it does for some inattentive drivers. But the construction dude that almost hit us head on a while back was busy messing with papers while driving. He looked up just in time to see us oncoming and swerve back within his lane. If he'd have looked up a half-second later, it would have been a head on collision because we had nowhere to go. If you're riding on that road in the middle of the lane with that guy coming up behind you, well, godspeed.

 

[Ingomike]

So. When you impose your own law on other people, are you saying that this is as far to the right as is practicable? You did say you do this to force other drivers to behave the way you want them to. Which is conspicuously missing from the law you cited.

Maybe you think this makes you safer. All it does is **** the

I am following the laws, you are trying to enforce what is not law.

Riding further to the left makes it more likely to have a chevy bowtie imprinted on your corpse when the driver of the chevy is inattentive. Is the cyclist in the right? Yeah. The dead right.

Maybe you just have no idea how to ride defensively as a cyclist.

I think sometimes a road is just incompatible with cycling. Not by matter of law. Just by matter of common sense and practicality. @Ingomike admitted this when he said he doesn't ride on roads anymore, because of too many close calls. I don't know what can be done about inattentive drivers. They affect other drivers as well.

I don’t ride anymore because of inattentive drivers.

It's a practically insolvable problem. If roads were actually designed with cycling in mind, they'd make bike lanes that separate the two as much as is practicable and affordable. So as it is, it makes it up to cyclists to fend for their own safety. If you think it makes you safer to ride in the middle of the lane, maybe it does for some inattentive drivers. But the construction dude that almost hit us head on a while back was busy messing with papers while driving. He looked up just in time to see us oncoming and swerve back within his lane. If he'd have looked up a half-second later, it would have been a head on collision because we had nowhere to go. If you're riding on that road in the middle of the lane with that guy coming up behind you, well, godspeed.

Yep, but he could have killed you in a car or truck, so he was a killer no matter what you were on or in.

 

[chipbennett]

I believe you are incorrect and pedestrians are allowed to use any road under any circumstances except where specifically prohibited such as interstates

Could you please cite whatever part of IC or other official source you think supports your viewpoint

You might want to reread Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-21-17, in particular Sections 12 - 14.

 

[jamil]

True Scotsman. You say bicycles are not considered in road design, proof is offered that they are, you pivot to it isn't truly about the design of the road so it doesn't matter

And I didn't cite just one road, those are the INDOT standards for all roads constructed in the state of Indiana except limited access highways. That is essentially what 'all roads where bicycles are allowed' means

I'm sure you're right and the grapes were probably sour anyway

In practical terms, if bicycles are considered in planning out roads, then we should be able to discern some kind of difference in roads when bicycles are not considered, in a way that is relevant to the points you guys are trying to make. Otherwise, the point is moot. So you dug out a specification for roadways that say a grate has to be safe for bicycles. While technically a "consideration", is there a consequence for any point you'd like to make about it?

So the laws says, hey, let's not put road grates anywhere that would cause cars to swerve to miss them. that wouldn't be good. Oh, and BTW, we guess bicycles might ride on these roads too. So, so just in case, let's make sure when we have a road grate, they're safe for bike tires.

The road I live on has zero road grates. Prove that any consideration was made for all the bikes that ride on it. I'll say this, if consideration was given, design intent must have been to kill off cyclists. It's a dangerous road even for cars. I wish they could widen it, and maybe add a berm on the sides.

 

[chipbennett]

True Scotsman. You say bicycles are not considered in road design, proof is offered that they are, you pivot to it isn't truly about the design of the road so it doesn't matter

And I didn't cite just one road, those are the INDOT standards for all roads constructed in the state of Indiana except limited access highways. That is essentially what 'all roads where bicycles are allowed' means

I'm sure you're right and the grapes were probably sour anyway

No; I've fully conceded that you are correct that road design contemplates bicycles for the non-traffic-lane part of road construction. You were right about that. I was wrong.

I'll be watching for you riding your bicycle in such non-traffic-lane parts of roads.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Who said riding on the left side? Strawman!

Still trying to police where riders can ride I see.

The time I got hit by a car I was too far right and he thought he could squeeze through with me in the right hand lane while an oncoming car was in the left and hit me. NEVER AGAIN!

Talk about strawmen, never said they couldn't. Just disagree on the safety. And I meant left side of the lane, near the center line.

 

[chipbennett]

I am following the laws, you are trying to enforce what is not law.

If it is "practicable" for you to ride farther to the right, yet you choose instead to ride in the center of the lane, then no: you're not following the law.

You have stated that such riding is not a matter of what is "practicable" but rather a matter of what you consider to improve your safety when cars approach/pass you.

 

[actaeon277]

Indiana Bicycle Laws | Bike Law

We are a network of independent bicycle accident lawyers across the United States and Canada.

www.bikelaw.com

Where to Ride​

• Bicyclists are required to ride in the right hand lane or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway, when traveling slower than the speed of traffic.
• Bicyclists may (but are not required to) utilize any usable bicycle lane.
• Bicycles are not prohibited from being ridden on the sidewalks but bicyclists should check their local ordinances for variations.

OW TO RIDE​

• Bicyclists shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of the roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
• Bicyclists are required to slow down and come to a complete stop at stop signs and traffic devices signaling red. However, after a bicyclist comes to a complete stop at a steady red traffic signal, and waits for two (2) minutes or 120 seconds, the bicyclist, exercising due care, may treat the red traffic signal as a stop sign and may proceed once safe. (Dead Red)
• Bicyclists must signal when turning or coming to a stop.

 

[chipbennett]

In practical terms, if bicycles are considered in planning out roads, then we should be able to discern some kind of difference in roads when bicycles are not considered, in a way that is relevant to the points you guys are trying to make. Otherwise, the point is moot. So you dug out a specification for roadways that say a grate has to be safe for bicycles. While technically a "consideration", is there a consequence for any point you'd like to make about it?

So the laws says, hey, let's not put road grates anywhere that would cause cars to swerve to miss them. that wouldn't be good. Oh, and BTW, we guess bicycles might ride on these roads too. So, so just in case, let's make sure when we have a road grate, they're safe for bike tires.

The road I live on has zero road grates. Prove that any consideration was made for all the bikes that ride on it. I'll say this, if consideration was given, design intent must have been to kill off cyclists. It's a dangerous road even for cars. I wish they could widen it, and maybe add a berm on the sides.

The only point was to prove me wrong - something I readily acknowledged. He's right. I was wrong. The non-traffic-lane part of roads wasn't what I was talking about, and wasn't what anyone was talking about. But he is correct on a technicality, and I acknowledged it. +1 for Bug, I guess?

He has yet to show anything of consequence to support the claim that roads, in general, consider use by bicycles in their design. He cited a regulation dealing with the non-traffic-lane part of roads, which by definition has nothing to do with the traffic lane part of roads.

 

[Ingomike]

If it is "practicable" for you to ride farther to the right, yet you choose instead to ride in the center of the lane, then no: you're not following the law.

You have stated that such riding is not a matter of what is "practicable" but rather a matter of what you consider to improve your safety when cars approach/pass you.

So you are unilaterally deciding that what a rider considers safe is not practicable?

 

[Ingomike]

Talk about strawmen, never said they couldn't.

Who said that?

Just disagree on the safety. And I meant left side of the lane, near the center line.

There are many different road sizes and just as varied a number of practicable cyclist positioning on those varied roadways. One size does not fit all. Therefore:

“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.”

 

[chipbennett]

So you are unilaterally deciding that what a rider considers safe is not practicable?

Did you not see the word "if"? I know that it's just a tiny, little word; but its presence has big meaning.

 

[jamil]

I am following the laws, you are trying to enforce what is not law.

Okay. I can't wait for your explanation of what you say I'm saying that I didn't say.

Maybe you just have no idea how to ride defensively as a cyclist.

It's your ass. Do with it what you will. You probably won't want to ride on my road while in the middle of the lane. In the first place, the lane is small enough that they're not much more likely to see you if you're riding in the center of lane or more towards the right.

I don’t ride anymore because of inattentive drivers.

Which is what I said. There's not anything you can do about inattentive drivers. People are inattentive. It's not just automobile drivers. Also, everyone gets distracted at some point. Everyone. Even you. That's just a human trait. But some people have habits that lead to inattentiveness. If you don't have those habits the few times you might have a lapse of attention, the rarity doesn't tend to stack up well with opportunity, unless you're having a particularly unlucky day.

There's nothing you can do to make habitually inattentive people be more attentive. Laws don't seem to make people stay the **** off their phones when driving. I still see people doing that **** all the time. No one is concerned about it until they hit someone.

Yep, but he could have killed you in a car or truck, so he was a killer no matter what you were on or in.

We were in an SUV. I doubt anyone would have died in either vehicle. We're surrounded by steel, crumple zones and airbags. Maybe someone would break some bones. Not dead.

But, on a bike, you're way more likely to be killed. Point is, some roads are just not compatible with cycling, because some roads and traffic patterns are just less friendly to inattentive drivers and consequences involving bicycles.

 

[BugI02]

IC 9-21-17-12
If a sidewalk is provided and the sidewalk's use is practicable, a pedestrian may not walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.

So about my question?

For the moment, I will concede the possibility. I have devoted all the time I'm willing to right now to a search and I can find plenty of organizations, including some official Indiana ones, stating that bicyclists may but are not required to use bike lanes but I cannot find a specific IC citation where I would expect to

I am assuming some such exists, due to the frequent reference to it, but have not yet found it. I suspect that requiring bicycles to use bike lanes would require a change to the law

Further, I must admit that I am surprised that use of the sidewalk is specifically required when one is available