Bad bicycle reporting on Channel 5 in Kansas City - Page 3

02-19-2005, 11:05 AM

"jj" wrote:

> What's interesting to me is that there's no provision for how long the
> riders have to 'single up'. If you take two relatively uncoordinated
> riders
> who have not to this point practiced this, it could take quite a while.

I think you have to take into account the type of road, speed limit, and
traffic volume. If you're being passed every 20-30 seconds by 50 mph
traffic, it's probably better to just ride single file. You're right that
the law doesn't spell that out. It's more of a common sense thing.

After viewing the video of the road in question, it seems to have more
traffic than I expected based on the OPs description. It's not exactly a
quiet country lane!

> So how do you judge when the riders are 'at fault' for not singling up.
> Perhaps they just took too long for this impatient driver. In that case
> the
> burden for passing safely has to be on the larger faster vehicle - yes
> even
> if it takes a minute to get coordinated and allow a safe pass.

The two cyclists in the video claim to have over 20 years of riding
experience. I can't imagine a situation where it would take more than a
couple of seconds for two riders to single up.

>>The vehicle would be at fault for unsafe passing.
>
> In addition what about the law about hitting someone from behind? Clearly
> if you're passing another car and clip them in passing, you have hit them
> from behind and thus have failed to pass safely. I think the driver should
> also be cited for reckless driving - sounds like he was trying to 'scare'
> the cyclists.

I wouldn't doubt it. If I had to guess I'd say the two cyclists were
ignoring the horn honking motorist, expecting him to go around them (into
the other lane). The motorist got angry and decided to pass as close as
possible. He misjudged and brushed one of the cyclists. If so, both would be
partially to blame, but obviously the cyclists were more vulnerable. Draw
your own conclusions.

Art Harris

02-19-2005, 11:23 AM

"Chris Neary" wrote:
> It can be argued that under some conditions, the riders are *never*
> required
> to "single up". VC 307.190 states that the rider shall exercise "due care
> ... when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle".
>
> I read this to mean that if the lane is too narrow to share, you may "take
> the lane" and overtaking traffic must wait until it is safe to move into
> the
> other lane and pass.

I'm not shy about "taking the lane" when conditions dictate. But it seems
contradictory to be riding two abreast under those conditions.

That's one area where motorists really need to be educated. They just don't
understand what's going on when you take the lane. They think you're just
trying to impede them for the fun of it.

In the interview, the cyclists never claimed the road was too narrow. Their
defense was just that they didn't have enough time to single up. As someone
else pointed out here, if you're going to ride two abreast, the burden is on
you to know when traffic is approaching.

Art Harris

02-19-2005, 11:23 AM

"Chris Neary" wrote:
> It can be argued that under some conditions, the riders are *never*
> required
> to "single up". VC 307.190 states that the rider shall exercise "due care
> ... when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle".
>
> I read this to mean that if the lane is too narrow to share, you may "take
> the lane" and overtaking traffic must wait until it is safe to move into
> the
> other lane and pass.

I'm not shy about "taking the lane" when conditions dictate. But it seems
contradictory to be riding two abreast under those conditions.

That's one area where motorists really need to be educated. They just don't
understand what's going on when you take the lane. They think you're just
trying to impede them for the fun of it.

In the interview, the cyclists never claimed the road was too narrow. Their
defense was just that they didn't have enough time to single up. As someone
else pointed out here, if you're going to ride two abreast, the burden is on
you to know when traffic is approaching.

Art Harris

02-19-2005, 11:36 AM

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:59:01 -0700, Rich <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>jj wrote:
>
>> So it seems to me that it's almost a given drivers are going to be
>> significantly delayed in passing two unaware, uncoordinated cyclists.
>
>If the cyclists can't handle the responsibility of verifying they aren't
>impeding traffic, then they shouldn't be riding two abreast.

Yes but note the law says nothing about skill. It could just as easily be
two 14 y.o. kids. The law allows them to ride two abreast and therefore
it's the driver's responsibility to take the safest course.

>And while there's no law saying they need mirrors, there's no law agaist
>them getting mirrors. And if that's what it takes for them to not
>impeed the flow of traffic, then that's what they need to do.

Somewhat playing the devil's advocate, the riders may be somewhat
incompetent, and slightly less than optimally prepared. They may in fact
think they are not impeding traffic and might in fact be incorrect. It's
still the responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to take the safest
course. The driver has to proceed with the utmost caution, know how
vulnerable the biker is, knowing that the chain could come off, knowing
that there could be a momentary mis-communication between the two riders,
yada, yada.

In any venue I've ever seen the faster larger vehicle has to be the one
taking the most precaution. Sure, it would be great in a perfect world for
every rider to be optimally prepared, and to practice singling up, but it's
not going to happen.

I admit to be slighly surprised that the lawmakers would enact this kind of
law given all the inherent problems. I mean saying that riders have to
single up doesn't make it happen magically. It takes time, skill, intent
and practice and the bike has to be in good mechanical condition. But it
ain't happening that way in the real world. To me it's an invitation to
disaster to allow it in the first place. I'm certainly not advocating
hiding behind a bad law, and being incompetent. Mostly I'm just pondering
the situation.

>> So how do you judge when the riders are 'at fault' for not singling up.
>
>Seems pretty easy to me. If they impeed the flow of traffic, they're at
>fault.

Not easy at all. What if one of the riders has a momentary mechanical
problem, or is having a bit of trouble singling up? Should they be run
down? If a pedestrian is crossing against the traffic does it give drivers
the right to run them down, or to play chicken with them with their
vehicle? I think not.

jj

>Rich

02-19-2005, 11:36 AM

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:59:01 -0700, Rich <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>jj wrote:
>
>> So it seems to me that it's almost a given drivers are going to be
>> significantly delayed in passing two unaware, uncoordinated cyclists.
>
>If the cyclists can't handle the responsibility of verifying they aren't
>impeding traffic, then they shouldn't be riding two abreast.

Yes but note the law says nothing about skill. It could just as easily be
two 14 y.o. kids. The law allows them to ride two abreast and therefore
it's the driver's responsibility to take the safest course.

>And while there's no law saying they need mirrors, there's no law agaist
>them getting mirrors. And if that's what it takes for them to not
>impeed the flow of traffic, then that's what they need to do.

Somewhat playing the devil's advocate, the riders may be somewhat
incompetent, and slightly less than optimally prepared. They may in fact
think they are not impeding traffic and might in fact be incorrect. It's
still the responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to take the safest
course. The driver has to proceed with the utmost caution, know how
vulnerable the biker is, knowing that the chain could come off, knowing
that there could be a momentary mis-communication between the two riders,
yada, yada.

In any venue I've ever seen the faster larger vehicle has to be the one
taking the most precaution. Sure, it would be great in a perfect world for
every rider to be optimally prepared, and to practice singling up, but it's
not going to happen.

I admit to be slighly surprised that the lawmakers would enact this kind of
law given all the inherent problems. I mean saying that riders have to
single up doesn't make it happen magically. It takes time, skill, intent
and practice and the bike has to be in good mechanical condition. But it
ain't happening that way in the real world. To me it's an invitation to
disaster to allow it in the first place. I'm certainly not advocating
hiding behind a bad law, and being incompetent. Mostly I'm just pondering
the situation.

>> So how do you judge when the riders are 'at fault' for not singling up.
>
>Seems pretty easy to me. If they impeed the flow of traffic, they're at
>fault.

Not easy at all. What if one of the riders has a momentary mechanical
problem, or is having a bit of trouble singling up? Should they be run
down? If a pedestrian is crossing against the traffic does it give drivers
the right to run them down, or to play chicken with them with their
vehicle? I think not.

jj

>Rich

02-19-2005, 11:55 AM

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:05:42 -0500, "Arthur Harris" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>"jj" wrote:
>
>> What's interesting to me is that there's no provision for how long the
>> riders have to 'single up'. If you take two relatively uncoordinated
>> riders
>> who have not to this point practiced this, it could take quite a while.
>
>I think you have to take into account the type of road, speed limit, and
>traffic volume. If you're being passed every 20-30 seconds by 50 mph
>traffic, it's probably better to just ride single file. You're right that
>the law doesn't spell that out. It's more of a common sense thing.

Oh for sure. I'm just trying to think about the ramifications of having
such a law and the problems coping with it in an imperfect world.

>After viewing the video of the road in question, it seems to have more
>traffic than I expected based on the OPs description. It's not exactly a
>quiet country lane!
>
>> So how do you judge when the riders are 'at fault' for not singling up.
>> Perhaps they just took too long for this impatient driver. In that case
>> the burden for passing safely has to be on the larger faster vehicle -
>> yes even if it takes a minute to get coordinated and allow a safe pass.
>
>The two cyclists in the video claim to have over 20 years of riding
>experience. I can't imagine a situation where it would take more than a
>couple of seconds for two riders to single up.

I can imagine several problems as I said. Momentary mis-communication,
slight mechanical problem, foot comes unclipped, chain comes off, gear
shifted the wrong way in the heat of the moment.

>>>The vehicle would be at fault for unsafe passing.
>>
>> In addition what about the law about hitting someone from behind? Clearly
>> if you're passing another car and clip them in passing, you have hit them
>> from behind and thus have failed to pass safely. I think the driver should
>> also be cited for reckless driving - sounds like he was trying to 'scare'
>> the cyclists.
>
>I wouldn't doubt it. If I had to guess I'd say the two cyclists were
>ignoring the horn honking motorist, expecting him to go around them

Are there any laws about deaf riders? Perhaps the cyclists couldn't even
hear the driver. Doesn't give him any additional rights, or require any
less caution. Sure it's probably stretching it to postulate this. But in
fact the more obtuse the cyclists seemed the more carefully the driver
should have reacted. Hah, I can hear Judge Judy now. "ok, sir since the
cyclists weren't reacting to or didn't seem to be able to hear your honking
did it give you the right to try and run them over?" ;-p

>(into the other lane). The motorist got angry and decided to pass as close as
>possible. He misjudged and brushed one of the cyclists. If so, both would be
>partially to blame, but obviously the cyclists were more vulnerable. Draw
>your own conclusions.

Again, if you are trying to cycle past two pedestrians on a Multi-use trail
and they fail to move over after several polite requests, and you clip one
of them and the bike cop sees you, -you- are going to be cited. It matters
not which of any of a dozen reasons the bikers or pedestrians fail to
immediately comply - if you are the faster vehicle -and- overtaking from
behind -you- are normally the responsible party in my experience.

There is no 'right' to go ahead of the other person at the expense of their
safety that I'm aware. I mean sure it ticks me off when pedestrians on the
trail wear headphones and seemingly ignore requests to pass, and sure I'd
like to give them a swift kick in the behind, but it's not gonna help
matters and their being an ass doesn't allow me to harm them.

jj

>Art Harris
>

02-19-2005, 11:55 AM

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:05:42 -0500, "Arthur Harris" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>"jj" wrote:
>
>> What's interesting to me is that there's no provision for how long the
>> riders have to 'single up'. If you take two relatively uncoordinated
>> riders
>> who have not to this point practiced this, it could take quite a while.
>
>I think you have to take into account the type of road, speed limit, and
>traffic volume. If you're being passed every 20-30 seconds by 50 mph
>traffic, it's probably better to just ride single file. You're right that
>the law doesn't spell that out. It's more of a common sense thing.

Oh for sure. I'm just trying to think about the ramifications of having
such a law and the problems coping with it in an imperfect world.

>After viewing the video of the road in question, it seems to have more
>traffic than I expected based on the OPs description. It's not exactly a
>quiet country lane!
>
>> So how do you judge when the riders are 'at fault' for not singling up.
>> Perhaps they just took too long for this impatient driver. In that case
>> the burden for passing safely has to be on the larger faster vehicle -
>> yes even if it takes a minute to get coordinated and allow a safe pass.
>
>The two cyclists in the video claim to have over 20 years of riding
>experience. I can't imagine a situation where it would take more than a
>couple of seconds for two riders to single up.

I can imagine several problems as I said. Momentary mis-communication,
slight mechanical problem, foot comes unclipped, chain comes off, gear
shifted the wrong way in the heat of the moment.

>>>The vehicle would be at fault for unsafe passing.
>>
>> In addition what about the law about hitting someone from behind? Clearly
>> if you're passing another car and clip them in passing, you have hit them
>> from behind and thus have failed to pass safely. I think the driver should
>> also be cited for reckless driving - sounds like he was trying to 'scare'
>> the cyclists.
>
>I wouldn't doubt it. If I had to guess I'd say the two cyclists were
>ignoring the horn honking motorist, expecting him to go around them

Are there any laws about deaf riders? Perhaps the cyclists couldn't even
hear the driver. Doesn't give him any additional rights, or require any
less caution. Sure it's probably stretching it to postulate this. But in
fact the more obtuse the cyclists seemed the more carefully the driver
should have reacted. Hah, I can hear Judge Judy now. "ok, sir since the
cyclists weren't reacting to or didn't seem to be able to hear your honking
did it give you the right to try and run them over?" ;-p

>(into the other lane). The motorist got angry and decided to pass as close as
>possible. He misjudged and brushed one of the cyclists. If so, both would be
>partially to blame, but obviously the cyclists were more vulnerable. Draw
>your own conclusions.

Again, if you are trying to cycle past two pedestrians on a Multi-use trail
and they fail to move over after several polite requests, and you clip one
of them and the bike cop sees you, -you- are going to be cited. It matters
not which of any of a dozen reasons the bikers or pedestrians fail to
immediately comply - if you are the faster vehicle -and- overtaking from
behind -you- are normally the responsible party in my experience.

There is no 'right' to go ahead of the other person at the expense of their
safety that I'm aware. I mean sure it ticks me off when pedestrians on the
trail wear headphones and seemingly ignore requests to pass, and sure I'd
like to give them a swift kick in the behind, but it's not gonna help
matters and their being an ass doesn't allow me to harm them.

jj

>Art Harris
>

02-19-2005, 12:14 PM

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:23:17 -0500, "Arthur Harris" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>"Chris Neary" wrote:
>> It can be argued that under some conditions, the riders are *never*
>> required
>> to "single up". VC 307.190 states that the rider shall exercise "due care
>> ... when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle".
>>
>> I read this to mean that if the lane is too narrow to share, you may "take
>> the lane" and overtaking traffic must wait until it is safe to move into
>> the other lane and pass.
>
>I'm not shy about "taking the lane" when conditions dictate. But it seems
>contradictory to be riding two abreast under those conditions.

According to my reading the law allow riding two abreast and says when they
should single up, but doesn't say anything about type of road where it's
allowed or not allowed. It may be that for the moment it appeared safe and
then perhaps wasn't as safe.

>That's one area where motorists really need to be educated. They just don't
>understand what's going on when you take the lane. They think you're just
>trying to impede them for the fun of it.

Exactly. Every driver, imo, should react to any cyclists as though it's
their child on the bike ahead and behave accordingly. Unfortunately they
all too frequently take out their frustrations of the day on the most
vulnerable target, then lie to get out of any problems their bad attitude
takes.

>In the interview, the cyclists never claimed the road was too narrow. Their
>defense was just that they didn't have enough time to single up. As someone
>else pointed out here, if you're going to ride two abreast, the burden is on
>you to know when traffic is approaching.
>
>Art Harris

I'd have to quibble with your last statement, Art. Where do you derive that
"the burden is on you to know when traffic is approaching"? If the law
allows riding two abreast then it has to allow for significant time to
single up, including problems, road conditions, and communication. I'm sure
you've encounter many situations where you had to hold your line for a
short period. Could be bad pavement, could be slick paint on a wet stretch
of pavement, could be there's an approaching vehicle and it's not safe to
pass. In that case both cyclists should be allowed to ride in the
right-hand tire track until they can safely relinquish the lane and avoid
being 'squeezed'.

I mean it might be common sense to know when traffic is approaching, but
there's no legal precedent for having to be aware of traffic moving up from
behind unless you're doing something like changing lanes. The
responsibility is with the overtaking driver. It's just not defensible for
the overtaking vehicle to hit anyone and claim it's partly their fault
unless the cyclist made a sudden erratic movement or something like that.

jj

02-19-2005, 12:14 PM

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:23:17 -0500, "Arthur Harris" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>"Chris Neary" wrote:
>> It can be argued that under some conditions, the riders are *never*
>> required
>> to "single up". VC 307.190 states that the rider shall exercise "due care
>> ... when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle".
>>
>> I read this to mean that if the lane is too narrow to share, you may "take
>> the lane" and overtaking traffic must wait until it is safe to move into
>> the other lane and pass.
>
>I'm not shy about "taking the lane" when conditions dictate. But it seems
>contradictory to be riding two abreast under those conditions.

According to my reading the law allow riding two abreast and says when they
should single up, but doesn't say anything about type of road where it's
allowed or not allowed. It may be that for the moment it appeared safe and
then perhaps wasn't as safe.

>That's one area where motorists really need to be educated. They just don't
>understand what's going on when you take the lane. They think you're just
>trying to impede them for the fun of it.

Exactly. Every driver, imo, should react to any cyclists as though it's
their child on the bike ahead and behave accordingly. Unfortunately they
all too frequently take out their frustrations of the day on the most
vulnerable target, then lie to get out of any problems their bad attitude
takes.

>In the interview, the cyclists never claimed the road was too narrow. Their
>defense was just that they didn't have enough time to single up. As someone
>else pointed out here, if you're going to ride two abreast, the burden is on
>you to know when traffic is approaching.
>
>Art Harris

I'd have to quibble with your last statement, Art. Where do you derive that
"the burden is on you to know when traffic is approaching"? If the law
allows riding two abreast then it has to allow for significant time to
single up, including problems, road conditions, and communication. I'm sure
you've encounter many situations where you had to hold your line for a
short period. Could be bad pavement, could be slick paint on a wet stretch
of pavement, could be there's an approaching vehicle and it's not safe to
pass. In that case both cyclists should be allowed to ride in the
right-hand tire track until they can safely relinquish the lane and avoid
being 'squeezed'.

I mean it might be common sense to know when traffic is approaching, but
there's no legal precedent for having to be aware of traffic moving up from
behind unless you're doing something like changing lanes. The
responsibility is with the overtaking driver. It's just not defensible for
the overtaking vehicle to hit anyone and claim it's partly their fault
unless the cyclist made a sudden erratic movement or something like that.

jj

02-19-2005, 12:26 PM

jj wrote:

> Somewhat playing the devil's advocate, the riders may be somewhat
> incompetent, and slightly less than optimally prepared. They may in fact
> think they are not impeding traffic and might in fact be incorrect.

If they're impeeding traffic, then they're at fault. If someone has
slow reflexes, that does not give them the right to run through a light
that just turned red. Lacking the skills to obey a law (or being
ignorant of the law), will not stand up as a defense in court.

Rich