Bad bicycle reporting on Channel 5 in Kansas City - Page 8

02-20-2005, 07:22 AM

"Jym Dyer" wrote:

> Art Harrias wrote:

>> "Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file
>> when being overtaken by another vehicle."
>>
>> There are no "if, and's, or but's."
>
> =v= New York State's laws are archaic when it comes to bicycles.
> Fortunately, for folks in New York City, there are ifs ands or
> buts: Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1642 authorizes large-enough
> cities to override some of these, and § 4-02(e) of the New York
> City Traffic Rules does exactly that.

What specifically do the NYC rules say about riding two abreast?

Art Harris

02-20-2005, 09:13 AM

Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:41:55 -0500,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
jj <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote, in part:

>
>Driver anxiety goes way up when they are stopped or sitting still in
>traffic, and dramatically decreases when they start moving again. Try it,
>noticing how there's an impulse to 'get moving' especially if you have
>somewhere to go or are in a hurry.

Like our tolerance for noise, I believe it's also linked to the
perception of the activity's economic importance. Somebody on a
bicycle is "playing" in the street. A truck-load of spilled lumber is
"serious business".
The truck can cause them hours of delay but they can understand it.
They find it much harder to accept cyclists rights as legitimate road
users when the activity is seen as sport or recreation.
--
zk

02-20-2005, 09:13 AM

Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:41:55 -0500,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
jj <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote, in part:

>
>Driver anxiety goes way up when they are stopped or sitting still in
>traffic, and dramatically decreases when they start moving again. Try it,
>noticing how there's an impulse to 'get moving' especially if you have
>somewhere to go or are in a hurry.

Like our tolerance for noise, I believe it's also linked to the
perception of the activity's economic importance. Somebody on a
bicycle is "playing" in the street. A truck-load of spilled lumber is
"serious business".
The truck can cause them hours of delay but they can understand it.
They find it much harder to accept cyclists rights as legitimate road
users when the activity is seen as sport or recreation.
--
zk

02-20-2005, 09:33 AM

"Zoot Katz" wrote: (clip) when the activity is seen as sport or recreation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you have identified a real problem. And it occurs on a subconscious
level, so the person can feel resentment, even approaching "road rage,"
without even knowing that it is based on bias. I can cite from my own
experience: I often drive by a major horserace track. The traffic
conjestion in that area can be horrible, and I find myself feeling
resentment toward "those people," because I feel that I am being hindered in
my "legitimate" travel by their indulgence is a slightly "unsavory" pastime.

02-20-2005, 09:33 AM

"Zoot Katz" wrote: (clip) when the activity is seen as sport or recreation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you have identified a real problem. And it occurs on a subconscious
level, so the person can feel resentment, even approaching "road rage,"
without even knowing that it is based on bias. I can cite from my own
experience: I often drive by a major horserace track. The traffic
conjestion in that area can be horrible, and I find myself feeling
resentment toward "those people," because I feel that I am being hindered in
my "legitimate" travel by their indulgence is a slightly "unsavory" pastime.

02-20-2005, 11:59 AM

Chris Neary wrote:
> >I'm almost assuredly wasting my time replying because everyone seems
to
> >have already made up their mind what happened and what Missouri law
> >means so I'll point out just three things. First, it's rare for one
> >operator to be *solely* to blame in any collision that occurs in
moving
> >traffic. Sharing the road means sharing responsibility no matter
what
> >kind of vehicle one uses. In this case the cyclists were familiar
with
> >the road, knew that it had blind curves and grades that obstructed
> >sight lines but still chose to ride two abreast. Their decision to
ride
> >two abreast was a bad one and directly contributed to the crash.
>
> I disagree with this point. The driver had the ultimate
responsibility for
> his actions. He made the decision to pass in an unsafe manner.
>
> Further, there hasn't been any evidence offered that the driver
passed in a
> less safe manner because they were riding two abreast, so we have no
reason
> to believe the same outcome would not have occured had they been
riding
> single file.
>
Two cyclists were present. If the only cyclist that was struck was the
cyclist furthest away from the right I think it's a fair assumption to
make that his position on the roadway contributed to the crash. Of
course if the cyclist nearest the right was the one struck it's an
entirely different story.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

02-20-2005, 11:59 AM

Chris Neary wrote:
> >I'm almost assuredly wasting my time replying because everyone seems
to
> >have already made up their mind what happened and what Missouri law
> >means so I'll point out just three things. First, it's rare for one
> >operator to be *solely* to blame in any collision that occurs in
moving
> >traffic. Sharing the road means sharing responsibility no matter
what
> >kind of vehicle one uses. In this case the cyclists were familiar
with
> >the road, knew that it had blind curves and grades that obstructed
> >sight lines but still chose to ride two abreast. Their decision to
ride
> >two abreast was a bad one and directly contributed to the crash.
>
> I disagree with this point. The driver had the ultimate
responsibility for
> his actions. He made the decision to pass in an unsafe manner.
>
> Further, there hasn't been any evidence offered that the driver
passed in a
> less safe manner because they were riding two abreast, so we have no
reason
> to believe the same outcome would not have occured had they been
riding
> single file.
>
Two cyclists were present. If the only cyclist that was struck was the
cyclist furthest away from the right I think it's a fair assumption to
make that his position on the roadway contributed to the crash. Of
course if the cyclist nearest the right was the one struck it's an
entirely different story.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

02-20-2005, 12:15 PM

Jym Dyer wrote:

> =v= There is widespread expectation that if a motorist in front
> of you slows down, there could well be a valid reason, even if
> you can't tell what it is from your perspective. Bicyclists
> should be given the same consideration, and not an iota less.
> <_Jym_>

Agreed. The flip side though is that, except for the special
considerations the law grants, we shouldn't be given *more*
consideration either. Too often in this NG guilt and innocence is
ascribed solely on the basis of whether the act is performed by a
cyclist or a driver. For instance, many here seem to believe that a
cyclist "filtering" through motor vehicle traffic stopped at a red
light is not passing illegally though in fact, in Illinois anyway, they
are. Let that filtering cyclist get doored and there are more than a
few in this group that will call for a public hanging. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

02-20-2005, 12:15 PM

Jym Dyer wrote:

> =v= There is widespread expectation that if a motorist in front
> of you slows down, there could well be a valid reason, even if
> you can't tell what it is from your perspective. Bicyclists
> should be given the same consideration, and not an iota less.
> <_Jym_>

Agreed. The flip side though is that, except for the special
considerations the law grants, we shouldn't be given *more*
consideration either. Too often in this NG guilt and innocence is
ascribed solely on the basis of whether the act is performed by a
cyclist or a driver. For instance, many here seem to believe that a
cyclist "filtering" through motor vehicle traffic stopped at a red
light is not passing illegally though in fact, in Illinois anyway, they
are. Let that filtering cyclist get doored and there are more than a
few in this group that will call for a public hanging. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

02-20-2005, 02:18 PM

>Two cyclists were present. If the only cyclist that was struck was the
>cyclist furthest away from the right I think it's a fair assumption to
>make that his position on the roadway contributed to the crash. Of
>course if the cyclist nearest the right was the one struck it's an
>entirely different story.

No, I have to disagree.

Assuming the driver believed he was passing the leftmost rider with
sufficient room, why should we assume he would have been any more competent
at passing "singled-up" riders?

Chris Neary
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh