Bad bicycle reporting on Channel 5 in Kansas City

02-18-2005, 07:51 PM

Bicyclists,

A TV news story has been making the rounds of cycling email groups in
Missouri & Kansas. The basic situation is that a pair of cyclists were
riding abreast on Blue River Road. This road runs right through Kansas
City, Missouri, along the (you guessed it!) Blue River. It's a
two-lane road that generally has a rural feel to it, with relatively
low traffic most times of the day--maybe about 500-1000 average daily
traffic.

The bicyclists were riding abreast around a curve. They said they
heard the driver approach from the rear and honk. They didn't even
have time to single up when he started to pass. The cyclists say that
as he came beside them he suddenly swerved over, hit the outside rider
with his mirror, causing both to run off the road and crash. (They
were not injured too seriously.)

Of course, the driver has a different story.

I won't comment on whose story I believe. I will encapsulate my
viewpoint on the matter by saying that it is both polite and legally
required to single up when a car approaches to pass. Yet failure to do
so does not give the motorist carte blanche to go into attack mode--or
even "must pass no matter how stupid and dangerous" mode.

But what is notable is how really, really bad the TV reporting is. It
implies the bicyclists are not allowed in the "traffic lane", they
should always ride on the shoulder (in this case a dinky little thing
about 6-12 inches wide), that the cyclists were at fault for riding
abreast whereas the motorist was not at fault at all, and so on.

Worse yet is that much of the misinformation seems to have come from
the police.

See the story (text and video) at:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Note that the text is a summary--the video has quite a lot more
details.

Local cyclists are planning to contact the TV station and the police to
try to educate them a little.

But if you should feel inclined to politely express your opinion about
this piece of reporting, here is how:

KCTV5
P.O. Box 5555
Kansas City, MO 64109

KCTV5 news email: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
KCTV5 news fax: 913-677-7243
KCTV5 news phone: 913-677-7211

For reference, Missouri bicycle laws, and links to Missouri traffic
laws, can be found here:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

--Brent
brent [at] brenthugh.com

02-18-2005, 08:05 PM

> See the story (text and video) at:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

I can't resist adding just one juicy quote from the story:

"Police say technically it was the *cyclists* who broke the law here
today because by riding two abreast with very little shoulder they were
in the traffic lane, that traffic lane belonging to the car, they say.
In the end, though, they didn't cite anyone."

So if you're riding two abreast in a lane and a motorist hits you, it's
all your fault.

Because the traffic lane belongs to the car.

See?

?!?

--Brent
brent [at] brenthugh.com

02-18-2005, 08:05 PM

> See the story (text and video) at:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

I can't resist adding just one juicy quote from the story:

"Police say technically it was the *cyclists* who broke the law here
today because by riding two abreast with very little shoulder they were
in the traffic lane, that traffic lane belonging to the car, they say.
In the end, though, they didn't cite anyone."

So if you're riding two abreast in a lane and a motorist hits you, it's
all your fault.

Because the traffic lane belongs to the car.

See?

?!?

--Brent
brent [at] brenthugh.com

02-19-2005, 06:25 AM

Wow,

I hope the education program is successful. Y'all should press for the
station to make amends by retracting some of those comments, specifically,
and by having a "cyclists right" segment on one or more of their broadcasts.

That is, off course, if you can come up with the appropriate statutes to
prove that they're wrong. In my state, they're wrong. Don't know if that
holds for every state.

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

02-19-2005, 06:25 AM

Wow,

I hope the education program is successful. Y'all should press for the
station to make amends by retracting some of those comments, specifically,
and by having a "cyclists right" segment on one or more of their broadcasts.

That is, off course, if you can come up with the appropriate statutes to
prove that they're wrong. In my state, they're wrong. Don't know if that
holds for every state.

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

02-19-2005, 07:01 AM

"psycholist" wrote:

> I hope the education program is successful. Y'all should press for the
> station to make amends by retracting some of those comments, specifically,
> and by having a "cyclists right" segment on one or more of their
> broadcasts.
>
> That is, off course, if you can come up with the appropriate statutes to
> prove that they're wrong. In my state, they're wrong. Don't know if that
> holds for every state.

This may not be the best case to make an issue of. In many (most?) states,
cyclists are required to ride single file when being passed. On a quiet
country road (which this apparently was), you can usually hear a car
approaching from a pretty good distance.

The motorist says he slowed down, honked, waited for them to get out of the
way and swerved when they didn't, but the sideview mirror on his vehicle
clipped one of their handlebars. The cyclists claim he swerved into them
intentionally. I suspect the truth is somewhere between those two extremes.

Now, certainly the driver saw the cyclists if he honked, and he is at fault
for hitting them. And certainly there are situations where cyclists have a
right to be "in the traffic lane." But I'm not convinced from what I read
that the cyclists really tried to single up.

The article DOES NOT say cyclists are never allowed in the traffic lane.

It says, "Technically the bicyclists were at fault because they weren't
supposed to ride two abreast on such a narrow shoulder." I would have
phrased it slightly differently: Technically, the bicyclists were partially
at fault because they were riding two abreast in the traffic lane while
being passed.

Art Harris

02-19-2005, 07:01 AM

"psycholist" wrote:

> I hope the education program is successful. Y'all should press for the
> station to make amends by retracting some of those comments, specifically,
> and by having a "cyclists right" segment on one or more of their
> broadcasts.
>
> That is, off course, if you can come up with the appropriate statutes to
> prove that they're wrong. In my state, they're wrong. Don't know if that
> holds for every state.

This may not be the best case to make an issue of. In many (most?) states,
cyclists are required to ride single file when being passed. On a quiet
country road (which this apparently was), you can usually hear a car
approaching from a pretty good distance.

The motorist says he slowed down, honked, waited for them to get out of the
way and swerved when they didn't, but the sideview mirror on his vehicle
clipped one of their handlebars. The cyclists claim he swerved into them
intentionally. I suspect the truth is somewhere between those two extremes.

Now, certainly the driver saw the cyclists if he honked, and he is at fault
for hitting them. And certainly there are situations where cyclists have a
right to be "in the traffic lane." But I'm not convinced from what I read
that the cyclists really tried to single up.

The article DOES NOT say cyclists are never allowed in the traffic lane.

It says, "Technically the bicyclists were at fault because they weren't
supposed to ride two abreast on such a narrow shoulder." I would have
phrased it slightly differently: Technically, the bicyclists were partially
at fault because they were riding two abreast in the traffic lane while
being passed.

Art Harris

02-19-2005, 08:11 AM

>This may not be the best case to make an issue of. In many (most?) states,
>cyclists are required to ride single file when being passed. On a quiet
>country road (which this apparently was), you can usually hear a car
>approaching from a pretty good distance.

I'd like to see some citations of the code sections which might be
applicable in this case. In my scan of what I believe is the VC for Missouri
([Only registered and activated users can see links. ]) I can find no mention of the
typical "bicyclist must ride single file except when passing" language.

Equally surprising, the Online version of Missouri Drivers Guide makes no
mention of this either ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

So at this point, I can't verify that the cyclists were at fault in any
manner....at least in Missouri.

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

02-19-2005, 08:11 AM

>This may not be the best case to make an issue of. In many (most?) states,
>cyclists are required to ride single file when being passed. On a quiet
>country road (which this apparently was), you can usually hear a car
>approaching from a pretty good distance.

I'd like to see some citations of the code sections which might be
applicable in this case. In my scan of what I believe is the VC for Missouri
([Only registered and activated users can see links. ]) I can find no mention of the
typical "bicyclist must ride single file except when passing" language.

Equally surprising, the Online version of Missouri Drivers Guide makes no
mention of this either ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

So at this point, I can't verify that the cyclists were at fault in any
manner....at least in Missouri.

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

02-19-2005, 08:22 AM

Chris Neary wrote:

> Equally surprising, the Online version of Missouri Drivers Guide makes no
> mention of this either ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

From that link:

"WHERE TO RIDE MOPEDS AND BICYCLES

On public streets and highways, you have the same rights and
responsibilities as a motor vehicle operator. Always ride with traffic,
never against it. When operating at less than the posted speed or
traffic flow, generally ride as near to the right side of the roadway as
safe."

If they were two abreast, one was NOT riding as near to the right side
of the roadway as safe.

Rich