Bad bicycle reporting on Channel 5 in Kansas City - Page 2 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-19-2005, 09:22 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

02-19-2005, 10:36 AM

>> 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.

Thanks for the ref, my brain must have zoned out when originally reading the
page.

Actually, the initial post contains a link with VC references:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

VC section 307.190 is the relevant cite. Note that riding two abreast is
specifically permitted in Missouri "when not impeding other vehicles".

Based on the accounts in news article, the riders were not at fault for
riding two abreast, but would be at fault for not "singling up" once they
were aware a vehicle was behind them.

The vehicle would be at fault for unsafe passing.

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, 10:36 AM

>> 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.

Thanks for the ref, my brain must have zoned out when originally reading the
page.

Actually, the initial post contains a link with VC references:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

VC section 307.190 is the relevant cite. Note that riding two abreast is
specifically permitted in Missouri "when not impeding other vehicles".

Based on the accounts in news article, the riders were not at fault for
riding two abreast, but would be at fault for not "singling up" once they
were aware a vehicle was behind them.

The vehicle would be at fault for unsafe passing.

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, 11:08 AM

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:36:45 -0800, Chris Neary <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >
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.
>
>Thanks for the ref, my brain must have zoned out when originally reading the
>page.
>
>Actually, the initial post contains a link with VC references:
>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>VC section 307.190 is the relevant cite. Note that riding two abreast is
>specifically permitted in Missouri "when not impeding other vehicles".
>
>Based on the accounts in news article, the riders were not at fault for
>riding two abreast, but would be at fault for not "singling up" once they
>were aware a vehicle was behind them.

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.

First one rider has to be aware of the vehicle, then the other rider, then
they have to communicate to each other there's a car there. Then they have
to ascertain if it's safe for the car to pass so as not to be squeezed off
the road should the driver passing encounter a car coming the other way
around the bend.

Finally they have to decide who is going to speed up and who is going to
slow down and get behind. Allowing for a couple brief mistakes in who goes
behind whom and you have nearly 15-20 seconds, or more. Obviously a
well-coordinated team of riders could single up in 3-5 seconds after
sensing a car following, and a responsible team, both having mirrors would
be able to anticipate the car coming up from quite a way.

However, to my knowledge the law does not address this. In fact, in
allowing the two abreast riding, this allows for two cyclists to be almost
totally oblivious to what's behind them - there's no requirement for
cyclists to have mirrors to my knowledge - making it completely the
driver's responsibility to signal without causing undue alarm to the riders
and then pass when it's safe. (now having said this it's pretty obvious
that cyclists being aware of their vulnerablility would take steps to
anticipate and practice these maneuvers but this is not, to my knowledge,
part of the law).

So it seems to me that it's almost a given drivers are going to be
significantly delayed in passing two unaware, uncoordinated cyclists.
Obviously the people who wrote the law had to realize that once they allow
two-abreast riding they've got to take into account not the
well-coordinated team, but the least possible coordinated team.

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 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.

jj

>
>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, 11:08 AM

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:36:45 -0800, Chris Neary <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >
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.
>
>Thanks for the ref, my brain must have zoned out when originally reading the
>page.
>
>Actually, the initial post contains a link with VC references:
>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>VC section 307.190 is the relevant cite. Note that riding two abreast is
>specifically permitted in Missouri "when not impeding other vehicles".
>
>Based on the accounts in news article, the riders were not at fault for
>riding two abreast, but would be at fault for not "singling up" once they
>were aware a vehicle was behind them.

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.

First one rider has to be aware of the vehicle, then the other rider, then
they have to communicate to each other there's a car there. Then they have
to ascertain if it's safe for the car to pass so as not to be squeezed off
the road should the driver passing encounter a car coming the other way
around the bend.

Finally they have to decide who is going to speed up and who is going to
slow down and get behind. Allowing for a couple brief mistakes in who goes
behind whom and you have nearly 15-20 seconds, or more. Obviously a
well-coordinated team of riders could single up in 3-5 seconds after
sensing a car following, and a responsible team, both having mirrors would
be able to anticipate the car coming up from quite a way.

However, to my knowledge the law does not address this. In fact, in
allowing the two abreast riding, this allows for two cyclists to be almost
totally oblivious to what's behind them - there's no requirement for
cyclists to have mirrors to my knowledge - making it completely the
driver's responsibility to signal without causing undue alarm to the riders
and then pass when it's safe. (now having said this it's pretty obvious
that cyclists being aware of their vulnerablility would take steps to
anticipate and practice these maneuvers but this is not, to my knowledge,
part of the law).

So it seems to me that it's almost a given drivers are going to be
significantly delayed in passing two unaware, uncoordinated cyclists.
Obviously the people who wrote the law had to realize that once they allow
two-abreast riding they've got to take into account not the
well-coordinated team, but the least possible coordinated team.

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 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.

jj

>
>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, 11:59 AM

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.

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.

> 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.

Rich

02-19-2005, 11:59 AM

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.

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.

> 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.

Rich

02-19-2005, 12:01 PM

>>VC section 307.190 is the relevant cite. Note that riding two abreast is
>>specifically permitted in Missouri "when not impeding other vehicles".
>>
>>Based on the accounts in news article, the riders were not at fault for
>>riding two abreast, but would be at fault for not "singling up" once they
>>were aware a vehicle was behind them.
>
>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.

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.

Did the road conditions in this incident meet this criteria? I don't know.

>So it seems to me that it's almost a given drivers are going to be
>significantly delayed in passing two unaware, uncoordinated cyclists.
>Obviously the people who wrote the law had to realize that once they allow
>two-abreast riding they've got to take into account not the
>well-coordinated team, but the least possible coordinated team.

In my personal experience, I try to keep the big perspective. I can't
remember the last time I was delayed by a cyclist, "significantly" or
otherwise (and I live in a cycling hotspot). But I am delayed
"significantly" by motor vehicles on a daily basis.

>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.

Agreed, You cannot be "forced" into performing an unsafe pass.

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, 12:01 PM

>>VC section 307.190 is the relevant cite. Note that riding two abreast is
>>specifically permitted in Missouri "when not impeding other vehicles".
>>
>>Based on the accounts in news article, the riders were not at fault for
>>riding two abreast, but would be at fault for not "singling up" once they
>>were aware a vehicle was behind them.
>
>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.

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.

Did the road conditions in this incident meet this criteria? I don't know.

>So it seems to me that it's almost a given drivers are going to be
>significantly delayed in passing two unaware, uncoordinated cyclists.
>Obviously the people who wrote the law had to realize that once they allow
>two-abreast riding they've got to take into account not the
>well-coordinated team, but the least possible coordinated team.

In my personal experience, I try to keep the big perspective. I can't
remember the last time I was delayed by a cyclist, "significantly" or
otherwise (and I live in a cycling hotspot). But I am delayed
"significantly" by motor vehicles on a daily basis.

>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.

Agreed, You cannot be "forced" into performing an unsafe pass.

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, 12:05 PM

"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