Bicycles in the roadway.

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In a thread about children bicycling was a discussion of
how to deal with a car that wants to pass a bicyclist. An
important point was mentioned a couple of times, but not
emphasized. First the code sections governing the
operation of a bicycle on the public way in California.

<http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm>

Quoted message said:

Operation on Roadway

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less
than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that
time
shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the
roadway except under any of the following situations:

I am glad I do not live in Sunny California then. Here is rainy, grey Old
Blighty, in law I am a legitimate road user and am not forced to stay in the
most dangerous place to be - the gutter next to the curb. Indeed, motorists
have their attention drawn to their need to give special attention to
vulnerable road users.

Here's a few bits from our Highway Code...

184: Near schools. Drive slowly and be particularly aware of young cyclists
and pedestrians. In some places, there may be a flashing amber signal below
the 'School' warning sign which tells you that there may be children
crossing the road ahead. Drive very slowly until you are clear of the area.
187: It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists especially when
they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions and at roundabouts.
Always look out for them when you are emerging from a junction.
188: When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see
Rule 139). If they look over their shoulder whilst you are following them it
could mean that they may soon attempt to turn right. Give them time and
space to do so.
189: Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road
surfaces and obstacles such as draincovers or oily, wet or icy patches on
the road. Give them plenty of room.
139: Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should :-
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you
would a car when overtaking (see Rules 188, 189 and 191.)

They aren't the only ones either.

Cheers, helen s

In article <[email hidden]>,

wafflycat' waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Operation on Roadway

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less
than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that
time
shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the
roadway except under any of the following situations:

I am glad I do not live in Sunny California then. Here is rainy, grey Old
Blighty, in law I am a legitimate road user and am not forced to stay in the
most dangerous place to be - the gutter next to the curb.

The word "practicable" is the workaround for that. As you
say, the gutter next to the curb is the most dangerous place
to be, so it's not a practicable placement.

Quoted message said:

Indeed, motorists
have their attention drawn to their need to give special attention to
vulnerable road users.

Here's a few bits from our Highway Code...

We sure could use a lot of stuff like that here in North America.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

wafflycat said:

I am glad I do not live in Sunny California then. Here is rainy, grey
Old Blighty, in law I am a legitimate road user and am not forced to
stay in the most dangerous place to be - the gutter next to the curb.
Indeed, motorists have their attention drawn to their need to give
special attention to vulnerable road users.

Waffly, you have missed the caveats:

Quoted message said:

except under any of the following situations:

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not
limited

Quoted message said:

to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals,
surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to
continue
along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section
21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane
that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by
side
within the lane.

That reads effectively as "use the secondary position" as (by definition?)
the gutter is substandard or the primary position if the road is too narrow.

Riding out from the gutter to avoid the usual detritus is "reasonably
necessary"

pk

"wafflycat" wrote

Quoted message said:

I am glad I do not live in Sunny California then. Here is rainy, grey Old
Blighty, in law I am a legitimate road user and am not forced to stay in
the most dangerous place to be - the gutter next to the curb. Indeed,
motorists have their attention drawn to their need to give special
attention to vulnerable road users.

Here's a few bits from our Highway Code...

184: Near schools. Drive slowly and be particularly aware of young
cyclists and pedestrians. In some places, there may be a flashing amber
signal below the 'School' warning sign which tells you that there may be
children crossing the road ahead. Drive very slowly until you are clear of
the area.
187: It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists especially
when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions and at
roundabouts. Always look out for them when you are emerging from a
junction.
188: When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room
(see Rule 139). If they look over their shoulder whilst you are following
them it could mean that they may soon attempt to turn right. Give them
time and space to do so.
189: Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road
surfaces and obstacles such as draincovers or oily, wet or icy patches on
the road. Give them plenty of room.
139: Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should :-
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you
would a car when overtaking (see Rules 188, 189 and 191.)

They aren't the only ones either.

Cheers, helen s

Nothing in California's code (or most state's codes) about riding in the
gutter next to the curb, it just says stay as far to the right "as
practicable", and lists a pretty wide range of ciccumstances wherein a
cyclist would be better off not riding along the right hand edge. It's
always been standard procedure in this country for extremely slow vehicles
like construction and farm machinery to drive entirely or partly on a paved
shoulder where it exists, to make it easier for other vehicles to pass.
Applying the same rule to a cyclist seems pretty sensible to me.

Your Highway Code sounds very nice, but after lurking on uk.rec.cycling and
visiting the UK a few times I find myself wondering how many British drivers
know or care about it.
--
mark

"mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Your Highway Code sounds very nice, but after lurking on uk.rec.cycling
and visiting the UK a few times I find myself wondering how many British
drivers know or care about it.

That is a valid point - we have our share of motorised [censored] ;-)

Cheers, helen s

"wafflycat" wrote

Quoted message said:

That is a valid point - we have our share of motorised [censored] ;-)

Cheers, helen s

So do we.
--
mark

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In a thread about children bicycling was a discussion of
how to deal with a car that wants to pass a bicyclist.

[much snippage]

[a cyclist should act]

Quoted message said:

just as if
he were operating a slow motorized vehicle.

I think that settles it. [Duck and cover]

Precisely. It's a bit disturbing how often I get the "Y'mean it's that
simple?" look when I tell people that they should treat a bicycle on
the road the same way they'd treat any other vehicle going 20km/h (and
should treat a bicycle on the sidewalk the same way they'd treat any
other idiot endangering himself and the people around him, but that's
a different rant).

In fact, up here in my part of the Great White North, the relevant
sections of the Highway Traffic Act don't mention bicycles at all[1];
they just refer to vehicles traveling "at less than the normal speed
of traffic at that time and place" or being overtaken by a vehicle
(or equestrian!) travelling at a greater speed.

It's not even all that uncommon for me on my bike to be defining the
"normal speed of traffic at that time and place", but that probably
has more to do with the fact that I'm usually riding when the roads are
almost empty than anything else. (Though once or twice I've found myself
keeping up with a car and passing another cyclist.)

dave

[1] That's not quite true, but the one subsection that does mention
bicycles being overtaken says almost exactly the same thing as the
one that refers to vehicles-in-general being overtaken.

--
Dave Vandervies [email hidden]
When I was young I learned a great deal about parenting skills from an "old"
Yup'ik Eskimo man (I am now the age he was then, so I no longer think he was
so old). --Floyd Davidson in comp.lang.c

Michael Press posted:

<snippage>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by
signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or
wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the

<more snippage>

If there's no sign, then it is up to me to decide where it is safe to
do so.

IIRC, the general intent is to get motor homes and such to let traffic
by when climbing mountains. Many mountain passes have occasional
designated turnouts, and I have used them (when towing a heavy trailer)
on occasion in several states.

Too bad so many of those causing the problem ignore the rule.

Austin

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:45:17 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]

(Dave Vandervies) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In a thread about children bicycling was a discussion of
how to deal with a car that wants to pass a bicyclist.

[much snippage]

[a cyclist should act]

Quoted message said:

just as if
he were operating a slow motorized vehicle.

I think that settles it. [Duck and cover]

Precisely. It's a bit disturbing how often I get the "Y'mean it's that
simple?" look when I tell people that they should treat a bicycle on
the road the same way they'd treat any other vehicle going 20km/h

How do you deal with it when a car at a crossroad comes out so far into the
intersection apparently turning to their left, but is stopped, such that it
effectively blocks you from going past? Usually they're smack in the middle
of the crosswalk, with their nose out in traffic. IMO, it's partly a
problem of poor traffic design. I'm a bit afraid to go around in front of
them though I have the green light, b/c I never know when they're going to
jump out.

jj

"jj" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

How do you deal with it when a car at a crossroad comes out so far into
the
intersection apparently turning to their left, but is stopped, such that
it
effectively blocks you from going past? Usually they're smack in the
middle
of the crosswalk, with their nose out in traffic. IMO, it's partly a
problem of poor traffic design. I'm a bit afraid to go around in front of
them though I have the green light, b/c I never know when they're going to
jump out.

Depending on circumstances you can:
1. Check over your shoulder for cars overtaking you, signal a left turn for
their benefit (just like a lane change), make eye contact with the driver at
the crossroads and go around in front of him.

or, 2. If a car is travelling the same direction you are at a low enough
speed, use it to run interfence for you. Motorpace/tailgate just behind the
blocking car's left taillight as you pass through the intersection, then
move back to the right hand edge of the roadway when you clear the
intersection. Hopefully if the car at the intersection pulls out too soon it
will hit the car you are drafting, not you. This works best in fairly heavy,
slow moving traffic.

or 3. Go around in back of the car at the crossroad, making it easierfor the
driver of that car to make his/her left turn should the opportunity arise.
Watch for other traffic on the crossroad (and pedestrians in the crosswalk)
if you try this.

or 4. Get off your bike, walk the bike through the crosswalk, and get back
on your bike. Anything that happens will be the motorist's fault.
--
mark

mark said:

"jj" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

How do you deal with it when a car at a crossroad comes out so far into
the intersection apparently turning to their left, but is stopped, such that
it effectively blocks you from going past?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

or, 2. If a car is travelling the same direction you are at a low enough
speed, use it to run interfence for you. Motorpace/tailgate just behind the
blocking car's left taillight as you pass through the intersection, then
move back to the right hand edge of the roadway when you clear the
intersection. Hopefully if the car at the intersection pulls out too soon it
will hit the car you are drafting, not you. This works best in fairly heavy,
slow moving traffic.

I think I've done this...

Quoted message said:

or 3. Go around in back of the car at the crossroad, making it easierfor the
driver of that car to make his/her left turn should the opportunity arise.
Watch for other traffic on the crossroad (and pedestrians in the crosswalk)
if you try this.

This is what I'm tempted to do, but I'm pretty sure anyone doing it would
get a ticket.

Quoted message said:

or 4. Get off your bike, walk the bike through the crosswalk, and get back
on your bike. Anything that happens will be the motorist's fault.

I have at times done this, but uh, 'it being their "fault"' is cold
comfort. (and a bit like stepping off one's surfboard into shark-infested
waters, haha.)

Often times, it's just better to just turn right and then 100 yds down the
street, make a U-turn and come back when it's safe and clear.

jj

In article <[email hidden]>,

jj said:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:45:17 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]
(Dave Vandervies) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Precisely. It's a bit disturbing how often I get the "Y'mean it's that
simple?" look when I tell people that they should treat a bicycle on
the road the same way they'd treat any other vehicle going 20km/h

How do you deal with it when a car at a crossroad comes out so far into the
intersection apparently turning to their left, but is stopped, such that it
effectively blocks you from going past? Usually they're smack in the middle
of the crosswalk, with their nose out in traffic. IMO, it's partly a
problem of poor traffic design. I'm a bit afraid to go around in front of
them though I have the green light, b/c I never know when they're going to
jump out.

If it's at a stoplight that just changed, I'll assume they're waiting
for the oncoming traffic to clear so they can complete a left turn,
and wait for them to do so before I continue.

Under any other conditions, I'll go around in front of them; any driver
with enough brain cells to drive and breathe at the same time will
realize that hitting me will cause them more problems than any benefit
they'd get from pulling out in front of me without being able to be
completely out of my way before I get there, and in any case they're
unlikely to do any serious permanent damage to me from a standing start.
(If there are cars in the lane I'm in and not enough room to ride
between them and the car sticking out into the crossing, I'll just fall
in between them for the distance it takes me to get around, same as I
would with a narrow lane or any other obstacle on the side of a lane.
With reasonably heavy traffic this takes some care, but I've never had
problems with the drivers I'm sharing the lane with doing this.)

(If I'm walking and not riding, I always go around behind them; it's
the same distance for me (if I have to leave the crosswalk to go around
them anyways), and it means one less thing they're waiting for to be
able to go.)

dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email hidden]
When I was young I learned a great deal about parenting skills from an "old"
Yup'ik Eskimo man (I am now the age he was then, so I no longer think he was
so old). --Floyd Davidson in comp.lang.c

Quoted message said:

I am glad I do not live in Sunny California then. Here is rainy,

grey Old

Quoted message said:

Blighty, in law I am a legitimate road user and am not forced to

stay in the

Quoted message said:

most dangerous place to be - the gutter next to the curb. Indeed,

motorists

Quoted message said:

have their attention drawn to their need to give special attention

to

Quoted message said:

vulnerable road users.

To give California it's due, In California they have to stay as far
right as practicable, not as far right as possible. In California
the two words have different meanings. Practicable means possible
AND safe AND reasonable.

The British Highway Code sometimes uses "practicable" and sometimes
"possible". It seems to do so at random, and anyone I have asked
says that here in Britain there is no difference in meaning. If
that's so, why does the Highway Code have different words at all?

I don't know what the difference is between practical and
practicable. Perhaps lawyers and politicians just like longer words.

Even with all the exceptions, I still think the California law is a
problem. Having the law at all means that it's not you who makes the
decision about what is possible, what is reasonable, and what is
safe, even though it's your life at stake.

Jeremy Parker

Jeremy Parker

"wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am glad I do not live in Sunny California then. Here is rainy, grey Old
Blighty, in law I am a legitimate road user and am not forced to stay in
the most dangerous place to be - the gutter next to the curb. Indeed,
motorists have their attention drawn to their need to give special
attention to vulnerable road users.

In California the roadway that cyclists are legally entitled to is defined
as the part of the road to the left of the fog line. There is no compulsion
to ride in the gutter or on the shoulder unless it is marked as a bike lane.

A Fred said:

Quoted message said:

I am glad I do not live in Sunny California then. Here is rainy,
grey Old Blighty, in law I am a legitimate road user and am not
forced to stay in the most dangerous place to be - the gutter next
to the curb. Indeed, motorists have their attention drawn to their
need to give special attention to vulnerable road users.

Quoted message said:

In California the roadway that cyclists are legally entitled to is
defined as the part of the road to the left of the fog line. There
is no compulsion to ride in the gutter or on the shoulder unless it
is marked as a bike lane.

Could you cite that ordinance? I find no reference to a "fog line" in
the DMV regulations nor do I believe there is any such restriction.

Jobst Brandt

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In California the roadway that cyclists are legally entitled to is
defined as the part of the road to the left of the fog line. There
is no compulsion to ride in the gutter or on the shoulder unless it
is marked as a bike lane.

Could you cite that ordinance? I find no reference to a "fog line" in
the DMV regulations nor do I believe there is any such restriction.

As I understand it, by using the word "roadway" the regulations imply
the normally-travelled portion of the road -- the travel lanes.

Thanks to an oversight, the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act
is worded so that cyclists have to be as far to the right of
the /highway/ as practicable. In legalese the word "highway"
covers the shoulders (if present) and the whole right of way
of the highway, as well as the travel lanes. So the BC MVA
requires cyclists to ride on paved shoulders if they exist,
and if they're not dangerous to ride on. There is an
explicit statement that cyclists are not required to ride
on any unpaved portion of the highway.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In California the roadway that cyclists are legally entitled to is
defined as the part of the road to the left of the fog line.
There is no compulsion to ride in the gutter or on the shoulder
unless it is marked as a bike lane.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Could you cite that ordinance? I find no reference to a "fog line"
in the DMV regulations nor do I believe there is any such
restriction.

The first point is that the DMV describes what part of the "ROAD" is
to be used when making turns, passing, or riding a bicycle. "ROADWAY"
is a newsy enhancement of a common word for radio traffic reports.
Today, cars no longer crash and block the road, they block the
roadway.

Quoted message said:

As I understand it, by using the word "roadway" the regulations
imply the normally-travelled portion of the road -- the travel
lanes.

I haven't seen that word in the DMV code.

Quoted message said:

Thanks to an oversight, the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act is
worded so that cyclists have to be as far to the right of the
/highway/ as practicable. In legalese the word "highway" covers the
shoulders (if present) and the whole right of way of the highway, as
well as the travel lanes. So the BC MVA requires cyclists to ride
on paved shoulders if they exist, and if they're not dangerous to
ride on. There is an explicit statement that cyclists are not
required to ride on any unpaved portion of the highway.

Maybe precision in writing is being lost even in the Queens provinces
but highway is a fuzzy generic term. These are definitions for use of
"ROADS".

Jobst Brandt

Fred said:

In California the roadway that cyclists are legally entitled to is defined
as the part of the road to the left of the fog line.

[censored]! please cite the law that says this.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Tom Keats said:

Quoted message said:

> In California the roadway that cyclists are legally entitled to is
> defined as the part of the road to the left of the fog line.
> There is no compulsion to ride in the gutter or on the shoulder
> unless it is marked as a bike lane.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Could you cite that ordinance? I find no reference to a "fog line"
in the DMV regulations nor do I believe there is any such
restriction.

The first point is that the DMV describes what part of the "ROAD" is
to be used when making turns, passing, or riding a bicycle. "ROADWAY"
is a newsy enhancement of a common word for radio traffic reports.
Today, cars no longer crash and block the road, they block the
roadway.

Quoted message said:

As I understand it, by using the word "roadway" the regulations
imply the normally-travelled portion of the road -- the travel
lanes.

I haven't seen that word in the DMV code.

Quoted message said:

Thanks to an oversight, the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act is
worded so that cyclists have to be as far to the right of the
/highway/ as practicable. In legalese the word "highway" covers the
shoulders (if present) and the whole right of way of the highway, as
well as the travel lanes. So the BC MVA requires cyclists to ride
on paved shoulders if they exist, and if they're not dangerous to
ride on. There is an explicit statement that cyclists are not
required to ride on any unpaved portion of the highway.

Maybe precision in writing is being lost even in the Queens provinces
but highway is a fuzzy generic term. These are definitions for use of
"ROADS".

It seems that bureaucratic legal-beagles like to define words
with meanings they dictate:
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/stateg/stat/M/96318_03.htm#section183

Definitions

119 (1) In this Part:

...

"roadway" means the portion of the highway that is improved,
designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, but does
not include the shoulder, and if a highway includes 2 or more
separate roadways, the term "roadway" refers to any one roadway
separately and not to all of them collectively;

So if your DMV similarly defines "Road" and provides for cyclists
to ride as far to the right of the "road" (rather than "highway"😉,
I would infer that means there is no legal obligation for cyclists
to ride to the right of the fog line.

Further down the BC MVA, under "Rights and duties of operator of cycle":

(2) A person operating a cycle

...

(c) must, subject to paragraph (a), ride as near as practicable
to the right side of the highway,

(d) must not ride abreast of another person operating a
cycle on the roadway,

(e) must keep at least one hand on the handlebars,

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) (c) requires a person to
ride a cycle on any part of a highway that is not paved.

So, in British Columbia:

- cyclists are compelled to ride on ridable paved shoulders where
they exist (on the right side of the /highway/)

- riding two-abreast in a travel lane (the "roadway"😉 is unlawful,
but it's lawful on a paved shoulder

- riding no-hands is unlawful

I don't know about precision in writing being lost here,
but we certainly are backwards in some ways.

cheers, & the devil is in the details,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca