MFFY and bicyclist

Brent should relate to this incident. I saw the driver of a small
Toyota approach a bicycist in the right lane and begin tailgating the
bicyclist. The bicyclist was riding in the right tyre track, and was
moving at about the posted speed limit. Instead of passing in the open
left-lane, the Toyota driver continued tailgating and honking for
another 50 m. At the next intersection, the MFFY driver accelerated
into the right-turn lane and made a wide right-turn very slowly, forcing
the bicyclist to evade the MFFY. No, no, no! Wrong!

"Alexander Rogge" > wrote in message
...
> Brent should relate to this incident. I saw the driver of a small Toyota
> approach a bicycist in the right lane and begin tailgating the bicyclist.
> The bicyclist was riding in the right tyre track, and was moving at about
> the posted speed limit. Instead of passing in the open left-lane, the
> Toyota driver continued tailgating and honking for another 50 m. At the
> next intersection, the MFFY driver accelerated into the right-turn lane
> and made a wide right-turn very slowly, forcing the bicyclist to evade the
> MFFY. No, no, no! Wrong!
>
Clearly, the bicyclist was at fault for causing the inital honking and the
subsequent blocking retaliation, but the bicyclist also never got hit,
right? Aside from a bit of road rage from the motor vehicle driver, this
isn't anything noteworthy.

At the point the bicyclist was being honked at, the bicyclist had a
responsibility to move further to the right, better still would have been to
pull off the road and dismount until such time as they are no longer
blocking through motor vehicle traffic. Same logic as slower traffic using
turnouts or pulling over when they are blocking through traffic has to apply
to the bicyclists.

This is why, I continue to assert, bicyclists need to have designated lanes
walled off by a curb or k-rail. This will work well in keeping them out of
the main traffic lanes, but then also having suitable gaps at intersections
where they may walk the bike and cross, like a pedestrian, before resuming
riding in another walled off bike only lane.

Enough with this SHARE THE ROAD crap already. Clearly, it's the bicyclists
and not the motor vehicles who continue to violate the right-of-way. Wall
off the bicyclists in their designated lanes with curbs and k-rails, police
can confiscate and impound the bikes of those who don't stay in the
designated lanes on the spot (then the bicyclists will learn their lesson to
stay in the designated lanes for sure when they have to walk or use a bus or
taxi).

On 4/16/2011 7:10 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Alexander Rogge" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Brent should relate to this incident. I saw the driver of a small
>> Toyota approach a bicycist in the right lane and begin tailgating the
>> bicyclist. The bicyclist was riding in the right tyre track, and was
>> moving at about the posted speed limit.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^

> Clearly, the bicyclist was at fault for causing the inital honking and
> the subsequent blocking retaliation, but the bicyclist also never got
> hit, right? Aside from a bit of road rage from the motor vehicle driver,
> this isn't anything noteworthy.
>
> At the point the bicyclist was being honked at, the bicyclist had a
> responsibility to move further to the right, better still would have
> been to pull off the road and dismount until such time as they are no
> longer blocking through motor vehicle traffic.

So the next time you're driving in the left lane not passing other
traffic while driving to the posted limit, I'll start honking at you and
expect that you pull over to the right shoulder and get out of your car.
At least this way you're no longer blocking motor vehicle traffic, you
stupid troll.

On 2011-04-16, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> "Alexander Rogge" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Brent should relate to this incident. I saw the driver of a small Toyota
>> approach a bicycist in the right lane and begin tailgating the bicyclist.
>> The bicyclist was riding in the right tyre track, and was moving at about
>> the posted speed limit. Instead of passing in the open left-lane, the
>> Toyota driver continued tailgating and honking for another 50 m. At the
>> next intersection, the MFFY driver accelerated into the right-turn lane
>> and made a wide right-turn very slowly, forcing the bicyclist to evade the
>> MFFY. No, no, no! Wrong!

Sounds like par for the course.

> Clearly, the bicyclist was at fault for causing the inital honking and the
> subsequent blocking retaliation, but the bicyclist also never got hit,
> right?

Really now? How many times have you driven off the road because someone
didn't like you traveling at the speed limit in the right lane?

> Aside from a bit of road rage from the motor vehicle driver, this
> isn't anything noteworthy.

In that it is experienced way too often I suppose.

> At the point the bicyclist was being honked at, the bicyclist had a
> responsibility to move further to the right, better still would have been to
> pull off the road and dismount until such time as they are no longer
> blocking through motor vehicle traffic. Same logic as slower traffic using
> turnouts or pulling over when they are blocking through traffic has to apply
> to the bicyclists.

It's pretty clear you have no experience as a bicyclist in traffic.
Moving over for some driver honking at you is the LAST thing you want to
do unless you want to end up hurt/dead. That driver behind is not
capable of passing/driving properly. He will brush pass. I learned the
hard way not to move over for these people. I've got a small scar from
the experience.

> This is why, I continue to assert, bicyclists need to have designated lanes
> walled off by a curb or k-rail. This will work well in keeping them out of
> the main traffic lanes, but then also having suitable gaps at intersections
> where they may walk the bike and cross, like a pedestrian, before resuming
> riding in another walled off bike only lane.

This is unworkable for all the reasons I have posted before.

> Enough with this SHARE THE ROAD crap already. Clearly, it's the bicyclists
> and not the motor vehicles who continue to violate the right-of-way. Wall
> off the bicyclists in their designated lanes with curbs and k-rails, police
> can confiscate and impound the bikes of those who don't stay in the
> designated lanes on the spot (then the bicyclists will learn their lesson to
> stay in the designated lanes for sure when they have to walk or use a bus or
> taxi).

If you can't deal with bicyclists on the road you need to shread your DL
immediately.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
. ..
> On 4/16/2011 7:10 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>> "Alexander Rogge" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Brent should relate to this incident. I saw the driver of a small
>>> Toyota approach a bicycist in the right lane and begin tailgating the
>>> bicyclist. The bicyclist was riding in the right tyre track, and was
>>> moving at about the posted speed limit.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> Clearly, the bicyclist was at fault for causing the inital honking and
>> the subsequent blocking retaliation, but the bicyclist also never got
>> hit, right? Aside from a bit of road rage from the motor vehicle driver,
>> this isn't anything noteworthy.
>>
>> At the point the bicyclist was being honked at, the bicyclist had a
>> responsibility to move further to the right, better still would have
>> been to pull off the road and dismount until such time as they are no
>> longer blocking through motor vehicle traffic.
>
> So the next time you're driving in the left lane not passing other traffic
> while driving to the posted limit, I'll start honking at you and expect
> that you pull over to the right shoulder and get out of your car. At least
> this way you're no longer blocking motor vehicle traffic, you stupid
> troll.

You can certainly start honking at me to get out of the left lane. I can
move to the right when it's safe. If there is only one lane, then it's not
the left lane anymore and I'd be expected to turn out for slower traffic.
Not sure why you'd think I'm trolling--near the posted speed limit is not AT
the posted speed limit and therefore bicyclist was clearly at fault for
impeding traffic and then holding their position. Again, the scenario
describes no collision whatsoever and in addition, a re-read of the original
posted scenario suggests that the bicyclist was not willing to slow down
when they saw the motor vehicle start to turn due to "having to evade" the
turning vehicle.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2011-04-16, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>> "Alexander Rogge" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Brent should relate to this incident. I saw the driver of a small
>>> Toyota
>>> approach a bicycist in the right lane and begin tailgating the
>>> bicyclist.
>>> The bicyclist was riding in the right tyre track, and was moving at
>>> about
>>> the posted speed limit. Instead of passing in the open left-lane, the
>>> Toyota driver continued tailgating and honking for another 50 m. At the
>>> next intersection, the MFFY driver accelerated into the right-turn lane
>>> and made a wide right-turn very slowly, forcing the bicyclist to evade
>>> the
>>> MFFY. No, no, no! Wrong!
>
> Sounds like par for the course.
>
>> Clearly, the bicyclist was at fault for causing the inital honking and
>> the
>> subsequent blocking retaliation, but the bicyclist also never got hit,
>> right?
>
> Really now? How many times have you driven off the road because someone
> didn't like you traveling at the speed limit in the right lane?
>
Bicyclists are capable of doing that much easier than cars. Just begin
squeezing the brake calipers while merging towards off the pavement to the
dirt or the sidewalk. ( For those riding a one-speed coaster brake equipped
bike, just pedal backwards and allow the brake shoe to begin slowing the
bike.) Then stop. Dismount if one wants to continue walking the bike.

>> Aside from a bit of road rage from the motor vehicle driver, this
>> isn't anything noteworthy.
>
> In that it is experienced way too often I suppose.
>
Which means you are impeding traffic whenever you take the lane. Near the
posted speed limit is not, repeat NOT the same at AT the posted speed limit.

>> At the point the bicyclist was being honked at, the bicyclist had a
>> responsibility to move further to the right, better still would have been
>> to
>> pull off the road and dismount until such time as they are no longer
>> blocking through motor vehicle traffic. Same logic as slower traffic
>> using
>> turnouts or pulling over when they are blocking through traffic has to
>> apply
>> to the bicyclists.
>
> It's pretty clear you have no experience as a bicyclist in traffic.
> Moving over for some driver honking at you is the LAST thing you want to
> do unless you want to end up hurt/dead. That driver behind is not
> capable of passing/driving properly. He will brush pass. I learned the
> hard way not to move over for these people. I've got a small scar from
> the experience.
>
No he won't. If he was going to brush pass he would have done it already,
nearly running you off the road--which by the way, I don't approve of
running bicyclists off the road nor hitting them. Just move out of the right
tire track, how hard is that to do? Then he passes with no further incident.
Critical mass style bicycling? Well, they do deserve all the road rage
drivers can give them as long as they aren't actually collided with or run
off the road. Honking, yelling, swearing at them... I'm not going to call
foul on those motor vehicle drivers.

>> This is why, I continue to assert, bicyclists need to have designated
>> lanes
>> walled off by a curb or k-rail. This will work well in keeping them out
>> of
>> the main traffic lanes, but then also having suitable gaps at
>> intersections
>> where they may walk the bike and cross, like a pedestrian, before
>> resuming
>> riding in another walled off bike only lane.
>
> This is unworkable for all the reasons I have posted before.
>
It's very workable, you just don't like it. You right along in a straight
line until you reach an intersection. If you wish to continue straight then
you stop, walk the bike across the intersection like a pedestrian, then
continue riding in the same lane at the other side of the intersection. If
you want to turn, you cross in the gap--the same gap that would allow
pedestrians to cross--by walking the bike, and then continue on riding while
riding in the nicely walled off lane from motor vehicle traffic.

>> Enough with this SHARE THE ROAD crap already. Clearly, it's the
>> bicyclists
>> and not the motor vehicles who continue to violate the right-of-way. Wall
>> off the bicyclists in their designated lanes with curbs and k-rails,
>> police
>> can confiscate and impound the bikes of those who don't stay in the
>> designated lanes on the spot (then the bicyclists will learn their lesson
>> to
>> stay in the designated lanes for sure when they have to walk or use a bus
>> or
>> taxi).
>
> If you can't deal with bicyclists on the road you need to shread your DL
> immediately.
>
The problem is that of the bicyclists and it's time the vehicle codes have
more draconian penalties for vehicle code violations for bicyclists.

Bicyclists should never be in the tire track of the motor vehicle path--let
alone centered in the entire lane--unless they are at and never below the
posted speed limit. Otherwise, please remain no more than six inches from
the curb or shoulder of the road with no bike lane and always remain in the
bike lanes where they exist--that is as far to the right as practicible
absent of parked vehicles. Excuses of debis have little to no merit. If you
are riding in the door zone, please do hand signal every time you weave in
and out from groups of parked cars. Thank you for not impeding motor vehicle
traffic. Thank you for not blaming motor vehicle traffic for bicyclists not
being able to ride safely enough and coexist.

On 04/16/11 20:03, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> Bicyclists should never be in the tire track of the motor vehicle path--let
> alone centered in the entire lane--unless they are at and never below the
> posted speed limit. Otherwise, please remain no more than six inches from
> the curb or shoulder of the road

This is where all the broken glass and other debris ends up. If your
wheel is 6 inches from the curb, you are not likely to be able to
actually pedal.

> with no bike lane and always remain in the
> bike lanes where they exist--that is as far to the right as practicible
> absent of parked vehicles.

Bike lanes are generally also parking lanes, and they're generally
filled with parked cars where bicyclists need them most. At least in
Pasadena, bike lanes exist to slow down cars, not to provide a safe
place for bicyclists. I have this from the City Engineer himself.
Bicyclist safety, if any, is only a by-product

> Excuses of debis have little to no merit.

I see. We should ride through broken glass, 2x4 chunks, dead animals,
etc. in the 6 inches we are allotted. Oh, wait, you said 'debis'. What
are debis?

> If you
> are riding in the door zone, please do hand signal every time you weave in
> and out from groups of parked cars.

It's never a good idea to weave like this. It makes it very difficult
for the stupid to anticipate the actions of the bicyclist. Wear
brightly-colored clothing and try to maintain your line.

> Thank you for not impeding motor vehicle
> traffic. Thank you for not blaming motor vehicle traffic for bicyclists not
> being able to ride safely enough and coexist.

Chatting with trolls is a waste of time. I won't do it again.

--
Cheers, Bev
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
'Politics' comes from an ancient Greek word meaning
'many blood-sucking leeches.' -- Mark Russell

On 4/17/11 1:33 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2011-04-16, Daniel W. Rouse > wrote:
>> "Alexander > wrote:
>>> I saw the driver of a small Toyota
>>> approach a bicycist in the right lane and begin tailgating the bicyclist.
>>> The bicyclist was riding in the right tyre track, and was moving at about
>>> the posted speed limit. Instead of passing in the open left-lane, the
>>> Toyota driver continued tailgating and honking for another 50 m.
>
>> Clearly, the bicyclist was at fault for causing the inital honking and the
>> subsequent blocking retaliation, but the bicyclist also never got hit,
>> right?

Wrong. It was necessary to evade the MFFY or crash into its side. It
is the same behaviour identified when MFFY drivers use two designated
turn-lanes to make a turn, or when LLBs deliberately block the faster
traffic. Drivers must brake or crash into the violators.

> Really now? How many times have you driven off the road because someone
> didn't like you traveling at the speed limit in the right lane?

Should we wonder what would the response have been if the bicycle had
been a lorry? I have seen drivers tailgating all types of vehicles,
despite an empty passing lane to the left. These idiots are incapable
of driving properly.

>> Aside from a bit of road rage from the motor vehicle driver, this
>> isn't anything noteworthy.
>
> In that it is experienced way too often I suppose.

This behaviour is unusual to me, especially when the bicycle is moving
at the speed-limit and there is a sufficient lane in which to pass safely.

>> At the point the bicyclist was being honked at, the bicyclist had a
>> responsibility to move further to the right, better still would have been to
>> pull off the road and dismount until such time as they are no longer
>> blocking through motor vehicle traffic.

So, you would suggest that the bicyclist must yield to an apparent
speed-limit violator, despite an open left-lane and no other traffic on
the street?

>> Enough with this SHARE THE ROAD crap already. Clearly, it's the bicyclists
>> and not the motor vehicles who continue to violate the right-of-way.

The vehicle laws would appear to suggest differently. Bicycles are
vehicles and must obey the same laws as the drivers of motorised
vehicles. This bicyclist was following the accepted rules of lane
usage, and was moving at a reasonable speed for the motorised vehicle
traffic. It became clear after the MFFY had begun to make its
right-turn slowly that it was not interested in driving faster. The
idiot probably only became enraged because a bicycle was able to move at
the speed-limit, and passing it by accelerating would have required
using some additional petrol.

"The Real Bev" > wrote in message
...
> On 04/16/11 20:03, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
>> Bicyclists should never be in the tire track of the motor vehicle
>> path--let
>> alone centered in the entire lane--unless they are at and never below the
>> posted speed limit. Otherwise, please remain no more than six inches from
>> the curb or shoulder of the road
>
> This is where all the broken glass and other debris ends up. If your
> wheel is 6 inches from the curb, you are not likely to be able to actually
> pedal.
>
Okay then no more than 8 inches away from the curb.

>> with no bike lane and always remain in the
>> bike lanes where they exist--that is as far to the right as practicible
>> absent of parked vehicles.
>
> Bike lanes are generally also parking lanes, and they're generally filled
> with parked cars where bicyclists need them most. At least in Pasadena,
> bike lanes exist to slow down cars, not to provide a safe place for
> bicyclists. I have this from the City Engineer himself. Bicyclist safety,
> if any, is only a by-product
>
>> Excuses of debis have little to no merit.
>
> I see. We should ride through broken glass, 2x4 chunks, dead animals,
> etc. in the 6 inches we are allotted. Oh, wait, you said 'debis'. What
> are debis?
>
A typo for debris.

>> If you
>> are riding in the door zone, please do hand signal every time you weave
>> in
>> and out from groups of parked cars.
>
> It's never a good idea to weave like this. It makes it very difficult for
> the stupid to anticipate the actions of the bicyclist. Wear
> brightly-colored clothing and try to maintain your line.
>
>> Thank you for not impeding motor vehicle
>> traffic. Thank you for not blaming motor vehicle traffic for bicyclists
>> not
>> being able to ride safely enough and coexist.
>
> Chatting with trolls is a waste of time. I won't do it again.
>
Where "troll" simply means my response isn't agreeable? Whatever.

"Alexander Rogge" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/17/11 1:33 AM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2011-04-16, Daniel W. Rouse > wrote:
>>> "Alexander > wrote:
>>>> I saw the driver of a small Toyota
>>>> approach a bicycist in the right lane and begin tailgating the
>>>> bicyclist.
>>>> The bicyclist was riding in the right tyre track, and was moving at
>>>> about
>>>> the posted speed limit. Instead of passing in the open left-lane, the
>>>> Toyota driver continued tailgating and honking for another 50 m.
>>
>>> Clearly, the bicyclist was at fault for causing the inital honking and
>>> the
>>> subsequent blocking retaliation, but the bicyclist also never got hit,
>>> right?
>
> Wrong. It was necessary to evade the MFFY or crash into its side. It is
> the same behaviour identified when MFFY drivers use two designated
> turn-lanes to make a turn, or when LLBs deliberately block the faster
> traffic. Drivers must brake or crash into the violators.
>
At the moment the driver started the aggressive pass, the bicyclist should
have already been defensively braking before the driver started the slow
turn. So then the bicyclist was likely braking too late for the situation
they were part of causing.

>> Really now? How many times have you driven off the road because someone
>> didn't like you traveling at the speed limit in the right lane?
>
> Should we wonder what would the response have been if the bicycle had been
> a lorry? I have seen drivers tailgating all types of vehicles, despite an
> empty passing lane to the left. These idiots are incapable of driving
> properly.
>
They shouldn't be tailgating, but if their turn is the next intersection, it
makes no sense to merge left, pass, then try to quickly merge right before
missing the turn.

>>> Aside from a bit of road rage from the motor vehicle driver, this
>>> isn't anything noteworthy.
>>
>> In that it is experienced way too often I suppose.
>
If it's experienced too often then either the cops need to be out there
ticketing speeders, or the cops need to be out there ticketing slower
bicyclists that are taking the lane.

> This behaviour is unusual to me, especially when the bicycle is moving at
> the speed-limit and there is a sufficient lane in which to pass safely.
>
Your original post says at about the posted speed limit which suggests a bit
slower.

>>> At the point the bicyclist was being honked at, the bicyclist had a
>>> responsibility to move further to the right, better still would have
>>> been to
>>> pull off the road and dismount until such time as they are no longer
>>> blocking through motor vehicle traffic.
>
> So, you would suggest that the bicyclist must yield to an apparent
> speed-limit violator, despite an open left-lane and no other traffic on
> the street?
>
See above for a valid reason of not immediately merging left. If the driver
was speeding and in a road rage state then the bicyclist should have still
pulled over to the right for reasons of not blocking an already impatient of
angry driver.

>>> Enough with this SHARE THE ROAD crap already. Clearly, it's the
>>> bicyclists
>>> and not the motor vehicles who continue to violate the right-of-way.
>
> The vehicle laws would appear to suggest differently. Bicycles are
> vehicles and must obey the same laws as the drivers of motorised vehicles.
> This bicyclist was following the accepted rules of lane usage, and was
> moving at a reasonable speed for the motorised vehicle traffic. It became
> clear after the MFFY had begun to make its right-turn slowly that it was
> not interested in driving faster. The idiot probably only became enraged
> because a bicycle was able to move at the speed-limit, and passing it by
> accelerating would have required using some additional petrol.
>
Doubtful. More than likely that the bicyclist was slightly below the speed
limit, thus impeding the driver who may or may not have been speeding. The
bicyclist should have pulled over, plain and simple.