Bike tax in Oregon

[Elagabalus]

...At least guns are constitutionally protected, do you have the right to ride a toy on the highways?

Incredibly, we do! A bicycle is considered a vehicle. Look it it up. Perhaps car drivers should just pull their heads out of their asses and learn to be more situationally aware? Learn a little defensive driving from the cyclists and motorcyclists. Always expect someone to not see you and do something stupid. Word.

You haven't seen any of these while driving?

 

[Ron Swanson]

Incredibly, we do! A bicycle is considered a vehicle. Look it it up. Perhaps car drivers should just pull their heads out of their asses and learn to be more situationally aware? Learn a little defensive driving from the cyclists and motorcyclists. Always expect someone to not see you and do something stupid. Word.

You haven't seen any of these while driving?

[qimg]http://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Share-The-Road-Sign-K-6750.gif[/qimg]


[qimg]http://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Car-Bike-Passing-Distance-Sign-K-9460.gif[/qimg]

Same here in Canada we get a little more room as it's the one Metre Rule

Although some (like high speed) highways bicycles and pedestrians / hitchhikers, are not allowed, but there's always another route on surface streets.

 

[mgidm86]

I 'm not aware of any "rights" to ride a bike or drive a car on the highways.

Speaking of signs, I've seen plenty of these too:

I know highways were mentioned, but can I ride a bike on the "freeway" in California?

Answer: not usually.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq67.htm

I agree that many drivers need to go back to driving school. Bicyclists need to watch out too. I don't see many bikes on the road anyways, even here in Cali.

 

[Ron Swanson]

I 'm not aware of any "rights" to ride a bike or drive a car on the highways.

Speaking of signs, I've seen plenty of these too:

[qimg]http://store.hallsigns.com/assets/images/r5-10a.png[/qimg]

I know highways were mentioned, but can I ride a bike on the "freeway" in California?

Answer: not usually.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq67.htm

I agree that many drivers need to go back to driving school. Bicyclists need to watch out too. I don't see many bikes on the road anyways, even here in Cali.

How is the term "Highway" defined there? ... here the term legally refers to any and ALL public roadways ... the term they use here in Ontario (for "non-bycicle use roadways" for one example) is "400 series Highways" (they all have 400 number designations) ... although the law obviously lists them all individually.

Bicycles are allowed on a lot of "limited access highways" as there is no other roadway to travel on to get to some destinations.

 

[Elagabalus]

Same here in Canada we get a little more room as it's the one Metre Rule

Although some (like high speed) highways bicycles and pedestrians / hitchhikers, are not allowed, but there's always another route on surface streets.

It's like that here in the US as well. Generally they are called Freeways for controlled access high speed traffic (bicycles, various riff-raff not allowed) and can only be accessed by ramps. And Highways when access isn't controlled (bicycles, others allowed). But casebro said Highways so I went with it.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Freeway_vs_Highway

 

[kookbreaker]

I think "Limited access highways" are the ones that bikes and pedestrians are specifically restricted form using, with some very minor exceptions.

For the record I loathe the "Share the Road" sign because far too many drivers think it means I have to get out of my lane when they don't want to change lanes to pass. I'd rather have the "bikes allowed full use of lane" sign.

 

[bruto]

Same thing happened to my brother. Driver said "Why did you hit my car?" He lost his Holland, got a ride to the hospital. and a check.

I think all three of you are fools for not taking reasonable precautions to ride in traffic. That means steel, all around you. I think the legal term is "duty to mitigate".

Bike paths are a good idea. But I think they should be funded with a user fee system. Using public funds, like automotive gas taxes, makes as much sense as using property tax money to fund my gun club. At least guns are constitutionally protected, do you have the right to ride a toy on the highways?

We certainly do in Vermont. Rather more, one might suggest, than cars do, as the driving of cars on the highways is considered a privilege rather than a right, but the invention of governmental rights of way, making it possible to get from place to place without paying private tolls, using other forms of transportation including foot, horse, carriage and later bicycle, predates the invention of cars by a goodly amount.

Edit to add: with regard to 'share the road' it is also important to note that at least here in Vermont, the right of a bicycle to use the road also explicitly states that the bicycle should ride as far to the right as "practicable," and thus it is also true that a bicycle is not entitled to use the full lane unless it's necessary to do so, unlike a motorcycle which is, explicitly and completely, entitled to the full lane.

 

[casebro]

I think "Limited access highways" are the ones that bikes and pedestrians are specifically restricted form using, with some very minor exceptions.

For the record I loathe the "Share the Road" sign because far too many drivers think it means I have to get out of my lane when they don't want to change lanes to pass. I'd rather have the "bikes allowed full use of lane" sign.

In California it's "bikes allowed full use of lane" IF they don't impede other traffic. Just like cars. I guess, like a slow moving truck, they should pull over and let the faster traffic go past. But I doubt there has ever been a ticket to a bike for impeding the flow of traffic.

I guess if I can't give them their three feet without crossing the line into oncoming traffic, I should explain the law to them.

 

[kookbreaker]

In almost all states bikes may take the lane even if they are moving slower than traffic. The critical qualifier being the the lane must be wide enough to share safely by both bike and car.

In this day and age most lanes that wide already have bike lanes painted on them, denoting the position.

This is what I mean about the bike laws being written backwards.

 

[bruto]

In California it's "bikes allowed full use of lane" IF they don't impede other traffic. Just like cars. I guess, like a slow moving truck, they should pull over and let the faster traffic go past. But I doubt there has ever been a ticket to a bike for impeding the flow of traffic.

I guess if I can't give them their three feet without crossing the line into oncoming traffic, I should explain the law to them.

The law here (and in many other places) is purposely vague. In no place that I know of is a cyclist obligated to go off the road or to stop to let traffic by (though many do at times). It's not always possible to ride safely and to give the passing motorist room to do so safely. The cure of course , which many motorists hate and a few kill to avoid, is to wait a little until it's safe. The time you lose waiting for a safe pass is probably made up in a few seconds of acceleration, but that's too much for some.

I too, being a frequent driver, am frustrated often by impolite and arrogant bicyclists, such as those who ride abreast when traffic makes it difficult, or who claim more lane than they need, with the apparent intention of making a statement. But drivers who harass or endanger cyclists should really take a moment to think about whether the seeming annoyance of sharing the road actually amounts to anything worth worrying about. If you have to slow down to 15 miles an hour for a few hundred yards, how quickly can you gain back a safe position after you've passed? It's quicker than you think.

 

[casebro]

The law here (and in many other places) is purposely vague. In no place that I know of is a cyclist obligated to go off the road or to stop to let traffic by (though many do at times). It's not always possible to ride safely and to give the passing motorist room to do so safely. The cure of course , which many motorists hate and a few kill to avoid, is to wait a little until it's safe. The time you lose waiting for a safe pass is probably made up in a few seconds of acceleration, but that's too much for some.

I too, being a frequent driver, am frustrated often by impolite and arrogant bicyclists, such as those who ride abreast when traffic makes it difficult, or who claim more lane than they need, with the apparent intention of making a statement. But drivers who harass or endanger cyclists should really take a moment to think about whether the seeming annoyance of sharing the road actually amounts to anything worth worrying about. If you have to slow down to 15 miles an hour for a few hundred yards, how quickly can you gain back a safe position after you've passed? It's quicker than you think.

And on the other hand, how much would it cost the biker to move over and extend lane courtesy to others like other slow traffic does?

 

[Damien Evans]

All bike owner should also be forced to buy insurance and bike locks. Helmet laws should also be enforced and be a ticketable offense for non-compliance.

And when this leads to decreased cycling rates and increased injury rates, as it will, what then?
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1241.html
http://crag.asn.au/why-did-the-injury-rate-triple-after-the-helmet-law/

 

[bruto]

And on the other hand, how much would it cost the biker to move over and extend lane courtesy to others like other slow traffic does?

I'm referring to the kind of situation that prevails here, where there simply is no effective shoulder, and the rider is already riding as far to the right as practicable. Unfortunately, at least a few motorists still feel the way some here appear to, that because bikes are "toys" they should get off the road, and who feel that somehow driving a car imbues them with greater importance.

 

[applecorped]

And when this leads to decreased cycling rates and increased injury rates, as it will, what then?
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1241.html
http://crag.asn.au/why-did-the-injury-rate-triple-after-the-helmet-law/

Raise the bike tax even more.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

And on the other hand, how much would it cost the biker to move over and extend lane courtesy to others like other slow traffic does?

Potentially their lives. Depending on the road and traffic conditions, cycling over to the right so that cars can pass, can encourage cars to pass dangerously close and put the cyclist in real physical danger. It's not about convenience, it's about safety.

 

[kookbreaker]

Potentially their lives. Depending on the road and traffic conditions, cycling over to the right so that cars can pass, can encourage cars to pass dangerously close and put the cyclist in real physical danger. It's not about convenience, it's about safety.

That's invariably it. Riding to the right in a lane not large enough to share is dangerous cycling behavior no matter how 'polite' it may seem. When you encourage cars to pass you closely, they will, and frankly far, far too many drivers do not have any idea where the passenger side of their car actually is.

So once again, "Cyclists should be polite" actualy means "Cyclists should massively increase their risk-taking so I can get to the Bubba Burger & Bar 20 seconds faster".

 

[bonzombiekitty]

That's invariably it. Riding to the right in a lane not large enough to share is dangerous cycling behavior no matter how 'polite' it may seem. When you encourage cars to pass you closely, they will, and frankly far, far too many drivers do not have any idea where the passenger side of their car actually is.

And at least if a cyclist more towards the middle of the lane, but not entirely and a car decides to pass dangerously close, there's room to the right for the cyclist to swerve to. Whereas, if the cyclist is far to the right, and a car starts passing dangerously close, there's nowhere for the cyclist to go.

It's also not mentioning the myriad of other issues that riding far to the right can cause - the right is where all the debris from the road ends up, and that can be dangerous for a cyclist.

The amount of time a cyclist will slow you down is minimal. They are going to cost you tens of seconds. Time that can easily be regained. You know what really costs you time? OTHER CARS.

 

[bruto]

And at least if a cyclist more towards the middle of the lane, but not entirely and a car decides to pass dangerously close, there's room to the right for the cyclist to swerve to. Whereas, if the cyclist is far to the right, and a car starts passing dangerously close, there's nowhere for the cyclist to go.

It's also not mentioning the myriad of other issues that riding far to the right can cause - the right is where all the debris from the road ends up, and that can be dangerous for a cyclist.

The amount of time a cyclist will slow you down is minimal. They are going to cost you tens of seconds. Time that can easily be regained. You know what really costs you time? OTHER CARS.

Highlighted because I keep saying it too, but it needs repeating until some people actually take on the hard task of thinking with their brains.

It's like tailgating. People who think there's anything to be gained by going the same speed as a car ahead at their bumper instead of a safe distance back are failing, in a monumentally stupid way, to think.

 

[kookbreaker]

Every now and then someone gives the horrible sob story about how they were held up by one of these eeeeevil cyclists and act as if they never get stuck behind cars, and how awful I must be holding up the poor drivers when I am on my bike.

I usually retort that they really don't want to check the balance on that ledger. The amount of time drivers have cost me when I am on my bike is obscenely in the red against their favor. Between me being behind slow moving drivers looking for parking, to cars parked in the bike lane, to cars turning left and moving right to do so ('cause it makes a sharper turn, see!) thus blocking getting around them, skidding to s stop because of left-hooks and right-hooks, etc, etc, etc.

If they get huffy I show them the videos of cars doign dangerous passing moves and risking multiple lives to save literally 10 seconds of drive time.

 

[Elagabalus]

And on the other hand, how much would it cost the biker to move over and extend lane courtesy to others like other slow traffic does?

I've never actually seen this courtesy being used by your average "cage-driver". Maybe it's just in San Diego and environs where "cage-drivers" look out for other "cage-drivers" and respectfully pull off the road when they're driving to slow?

San Diego sounds like heaven on Earth!