Bicyclist assaults NYPD officer

[zooterkin]

Cars can't pass on the shoulder, neither can bikes. .

According to the interpretation presented in the Georgia Bicycle Law Enforcement Pocket Guide, they can:

When Overtaking and Passing on the Right is Permitted [§40-6-43]
The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
• When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn; or
• Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lanes of moving vehicles in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle [§40-6-43(a)(1,2)].

If otherwise authorized, the driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. Such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway [§40-6-43 (b)].

(A cyclist traveling in a bicycle lane, or in a lane wide enough for motor vehicles and bicycles to share (see roadway position above) may pass motor vehicles on the right, but must still take care to avoid turning vehicles. This is allowed since in these cases there is either provision of a lane or sufficient width for two lines of moving traffic; one of which is bicycle traffic.)

I'm not sure of the exact status of this document, or the organisation producing it, but it seems a reasonable interpretation to me. There's a bit about it about half-way down on the front page of the site.

 

[Dan O.]

It's not usually the time factor, but the safety, and a simple matter of politeness. Although the time issue is sometimes relevant, in many areas around here passing a bike is just dangerous because the lanes are narrow and hills and curves limit your sight distance. Some roads you can be stuck with the choice of following a bike at a crawl for half a mile or more or taking the chance and hoping an oncoming car doesn't force you to move back into the lane and thereby force the cyclist off the road, which in some cases would mean a very nasty fall down an embankment.

In this situation I would suspect that the road is already marked "no passing". If it's not safe to pass a slow moving cyclist there is no way it would be safe to pass another car. I slow down and stay well behind the cyclist until it is safe to pass.


Passing the same cyclist that happened to get ahead of you at the light is no different than passing the next cyclist that was slowed down because they didn't pass the vehicles ahead of you. Unless your argument is that there aren't many cyclists on the road, there are going to be more cyclists for you to pass whether they move ahead at the light or not.

 

[Piggy]

Passing the same cyclist that happened to get ahead of you at the light is no different than passing the next cyclist that was slowed down because they didn't pass the vehicles ahead of you. Unless your argument is that there aren't many cyclists on the road, there are going to be more cyclists for you to pass whether they move ahead at the light or not.

Well, that's true, there aren't many cyclist on the road here. It's not like Florida where there are a lot more.

 

[jimbob]

Well, it's not pointless from the cyclist's point of view; approaching lights, I'm often able to keep moving and not have to stop at all.

Yeah, and if I roll through a stoplight or stop sign in my car, I don't have to stop, either. Still illegal and dangerous.

But where it isn't illeagal, it becomes less dangerous. There is also the other factor that if you are cycling, you will still get overtaken. It also takes effort to accelerate back to a cruising speed on a bike, more than when I am in a car. This would mean that cyclists who did wait (pointlessly) on the inside where it would be safe to undertake would actually spend longer *moving* as well as stopped, and would thus hold up cars for even longer in total.

It's partly a matter of perception; you may think that a cyclist is delaying you, and you may have to drive slowly for a short while, but I think it's rare that a cyclist actually increases your overall journey time since you then catch up with the car in front; not to mention the fact that you do get past him which you may not have done if he was in a car.

It's not usually the time factor, but the safety, and a simple matter of politeness. Although the time issue is sometimes relevant, in many areas around here passing a bike is just dangerous because the lanes are narrow and hills and curves limit your sight distance. Some roads you can be stuck with the choice of following a bike at a crawl for half a mile or more or taking the chance and hoping an oncoming car doesn't force you to move back into the lane and thereby force the cyclist off the road, which in some cases would mean a very nasty fall down an embankment.

But politeness has a lot to do with it. A cyclist is another vehicle, plain and simple. We all take our places. Forcing people to pass you again and again and again is just rude.

And preventing someone from overtaking you many times is even ruder.

 

[Piggy]

According to the interpretation presented in the Georgia Bicycle Law Enforcement Pocket Guide, they can:

The statute you quote there, which applies to cars and bikes, is designed to keep traffic moving by allowing a right-pass at intersections under certain conditions which are pretty common here.

In the first case, if a car ahead of you is in the intersection and waiting to make a left turn, or in the process of turning, and no oncoming vehicles are making turns in front of you, and there's room, it's legal to go around that car on the right as long as the conditions are safe.

In the second case, if you're on a road that has a single lane in your direction but is as wide as a 2-lane road, then you can pass on the right if the vehicle you're passing is keeping to the left (usually because it intends to turn left soon, or because there's a queue for a left turn at a stop sign/light and you intend to turn right and you can access the right-turn short-lane by passing the queue on the right).

This happens every day, for example, on an industrial park road -- made extra wide to accommodate freight trucks which turn in and out of the drives that access it -- that I take to and from work, where cars double-queue at the light on a single lane, including police cars, and where cars will right-pass motorized carts that have moved to the center for a left turn.

I wouldn't interpret either law as allowing a vehicle to pass a line of cars on the right who are waiting at a red light, just to get a little farther along while still traveling in the same direction, by riding to the right of the white stripe then placing itself at the head of the column.

But I've never seen a bike stopped for doing it, and I doubt a cop would spend time writing up a cyclist for that, so of course, lots of people do it.

Not everybody, mind you. And I don't, for the reasons I've given.

I wish folks wouldn't do it, but no, I don't think anyone's going to get stopped for it.

And now, as it happens... off to ride the bike for a couple of hours!

 

[Piggy]

And preventing someone from overtaking you many times is even ruder.

Well, you can't prevent them, short of opening your passenger-side door to block them. You just have to watch them roll by and think, dang, now I gotta pass this guy again.

 

[Dan O.]

Well, you can't prevent them, short of opening your passenger-side door to block them. You just have to watch them roll by and think, dang, now I gotta pass this guy again.

I think you are really just jealous that you are stuck in your car and can't be out there cycling with them.

 

[jimbob]

Piggy,

There are many cities (london for example) where the average traffic speed is often lower than that of cyclists.

In this situation, where it is safe for cyclists to undertake, why should that be illeagal? Of course in the UK it isn't, and we don't have a notoriously bike-friendly system.

Furthermore, in such a situation, getting cyclists to finish their journeys quicker would do more to help the car drivers finish their journeys quicker.

This is where cyclists would or would not undertake and car drivers have to wiat to overtake the cycleist.

Say you have a half-mile stretch of road where cars can't safely overtake cycles. Better that the cyclist covers as much of this when the cars are stopped. Say the cyclist covers half this distance when cars are stopped. The average car will then only need wait for a quarter-mile of moving cyclist, probably less in stop-start traffic.

 

[Piggy]

I think you are really just jealous that you are stuck in your car and can't be out there cycling with them.

I really am. I miss the bike lanes. It's only 7 miles from my house to my job, and if it weren't dangerous to do it, I'd ride my bike whenever the weather permitted. But with the roads this narrow (especially these old bridges) and the cars this big, I just can't.

When I lived in Florida, every Sunday I'd ride 14 miles out into the county, do 2 hours of yoga and martial arts, then ride back home, eat, shower up, and go to work. I loved it!

 

[Piggy]

Piggy,

There are many cities (london for example) where the average traffic speed is often lower than that of cyclists.

In this situation, where it is safe for cyclists to undertake, why should that be illeagal? Of course in the UK it isn't, and we don't have a notoriously bike-friendly system.

Well, I don't know that it should be illegal everywhere.

I was commenting on a practice that -- I believe -- is not legal here (even if it's not enforced) and which tends to generate animosity toward cyclists.

But I certainly wouldn't advocate outlawing it universally on principle or anything like that.

Furthermore, in such a situation, getting cyclists to finish their journeys quicker would do more to help the car drivers finish their journeys quicker.

I'm not sure that it would.

From a driver's point of view, if you're passing each cyclist only once, you're going to be less delayed than if you have to pass each cyclist multiple times.

But in a dense urban setting, it may be six of one, half dozen of another, since you're going to get stopped at the lights no matter what. In that situation, the traffic pattern of the cyclists may actually be irrelevant.

This is where cyclists would or would not undertake and car drivers have to wiat to overtake the cycleist.

Say you have a half-mile stretch of road where cars can't safely overtake cycles. Better that the cyclist covers as much of this when the cars are stopped. Say the cyclist covers half this distance when cars are stopped. The average car will then only need wait for a quarter-mile of moving cyclist, probably less in stop-start traffic.

Ok, let's take it from the beginning.

If there's a queue at a red light, and there's a half-mile stretch ahead where it's not safe to pass a cyclist, then suppose the cyclist is at position 8 in the queue.

If the cyclist holds his position, 7 cars will not have to slow down for the cyclist, and will be on their merry way.

If the cyclist moves to the head of the queue during the red light, then those 7 cars will be stuck behind the cyclist for that half mile.

And there's a domino effect.

When passing becomes safe, all 7 of these will have to pass the cyclist before the car which was at position #9 can pass -- the car which otherwise would have been first to pass -- and it's likely that fewer cars than that will actually pass before conditions become unsafe for passing again.

If the cyclist had held his position, then when passing became safe, cars 9, 10, and 11 (etc.) could pass. If he moves to the front, these cars may not have a safe chance to pass for many miles.

That's why drivers grit their teeth around here when they see a cyclist move to the front at a red light.

 

[Dan O.]

I really am. I miss the bike lanes. It's only 7 miles from my house to my job, and if it weren't dangerous to do it, I'd ride my bike whenever the weather permitted. But with the roads this narrow (especially these old bridges) and the cars this big, I just can't.

When I lived in Florida, every Sunday I'd ride 14 miles out into the county, do 2 hours of yoga and martial arts, then ride back home, eat, shower up, and go to work. I loved it!

My suggestion then is to give the cyclists their space. If it's not safe to pass, wait until it is. The other drivers will eventually learn that this is the proper way to drive by following your example. When enough drivers have learned to share the road with the cyclists you will be able to get back on your bike.

 

[Piggy]

My suggestion then is to give the cyclists their space. If it's not safe to pass, wait until it is. The other drivers will eventually learn that this is the proper way to drive by following your example. When enough drives have learned to share the road with the cyclists you will be able to get back on your bike.

Oh, I wish.

I do give cyclists their space. Personally, I don't mind following a cyclist that I encounter at his/her speed until it's safe.

Amazingly, I've had cyclists try to signal me around, even though conditions clearly are not safe. I refuse to do this. After all "same roads same rules" applies to me when I'm driving as well as when I'm biking.

But you wouldn't believe the idiot drivers around here. On these narrow, twisty, hilly county roads, the speed limit is 55. I regularly see people passing folks who are doing 60, on hills and curves!

There was a family killed earlier this year just down the road from me because they were turning right onto the state highway (just a little narrow 2-lane road) and someone topped a hill who was passing a car at high speed, slammed into them head-on.

That's why I don't ride the roads around here.

 

[jimbob]

It depends on whether the problems are before or after the lights. In the stop-start traffic that I cycle in, there is usually (yet) another set of traffic lights in front. I think this is probaly the case in most cities. There are also stretches where a cyclist it would be safe for a cyclist to pass stationary traffic at a fast walking pace, but not for cars to overtake a cyclist moving a few mph below the peak traffic speed, (say at 20mph in a 30 zone).

As zooterkin has said, in such a situation with stop-start traffic, the cyclist is only preventing the car getting to its next stationary position earlier; the car doesn't lose any position in the queue, nor does the cyclist delay the car from moving off form this next position, as by then the cyclist is long gone.

I also think it was zooterkin who pointed out that often busses slow the traffic down to below cycling speeds. (However not by as much as the equivalent number of cars).

 

[jimbob]

I have had one case of impatience: there is a shortcut, with a couple of hundred yards and a steep climb. This road has a sign allowing no motorised vehicles except for access, and the driver wanted me to stop to let him pass, as he (illegally) used the road as a rat-run. I had pulled in to let him pass when it was safe to do so, and he then stopped at the top of the road to tell me that I didn't have any right to delay him, before driving on and completing his ratrun (which is how I know he was using it illegally).

 

[Piggy]

It depends on whether the problems are before or after the lights. In the stop-start traffic that I cycle in, there is usually (yet) another set of traffic lights in front. I think this is probaly the case in most cities. There are also stretches where a cyclist it would be safe for a cyclist to pass stationary traffic at a fast walking pace, but not for cars to overtake a cyclist moving a few mph below the peak traffic speed, (say at 20mph in a 30 zone).

As zooterkin has said, in such a situation with stop-start traffic, the cyclist is only preventing the car getting to its next stationary position earlier; the car doesn't lose any position in the queue, nor does the cyclist delay the car from moving off form this next position, as by then the cyclist is long gone.

I also think it was zooterkin who pointed out that often busses slow the traffic down to below cycling speeds. (However not by as much as the equivalent number of cars).

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was talking about when I said in heavy urban traffic the flow of cycle traffic may be irrelevant to the flow of car traffic. They could be looked at as 2 separate systems using the same roadways, for all practical purposes.

The danger I would see there for cyclists would be folks getting out of cars on the passenger side.

 

[zooterkin]

Well, I don't know that it should be illegal everywhere.

I was commenting on a practice that -- I believe -- is not legal here (even if it's not enforced) and which tends to generate animosity toward cyclists.

The document I quoted suggests it is legal in Georgia; at least an interpretation of the law supports this, and this interpretation is apparently being promoted to and by law enforcement officers.

As zooterkin has said, in such a situation with stop-start traffic, the cyclist is only preventing the car getting to its next stationary position earlier; the car doesn't lose any position in the queue, nor does the cyclist delay the car from moving off form this next position, as by then the cyclist is long gone.

I'm pretty sure I read something a few years ago which was the results of a study which showed this. However, it certainly happens some of the time, because I see it when I cycle, but I couldn't give a percentage for how often journey time is increased. I also can't remember if there was any allowance for the cyclist meaning there were fewer cars on the road.

I also think it was zooterkin who pointed out that often busses slow the traffic down to below cycling speeds. (However not by as much as the equivalent number of cars).

I don't think that was me (though I'm old enough that memory is no longer reliable )

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was talking about when I said in heavy urban traffic the flow of cycle traffic may be irrelevant to the flow of car traffic. They could be looked at as 2 separate systems using the same roadways, for all practical purposes.

Yes, that's what the Georgia cycling guide seems to be saying, too.

The danger I would see there for cyclists would be folks getting out of cars on the passenger side.

Well, cyclists always have to be vigilant, but I wouldn't have thought this was a frequent problem, except perhaps at particular drop-off points. Without getting into the details of what particular groups have done, this is the sort of thing that something like Critical Mass can help with by raising the profile of cyclists and making motorists more aware of them, so they might think twice before opening a door.

It seems to me (generalising wildly) that we've touched on a difference between Europe and at least some areas in the US. In Europe, there is a continuous history of cycling as a means of transport. The way cyclists are treated may vary, and some drivers may still need more education about the rights of cyclists and how to deal with them in some places, but the fundamental principle is established. It seems that in the US that the history of cycling as a means of transport is not there, and the cycling organisations are having to educate motorists that cyclists have a right to be using the roads (as well as educating some cyclists about how to use the roads too - I've seen people riding the wrong way, against the traffic, and it seems to be an accepted practice for some).

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, it's not pointless from the cyclist's point of view; approaching lights, I'm often able to keep moving and not have to stop at all. It's partly a matter of perception; you may think that a cyclist is delaying you, and you may have to drive slowly for a short while, but I think it's rare that a cyclist actually increases your overall journey time since you then catch up with the car in front; not to mention the fact that you do get past him which you may not have done if he was in a car.

Depends, the point was mostly about roads where it is difficult to pass a cyclist safely. So hilly curving roads with no shoulder.

On such road say the speed limit is 40 mph, and the bike rider is going 10mph with the hill and all. How long traveling at a quarter of the speed you would be otherwise traveling would you need to rack up to make it matter? Add in a line of cars so that it is not just one car needing to pass him but several and that could take several minutes.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So, you want the cyclists to be second class citizens while using the roads. You want them to move out of your way when you are moving faster and you want them to sit behind you when you aren't moving.

Each one of those cyclists pays the same taxes as you (except for gas taxes) so they should have the same rights to travel through the city. The solution is to accommodate both with paved shoulders and/or bike lanes. But the motorists are using up all the oil so now there is a shortage of asphalt to widen the road.

How is behaving in the same fashion being a second class citizen? This sounds similar to the oppression that some christian groups feel when they are not permited to force school children to pray their way.

If all the same laws apply why is it making one a second class citizen?

 

[ponderingturtle]

It depends on whether the problems are before or after the lights. In the stop-start traffic that I cycle in, there is usually (yet) another set of traffic lights in front. I think this is probaly the case in most cities. There are also stretches where a cyclist it would be safe for a cyclist to pass stationary traffic at a fast walking pace, but not for cars to overtake a cyclist moving a few mph below the peak traffic speed, (say at 20mph in a 30 zone).

As zooterkin has said, in such a situation with stop-start traffic, the cyclist is only preventing the car getting to its next stationary position earlier; the car doesn't lose any position in the queue, nor does the cyclist delay the car from moving off form this next position, as by then the cyclist is long gone.

Unless the lights are timed so that at 30mph you make the next light and at 20 mph you don't.

Then the cyclist makes you hit all the lights instead of just one.

And yes in places they do time lights to the speed of traffic.

 

[Piggy]

The document I quoted suggests it is legal in Georgia; at least an interpretation of the law supports this, and this interpretation is apparently being promoted to and by law enforcement officers.

Well, you may be right there.

It seems to me (generalising wildly) that we've touched on a difference between Europe and at least some areas in the US. In Europe, there is a continuous history of cycling as a means of transport. The way cyclists are treated may vary, and some drivers may still need more education about the rights of cyclists and how to deal with them in some places, but the fundamental principle is established. It seems that in the US that the history of cycling as a means of transport is not there, and the cycling organisations are having to educate motorists that cyclists have a right to be using the roads (as well as educating some cyclists about how to use the roads too - I've seen people riding the wrong way, against the traffic, and it seems to be an accepted practice for some).

That's very true. I have an older brother who was into running and cycling back in the early '70s, and he got some pretty severe harassment. One time a redneck hit him with a chunk of ice from a cooler, from a moving car, knocked him off his bike and banged him up pretty bad.

I'm back living in this area and the "yuppies and hippies" image of cyclists is still rampant. The good ol' boys just think they're a pain in the ass, and they're not inclined to share the road with them or pay for bike lanes with their taxes or do anything to make cycling more common.

So, like I said, I do not ride on the county roads around here. I go to the nearby town and ride on the paths. They have over 70 miles of paths, so you can get a good workout.