Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,713 Posts
Yes, somewhat interesting, even if it's aboot what you'd expect from a liberal Canadian thinktank, eh. (JK) I wouldn't expect it to convince many of those motorists or policy-makers who, as the report says, accuse cyclists "of paying less than their fair share of roadway costs, or simply [tell them] to “Get the #$%^@ off the road!” But it's useful to see hard argument showing that "active transportation" modes benefit society (including motorists).

BTW, this state (Connecticut) recently changed from that Uniform Vehicle Code provision that mandated cyclists to ride "as far to the right as practicable." The law here now says the cyclist must ride as far to the right as is deemed safe in the judgment of the cyclist. And it has a list of exceptions even to that requirement, including the usual obstructions, bad road conditions, etc., but now explicitly including a situation where the lane is too narrow for a cyclist and motor vehicle to ride side by side. Combined with the three-foot law, that means "taking the lane" is now explicitly legally authorized where the shoulder is inadequate. I'm sure most cops don't know about this; I'm looking forward to explaining this to one of them the next time I'm told to move over. Maybe I should carry a copy of the statute in my pocket. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,736 Posts
BTW, this state (Connecticut) recently changed from that Uniform Vehicle Code provision that mandated cyclists to ride "as far to the right as practicable." The law here now says the cyclist must ride as far to the right as is deemed safe in the judgment of the cyclist.
That's some nice specific language.

I did enjoy riding in CT. I was really surprised to see those white bicycles painted on rural roads indicating a bike lane.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,792 Posts
BTW, this state (Connecticut) recently changed from that Uniform Vehicle Code provision that mandated cyclists to ride "as far to the right as practicable." The law here now says the cyclist must ride as far to the right as is deemed safe in the judgment of the cyclist. And it has a list of exceptions even to that requirement, including the usual obstructions, bad road conditions, etc., but now explicitly including a situation where the lane is too narrow for a cyclist and motor vehicle to ride side by side. Combined with the three-foot law, that means "taking the lane" is now explicitly legally authorized where the shoulder is inadequate. I'm sure most cops don't know about this; I'm looking forward to explaining this to one of them the next time I'm told to move over. Maybe I should carry a copy of the statute in my pocket. :)
The change is your states vehicle code is very heartening. I can only hope that it becomes widespread throughout the rest of the country.

Here in Illinois the "League of Illinois Bicyclists" in conjunction with IDOT has printed up a nice little card, suitable to carry, with the rule and the traffic code which applies. I've always got one with me when I ride.
 

·
δanned
Joined
·
7,005 Posts
http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf

Kinda dry reading but worth printing and posting in areas, that do not favor the cyclist.
It rings true with people like us who are willing to listen. You can't get through to a staunch anti-cycling mullet who thinks they're right no matter what. Tossing a publication at them won't do any good even if they can read. The only language these types of people understand is the language that uses traffic citations and handcuffs.

BTW, this state (Connecticut) recently changed from that Uniform Vehicle Code provision that mandated cyclists to ride "as far to the right as practicable." The law here now says the cyclist must ride as far to the right as is deemed safe in the judgment of the cyclist. And it has a list of exceptions even to that requirement, including the usual obstructions, bad road conditions, etc., but now explicitly including a situation where the lane is too narrow for a cyclist and motor vehicle to ride side by side. Combined with the three-foot law, that means "taking the lane" is now explicitly legally authorized where the shoulder is inadequate. I'm sure most cops don't know about this; I'm looking forward to explaining this to one of them the next time I'm told to move over. Maybe I should carry a copy of the statute in my pocket. :)
I really wish NY would simplify its statute regarding where cyclists have to ride (#1234). It's verbose and ambiguous to say the least. I also wish every state would follow DE's lead and replace "Share the Road" signs with the much less vague "May Use Full Lane" signage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
I'm sure most cops don't know about this; I'm looking forward to explaining this to one of them the next time I'm told to move over. Maybe I should carry a copy of the statute in my pocket. :)
I carry a copy of my state's bike laws (NJ). In NJ, a cyclists is permitted "To occupy any available lane when traveling at the same speed as other traffic". I interpret this as being allowed to "take the lane" if I can maintain the speed limit. Technically, I wouldn't be impeding traffic, since they shouldn't be exceeding the speed limit. I'm waiting for the day when a cop pulls me over for this, so I can educate him. Of course, I will do so politely, so as not to become a victim of police brutality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,713 Posts
I carry a copy of my state's bike laws (NJ). In NJ, a cyclists is permitted "To occupy any available lane when traveling at the same speed as other traffic". I interpret this as being allowed to "take the lane" if I can maintain the speed limit. Technically, I wouldn't be impeding traffic, since they shouldn't be exceeding the speed limit. I'm waiting for the day when a cop pulls me over for this, so I can educate him. Of course, I will do so politely, so as not to become a victim of police brutality.
That's better than nothing, but there are damn few roads hereabouts where the speed limit is low enough for me to maintain the limit unless it's a substantial descent. I like Connecticut's new law, which makes it a function of the available room on the road, regardless of the speed limit.. Of course, the three-foot law (which we've had for over five years, accomplishes the same thing you've noted: you're not legally impeding them if they'd legally have to cross into the other lane to pass anyway.

Explaining these nuances to a driver riding beside you and yelling at you through the open window can be an interesting exercise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
Reading the title of this post reminded me of a video I saw recently where cyclist where owning the road and the consequences were less than favorable.

Link to the video: https://www.facebook.com/ViralVidsPage/videos/872116022905042/
that's just a case of TIR. This Is Russia. almost as bad as TIA (this is Africa). There is a reason the whole dashcam craze really took off in Russia first.

And there was no owning the road in that video They had to ride right where they did to avoid being routed onto the offramp. They were pretty much as far to the right as practical, not even close to 'owning the lane'
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top