On 06/10/2007, at 5:11 AM, Dave Land wrote: > On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:40 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: > >> On 04/10/2007, at 11:13 AM, jon louis mann wrote: >> >>> pedestrians are not much better. i would think anyone ambulating >>> by feet or bike would take more care because they are far more >>> vulnerable. i notice a lot of bicyclists exhibit their share the >>> road attitude by riding double and forcing cars to match their >>> speed if they can not pass. >> >> Two abreast is legal just about everywhere, and a bicycle is >> *entitled* to the *whole lane*. Even in LA. Most cyclists stay >> towards the gutter out of courtesy, not because they have to. > > I would bet that no bike -- or a motorcycle or a car -- is > "entitled" to > a lane. I would bet that it is rather like a "yield" situation, in > which > nobody _has_ the right-of-way, but others are required to yield it.
If you must yield right-of-way to another vehicle, that vehicle has right-of-way. (Of course, they may have to yield right-of-way to another vehicle... this is why roundabouts can be fun...). From the California Driver Handbook: "When you want to pass a vehicle or bicycle going in your direction, pass on the left. In a narrow traffic lane, wait until the traffic is clear in the opposite lane before passing a bicyclist. Then change lanes. Do not squeeze past the bicyclist." So you must yield the entire lane to a bicycle if there is not adequate room to pass safely in the same lane. A bicycle is as entitled to the lane in order to progress safely as a car is. I've noticed that despite the fact that the trike is only 30cm wider than my bike, cars give way way more room (like correctly passing in the adjacent lane.) > > If I recall correctly from taking the CA driver's license test, there > is nothing that legally prevents two _cars_ from occupying the same > lane. The creators of certain narrow-body electric cars tout this as > another reason to purchase their vehicles. Maybe you have very wide lanes in CA... :-) > > That said, here in California, riding two-abreast appears to be legal, > but after a fatal accident in So Cal, the sheriffs who patrol the > Pacific Coast Highway asserted that they would start ticketing > cyclists > who enjoy their legal privilege. Typical. I got told it was my fault when a car reversed into me... There was a huge uproar earlier this year when a pedestrian was killed by a collision with a bicycle riding in a bunch which was crossing a pedestrian crossing as the lights changed red - the pedestrian apparently crossed as soon as the green man appeared (about a second after the traffic light turns red on Melbourne crossings). This led to huge media publicity, and calls for bicycles to be registered or even banned, and further furore when the cyclist concerned escaped with a fine. At that point in the year, 3 cyclists had been killed, at least one by a truck running a red light, and another by being rear-ended when in the bike lane (on my old route home from work...). No media uproar, and no more than fines for the drivers responsible. We're living in an increasingly blame-oriented culture, and it peeves me. It's too easy to blame entire groups, instead of simply punishing individuals who do wrong. Charlie. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
