[dbussone]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

For cyclists everywhere, I thank you and applaud your attitude that we are all just sharing the roads in our beautiful community.

Amen to that. I'm definitely a type A, but I have no interest in harming anyone. On Saturday my wife and I were out for a ride. A gentleman in a recumbent low riding 3 wheeler approached a merge point in front of me on Pinellas. I slowed down to let him into the roadway from the side cart/bike lane. He waved to me as he safely made the transition. When he successfully transitioned back into the side lane he waved again. I had difficulty seeing him but my wife said he mouthed "thank you" as we passed. It's always nice to do the right thing. Besides, where are we rushing to here in TV - the 3 PM seating at BoneFish?

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by TheVillageChicken

That is not true. The law does not say "possible". It says "practicable". In this context, there is a big difference.

What is the difference in this context?

[tuccillo]

I have seen a police department video that makes that suggestion. Bike clubs also suggest "owning the lane" under certain circumstances. The classic example is a two-lane road with a curve and double solid lines. Without "owning the lane", a car may attempt to pass you, illegally, by only partially using the left hand lane. If a car from the other direction suddenly appears you may be squeezed off the road or clipped by the passing car as he attempts to avoid a head-on collision. By the "owning the road", the passing car will often wait until a straightaway, and it is legal to pass, since they would have to fully move into the left hand lane. I have seen this happen more times than you would believe. Most experienced cyclists will move into the middle of the lane on a two-lane road around curves because to do otherwise is dangerous as there are too many drivers who violate the law.

I can assure you that nobody wants to play chicken with cars. To the contrary, the concept of "owning the road" is motivated by increasing safety. Any motorist that becoming "irate" about sharing the road with cyclists is a hazard to themselves and everyone else they share the road with. Unfortunate by true.

Originally Posted by outlaw

This idea that you "own the lane" is why you have so many close calls with irate motorists. You can "take the lane" if you want, but expect many more close encounters. You are playing chicken with a 4000 pound vehicle.

[tuccillo]

Sigh ....

The original poster said the following:

3' by my judgement might be different than theirs...

I am simply responding to his assertion that there are "different" definitions of 3' and the suggestion that he doesn't really care what the law says.

I don't know any cyclists who pick fights with cars - not sure where you got that from.

Originally Posted by outlaw

See. That's the biker attitude that gets them killed. Who in their right mind is going to pick a fight with Mike Tyson. That's what many bikers do with automobiles. What satisfaction does the biker have knowing that the driver that just killed or maimed him is going to be in trouble? Do what you want. I'm going to give the motorist as much space as possible. More often than not, they respond in kind by giving me plenty of room.

[tomwed]

Originally Posted by outlaw

See. That's the biker attitude that gets them killed. Who in their right mind is going to pick a fight with Mike Tyson. That's what many bikers do with automobiles. What satisfaction does the biker have knowing that the driver that just killed or maimed him is going to be in trouble? Do what you want. I'm going to give the motorist as much space as possible. More often than not, they respond in kind by giving me plenty of room.

I don't know if I see it your way. When you bike in the middle of the lane the car behind you might beep or curse you out but they won't run you over on purpose.
When you hug the curb the driver will pass you on the left when there is not quite enough room and that's when you could get clipped, especially if there is a bottle or some other obstacle near the curb and you have nowhere to swerve but left.
If you biked in traffic for any length of time you know what I mean. The rest of you will have to guess what it's like.

[TheVillageChicken]

Originally Posted by outlaw

What is the difference in this context?

Let's use a couple of analogies.

There is a 75 mph wind at your back. Now walk as close to the edge of the Grand Canyon as practicable. Good Job. Now walk as close to the edge as possible.


There is a ferocious pit bull on a chain. Walk as close as practicable. Now walk as close as possible.

If someone rode their bike as far right as possible, their tire would be on the exact edge of the road. The statute says "practicable".

[PennBF]

I know what you all mean. There is the biker who feel some pride in riding in traffic and even more annoying is the walker who brags that he/she can walk 5-10 miles a day but never seem to make it to the NY Marathon. If you talk to or are a marathon runner you appreciate following great safety rules, being aware of where you are running or walking and not "feeling special". It appears that both amateur Bikers and Walkers have a sense of "entitlement" while SERIOUS competitors in these programs are fun to be around.

[tuccillo]

I wish the administrator would remove these sorts of posts by Trolls. You are adding nothing to the discussion.

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I know what you all mean. There is the biker who feel some pride in riding in traffic and even more annoying is the walker who brags that he/she can walk 5-10 miles a day but never seem to make it to the NY Marathon. If you talk to or are a marathon runner you appreciate following great safety rules, being aware of where you are running or walking and not "feeling special". It appears that both amateur Bikers and Walkers have a sense of "entitlement" while SERIOUS competitors in these programs are fun to be around.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I have seen a police department video that makes that suggestion. Bike clubs also suggest "owning the lane" under certain circumstances. The classic example is a two-lane road with a curve and double solid lines. Without "owning the lane", a car may attempt to pass you, illegally, by only partially using the left hand lane. If a car from the other direction suddenly appears you may be squeezed off the road or clipped by the passing car as he attempts to avoid a head-on collision. By the "owning the road", the passing car will often wait until a straightaway, and it is legal to pass, since they would have to fully move into the left hand lane. I have seen this happen more times than you would believe. Most experienced cyclists will move into the middle of the lane on a two-lane road around curves because to do otherwise is dangerous as there are too many drivers who violate the law.

I can assure you that nobody wants to play chicken with cars. To the contrary, the concept of "owning the road" is motivated by increasing safety. Any motorist that becoming "irate" about sharing the road with cyclists is a hazard to themselves and everyone else they share the road with. Unfortunate by true.

Good point on turns.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by TheVillageChicken

Let's use a couple of analogies.

There is a 75 mph wind at your back. Now walk as close to the edge of the Grand Canyon as practicable. Good Job. Now walk as close to the edge as possible.


There is a ferocious pit bull on a chain. Walk as close as practicable. Now walk as close as possible.

If someone rode their bike as far right as possible, their tire would be on the exact edge of the road. The statute says "practicable".

Actually, I said "as safely as possible". does that help?

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I wish the administrator would remove these sorts of posts by Trolls. You are adding nothing to the discussion.

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

tuccillo, I think you missed pennbf's point. It is about entitlement. For instance, the villages bicycle club has a shirt that says in big letters "Same road, Same rules". Or something like that. But the rules are really not the same for autos and bicycles; no insurance required for bikes, no "drivers" license, no license plate/registration, no stop lights, etc. Not even a helmet requirement when motorcycle riders were required to wear many years ago in Florida. So the rules are not the same. But the bikers like to say this because it justifies to them their equal right to the whole lane.

[tuccillo]

Using the whole lane is not only the law but it is also a safety issue. Please see my previous posts about why cyclists should use the entire lane on some occasions. Issues such as insurance and licensing really have nothing to do with the rules of the road; those are administrative issues. Nearly everyone runs stop signs and there are a lot more cars running stop signs then bicycles. As I stated earlier, bicycles are essentially slow moving cars and need to be treated as such.You should pass cyclists when it is safe and lawful to do so, just as you would a slower moving car. This is really a pretty simple concept.

If you are unhappy with the law then you are free to try to change it. Regarding pennbfs' post, I didn't miss the point; he was trolling.

Originally Posted by outlaw

tuccillo, I think you missed pennbf's point. It is about entitlement. For instance, the villages bicycle club has a shirt that says in big letters "Same road, Same rules". Or something like that. But the rules are really not the same for autos and bicycles; no insurance required for bikes, no "drivers" license, no license plate/registration, no stop lights, etc. Not even a helmet requirement when motorcycle riders were required to wear many years ago in Florida. So the rules are not the same. But the bikers like to say this because it justifies to them their equal right to the whole lane.

[sunnyatlast]

There have been lots of threads here complaining about heavy traffic on Morse and Buena Vista, and about how some think that the 2-lane-exit roundabouts ought to be made one lane to lessen the confusion about which lane they must be in (never mind the signs with diagrams before each roundabout, that clearly diagram which lane you need to choose for turning right, left, or continuing straight).

I'm mind boggled when I see bike riders and somebody above state that they purposely occupy the whole lane, which forces the motorist to get into the left lane to pass them, and the need to pass is because the bicyclist is only going 15-20 mph and the speed limit is 35!!!!

So the cyclist forces you to pass them in the left lane, in heavy traffic, but you need to be in the right lane to choose the proper lane upon entering the roundabout ahead. They make you unable to go the speed limit AND be in the correct lane at the entrance of the roundabout due to the lane being full after passing!!

[tuccillo]

A couple of points. The lanes are not wide enough to contain both a car and a bike plus the required 3 feet of clearance. Therefore, a bike may essentially occupy an entire lane. Secondly, there is no minimum speed limit on Buena Vista. Just as with a slower moving car, it is up to the passing vehicle to pass, in the left hand lane, when it is safe to do so. If you do not have sufficient time to pass and get back in the right hand lane before the roundabout then you must remain in the right hand lane. Sorry that you are be inconvenienced but cyclists get to use the road also. It is your responsibility to share the road in a safe and lawful manner.

Originally Posted by sunnyatlast

There have been lots of threads here complaining about heavy traffic on Morse and Buena Vista, and about how some think that the 2-lane-exit roundabouts ought to be made one lane to lessen the confusion about which lane they must be in (never mind the signs with diagrams before each roundabout, that clearly diagram which lane you need to choose for turning right, left, or continuing straight).

I'm mind boggled when I see bike riders and somebody above state that they purposely occupy the whole lane, which forces the motorist to get into the left lane to pass them, and the need to pass is because the bicyclist is only going 15-20 mph and the speed limit is 35!!!!

So the cyclist forces you to pass them in the left lane, in heavy traffic, but you need to be in the right lane to choose the proper lane upon entering the roundabout ahead. They make you unable to go the speed limit AND be in the correct lane at the entrance of the roundabout due to the lane being full after passing!!

[sunnyatlast]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

A couple of points. The lanes are not wide enough to contain both a car and a bike plus the required 3 feet of clearance. Therefore, a bike may essentially occupy an entire lane. Secondly, there is no minimum speed limit on Buena Vista. Just as with a slower moving car, it is up to the passing vehicle to pass, in the left hand lane, when it is safe to do so. If you do not have sufficient time to pass and get back in the right hand lane before the roundabout then you must remain in the right hand lane. Sorry that you are be inconvenienced but cyclists get to use the road also. It is your responsibility to share the road in a safe and lawful manner.

This is the arrogance. Why do bicyclists want to hold up of a string of cars/trucks behind them, by going 15-20 on the bike when everyone else can be going 30-35????

How about some consideration for the majority of vehicle drivers who want to keep traffic flowing at 30-35 mph??