absolutely the worst driver justification

[andy gee]

I've said "this takes the cake" before and I'll probably say it again,
but for today, this takes the cake.

Initial position: New York City, 10th st & Broadway. 10th St has a
bike lane on the left side of this one-way street heading East. Across
Broadway, the entire left half of the street disappears for a
construction project. A bike should be riding on that next block on the
right side. Safe procedure seems to be to switch from the bike lane to
the right side _before_ crossing Broadway to avoid trying to squueze
into a narrow space between cars and a wall. However, Broadway is one
way heading South. Cars on 10th st could be going straight or turning
right onto Broadway. Typical procedure for cyclists travelling on one-
way streets, whether or not the street has a bike lane, is to be on the
other side from the direction cars would be turning if such a move is
safe. But here, being on the turn side is safer.

So I'm on the right waiting for the light. Light turns green, I move.
car comes up from behind me, passes me, doesn't signal a turn, but then
starts rolling right across my vector. I slow down a little, just for
safety, not to yield, he keeps moving until it's clear he can't get by
either me or the pedestrians in the crosswalk. As I pass his nose, I
see he's on the phone. I give him my best "what a maroon" glare. I
didn't want to yell or start a fight, but I just _really had to know_
what was going on in his head, so I pulled up at the next light and
motinoed for him to roll down his window. He starts yelling at me to
stop looking at him like that, and I just told him, look, it's against
NY law to turn across a lane of moving traffic.

So he says, get this: You had the red hand (our "flashing don't walk"
sign) and the red hand means you can't cross."

Can you believe that?

--ag

 

[Paul Hobson]

andy gee wrote:
[AG is a better man than me]
>
> So he says, get this: You had the red hand (our "flashing don't walk"
> sign) and the red hand means you can't cross."
>
> Can you believe that?
>
> --ag

In a polite and calm tone (hard to do, I know), ask him if he knows what
a U-Lock is. If he doesn't, show him*. <eg>


*In no way would I ever strike a vehicle or especially a person with my
lock. There have been situation in Atlanta where I could have made a
very strong self-defense argument though. Also, someone has to be
pretty irrate for know reason for me to even bluff as mentioned above.
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

 

[Roger Zoul]

andy gee wrote:
:: So he says, get this: You had the red hand (our "flashing don't
:: walk" sign) and the red hand means you can't cross."
::
:: Can you believe that?

Sure I can believe that. He's ignorant. Most non-cyclist are as far as
cycling on the road is concerned.

 

[amakyonin]

andy gee wrote:
> A bike should be riding on that next block on the
> right side. Safe procedure seems to be to switch from the bike lane to
> the right side _before_ crossing Broadway to avoid trying to squueze
> into a narrow space between cars and a wall.

I disagree that the left side shoudn't be used on one way streets. NY
law doesn't specifically address this issue for bicyclists in the
vehicle code. I interpret the "as far to the right as practicable" to
mean that I can use the left lane whenever I would be inconvenienced
otherwise. The law also provides additional support if you are
preparing for a left turn. If I need to go a few blocks on a one way
street before making a left turn then I usually stay on the left side.
I always take the lane when doing this because there are too many
hazards otherwise, particularly when passengers open the doors of
parked cars on the left side. The presence of the construction barrier
means that taking the lane is necessary in your case.

The fact that the bike lane was placed on the left side of 10th Ave. is
indication that that is where the city wants bicyclists to be under
normal conditions. If traffic conditions make it too dangerous to stay
in the left lane or you need to make a right turn eventually then it
still may be best to go to the right lane.

> So I'm on the right waiting for the light. Light turns green, I move.
> car comes up from behind me, passes me, doesn't signal a turn, but then
> starts rolling right across my vector. I slow down a little, just for
> safety, not to yield, he keeps moving until it's clear he can't get by
> either me or the pedestrians in the crosswalk. As I pass his nose, I
> see he's on the phone.

Handheld cellphone use is illegal while driving in NY state. IMO, any
driver that wants to flaunt the law has voluntarily revoked their own
right of way and bicyclists shouldn't feel the need to accomodate them.

I always take the lane at stops to prevent the right hook maneuver. In
NY moter vehicles can't legally pass a bicyclist in their lane when it
is unsafe to do so. There is no safe way to pass while at a red light
so you aren't interfering with the flow of traffic if you take the
lane. Remember that these jackasses wouldn't be able to pass you if you
were driving a Hummer or even a motorcycle. There is no reason that the
standard behavior should change just because you are on a bicycle. By
not taking the lane, you leave an opening for them to attempt this
********.

 

[Bob]

andy gee wrote:

> So I'm on the right waiting for the light. Light turns green, I move.
> car comes up from behind me, passes me, doesn't signal a turn, but then
> starts rolling right across my vector. I slow down a little, just for
> safety, not to yield, he keeps moving until it's clear he can't get by
> either me or the pedestrians in the crosswalk. As I pass his nose, I
> see he's on the phone. I give him my best "what a maroon" glare. I
> didn't want to yell or start a fight, but I just _really had to know_
> what was going on in his head, so I pulled up at the next light and
> motinoed for him to roll down his window. He starts yelling at me to
> stop looking at him like that, and I just told him, look, it's against
> NY law to turn across a lane of moving traffic.
>
> So he says, get this: You had the red hand (our "flashing don't walk"
> sign) and the red hand means you can't cross."
>
> Can you believe that?
>
> --ag

He probably wasn't paying any attention as he waited for the light and
your presence didn't register until the light changed. Then when it did
change he saw you and mistakenly thought your admittedly slow pace
meant you should be treated as a pedestrian in the crosswalk so forget
the "moving lane of traffic" altogether. What's more on point in this
instance is that pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way. As
for his, "but the red hand means you can't cross", argument, a
pedestrian violating a don't walk signal can be ticketed but that
violation doesn't confer the right to run over any offending
pedestrians on motorists.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Bob" wrote: (clip) As for his, "but the red hand means you can't cross",
argument, a pedestrian violating a don't walk signal can be ticketed but
that violation doesn't confer the right to run over any offending
pedestrians on motorists.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nothing EVER gives ANYONE the right to cause an accident. If we take his
view of it, you failed to observe the wait signal for pedestrians. If Andy
was in the crosswalk moving slowly, it might be possible to see his point of
view. But, his way was blocked, not only by Andy, but by a number of
pedestrians. So I guess they were ALL violating the red hand. Or maybe he
was so absorbed in his phone call that he got the facts wrong.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> "Bob" wrote: (clip) As for his, "but the red hand means you can't cross",
> argument, a pedestrian violating a don't walk signal can be ticketed but
> that violation doesn't confer the right to run over any offending
> pedestrians on motorists.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Nothing EVER gives ANYONE the right to cause an accident. If we take his
> view of it, you failed to observe the wait signal for pedestrians. If Andy
> was in the crosswalk moving slowly, it might be possible to see his point of
> view. But, his way was blocked, not only by Andy, but by a number of
> pedestrians. So I guess they were ALL violating the red hand.

Maybe not, if they were already in the crosswalk before the red
hand started flashing. If they proceeded into the crosswalk
against the subsequent /steady/ red hand it might be a different
matter. I'm assuming the pedestrian light cycle goes like:
'Walk' light -> flashing red hand -> steady right hand.

As a side note not addressing any particular points raised by
anybody in this thread (but perhaps of interest,) it may be that
in NYC a marked crosswalk isn't just limited to the area defined
by the painted lines. IOW if Andy wasn't between the painted
lines, it may be he was still legally in the crosswalk.

> Or maybe he
> was so absorbed in his phone call that he got the facts wrong.

Chances are the driver didn't give a hoot about facts anyway.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Tom Keats" wrote: (clip) Chances are the driver didn't give a hoot about
facts anyway.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Perception and memory are selective--most of us shade things at least a
little to make ourselves look good. (Or not look bad.) When I was a little
kid, I was riding my bike across an intersection, where a little girl was
running. Just before I caught up with her, she tripped, and even before she
hit the ground, she said, "You pushed me." I don't think she even knew I
was there. She just knew she was falling, and it wasn't her fault.

 

[Bob]

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Bob" wrote: (clip) As for his, "but the red hand means you can't cross",
> argument, a pedestrian violating a don't walk signal can be ticketed but
> that violation doesn't confer the right to run over any offending
> pedestrians on motorists.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Nothing EVER gives ANYONE the right to cause an accident. If we take his
> view of it, you failed to observe the wait signal for pedestrians. If Andy
> was in the crosswalk moving slowly, it might be possible to see his point of
> view. But, his way was blocked, not only by Andy, but by a number of
> pedestrians. So I guess they were ALL violating the red hand. Or maybe he
> was so absorbed in his phone call that he got the facts wrong.

That his way was blocked by pedestrians as well as Andy was actually
the point I was making. BTW, there's no such thing as a "right to cause
an accident". If one exercises a "right" knowing that it will result in
harm, that resulting harm can hardly be termed "accidental". <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Luke]

In article <[email protected]>, andy
gee <[email protected]> wrote:

> So he says, get this: You had the red hand (our "flashing don't walk"
> sign) and the red hand means you can't cross."
>
> Can you believe that?

Yes. But, if by "I'm on the right...", you meant that you were right
beside the curb as opposed to in the right lane, then, without
exonerating the driver - he's in the wrong, no doubt - I recommend that
you position yourself right in the center of the lane - take the lane,
it's yours. (If this is where you were and the driver raced around you
regardless, then there's no hope for humanity; disregard my further
comments).

Taking the lane here compels the driver to consider you as the vehicle
that you are rather than just another (two wheeled) pedestrian that
he'll try to race round when turning right as he gets the green.

Conditions permitting, if the car behind is signalling right and the
plan is to ride straight through the intersection, waiting out a red on
the left side of the right lane, allows the motorists behind to drive
up on the inside and turn right on the red. That's simple courtesy.

I notice that the scenario that provokes the most inconsistent
responses from motorists is that of the rider, on the periphery of
numerous pedestrians on the sidewalk/crosswalk, waiting out a red light
while sitting on the bicycle with his foot on the curb. This can
confuse the motorists: are you waiting to cross with the pedestrians on
the green or pausing to rest or adjust your kit; will you ride straight
through or turn right on the green? If for whatever reason I lapse into
this situation, I make a point of signalling the motorist my intent
before rolling on.

Luke

 

[H M Leary]

This IS New York!

Walk = walk very, very fast

Flashing Red Hand = RUN!

Solid Red Hand = RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!

Any questions?

 

[Andy Gee]

Paul Hobson <[email protected]> wrote in news:dt533u$33$1@news-
int2.gatech.edu:

> In a polite and calm tone (hard to do, I know), ask him if he knows what
> a U-Lock is. If he doesn't, show him*. <eg>

I find that the most disturbing thing to do to a driver is to whip out my
PDA and run the IR port over the bar code on the registration sticker.
Gets people completely apoplectic.

--ag

 

[Andy Gee]

H M Leary <[email protected]> wrote in news:mikie357-
[email protected]:

> This IS New York!
>
> Walk = walk very, very fast
>
> Flashing Red Hand = RUN!
>
> Solid Red Hand = RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!
>
> Any questions?
>

This isn't our experience. I have to actually leave the city, or
Manhattan, anyway, before I see lights that are just not geared for peds.
Manhattan was a foot, horse and bike town long before there were cars and
will be so long after they're history. You get 12 seconds to decide
whether or not you want to cross, then 18 seconds to make it 36 feet.

--ag

 

[Andy Gee]

"amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> andy gee wrote:
>> A bike should be riding on that next block on the
>> right side. Safe procedure seems to be to switch from the bike lane
>> to the right side _before_ crossing Broadway to avoid trying to
>> squueze into a narrow space between cars and a wall.
>
> I disagree that the left side shoudn't be used on one way streets. NY
> law doesn't specifically address this issue for bicyclists in the
> vehicle code. I interpret the "as far to the right as practicable" to
> mean that I can use the left lane whenever I would be inconvenienced
> otherwise. The law also provides additional support if you are
> preparing for a left turn. If I need to go a few blocks on a one way
> street before making a left turn then I usually stay on the left side.
> I always take the lane when doing this because there are too many
> hazards otherwise, particularly when passengers open the doors of
> parked cars on the left side. The presence of the construction barrier
> means that taking the lane is necessary in your case.

City code divides streets up this way: Bike lane streets, ride in the
bike lane unless, with a long list of unlesses. Streets wider than 40
feet, either left or right. Under 40 feet, no bike lane, right side
"unless."

I agree with you that "as far to the right as practicable" frequently
means the left.
>

>
>> So I'm on the right waiting for the light. Light turns green, I
>> move. car comes up from behind me, passes me, doesn't signal a turn,
>> but then starts rolling right across my vector. I slow down a
>> little, just for safety, not to yield, he keeps moving until it's
>> clear he can't get by either me or the pedestrians in the crosswalk.
>> As I pass his nose, I see he's on the phone.
>
> Handheld cellphone use is illegal while driving in NY state. IMO, any
> driver that wants to flaunt the law has voluntarily revoked their own
> right of way and bicyclists shouldn't feel the need to accomodate
> >them.

To be fair, he was on a hands-free, but very absorbed in the call.



>
> I always take the lane at stops to prevent the right hook maneuver. In
> NY moter vehicles can't legally pass a bicyclist in their lane when it
> is unsafe to do so. There is no safe way to pass while at a red light
> so you aren't interfering with the flow of traffic if you take the
> lane. Remember that these jackasses wouldn't be able to pass you if
> you were driving a Hummer or even a motorcycle. There is no reason
> that the standard behavior should change just because you are on a
> bicycle. By not taking the lane, you leave an opening for them to
> attempt this ********.
>
>

I'm a go-along, get along guy, usually. In flowing traffic, I ride 3
feet from the farthest protrusion in the street. That's enough for a
normal vehicle to pass me and safe enough for me. I consider that i've
taken the lane if the 3-foot mark is in a travel lane. I'll slide over
if a car can make a light that I can't, or if it makes sense, or to be
polite. But that's my lane, and the onus is on the driver to pass me
safely or not. There may not be "safe" ways to pass, but it's done
effectively all the time. The problem comes when the guy passes and
then has to stop in the middle to wait for a ped. Keep in mind, we were
both moving and he wasn't signalling.

--ag

 

[Andy Gee]

"Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Bob" wrote: (clip) As for his, "but the red hand means you can't
> cross", argument, a pedestrian violating a don't walk signal can be
> ticketed but that violation doesn't confer the right to run over any
> offending pedestrians on motorists.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Nothing EVER gives ANYONE the right to cause an accident. If we take
> his view of it, you failed to observe the wait signal for pedestrians.
> If Andy was in the crosswalk moving slowly, it might be possible to
> see his point of view. But, his way was blocked, not only by Andy,
> but by a number of pedestrians. So I guess they were ALL violating
> the red hand. Or maybe he was so absorbed in his phone call that he
> got the facts wrong.
>
>
>

According to the city code, I can actually be riding in a crosswalk if I am
making a turn across traffic. But not in this case, and I was way over
from the crosswalk.

--ag

 

[Andy Gee]

Luke <[email protected]> wrote in news:180220060734235153%
[email protected]:

> I notice that the scenario that provokes the most inconsistent
> responses from motorists is that of the rider, on the periphery of
> numerous pedestrians on the sidewalk/crosswalk, waiting out a red light
> while sitting on the bicycle with his foot on the curb. This can
> confuse the motorists: are you waiting to cross with the pedestrians on
> the green or pausing to rest or adjust your kit; will you ride straight
> through or turn right on the green? If for whatever reason I lapse into
> this situation, I make a point of signalling the motorist my intent
> before rolling on.
>

The typical scenario in Manhattan for a cyclist at a red (aside from the
reds we just sail through) is that we let the peds go through and then
creep up past the crosswalk but within the virtual lane of parked cars
before the travel lanes of the street we're crossing. Then we just sort of
circle and loop around so we'll have some momentum ready when the light
changes. But in this case, the light was green when I reached the
intersection.

--ag

 

[Fritz M]

andy gee wrote:

> car comes up from behind me, passes me, doesn't signal a turn, but then
> starts rolling right across my vector.

Somebody in a little white car accelerated to pass me prior to an
attempted right hook last night. Except the road is covered in ice. The
driver curved right just enough to slam into the curb on the other side
of the intersection, bounced up into the yard and into a wood fence.
Homeowner was home and wasn't too uptight about the damage. I suspect
damage to the car will be more expensive than the fence repair.

RFM

 

[Luke]

In article <[email protected]>, Andy
Gee <[email protected]> wrote:

> The typical scenario in Manhattan for a cyclist at a red (aside from the
> reds we just sail through) is that we let the peds go through and then
> creep up past the crosswalk but within the virtual lane of parked cars
> before the travel lanes of the street we're crossing. Then we just sort of
> circle and loop around so we'll have some momentum ready when the light
> changes. But in this case, the light was green when I reached the
> intersection.
>

Common practice around Toronto also; makes it easier to jump or run a
red.

Luke

 

[Andy]

andy gee wrote:
> I've said "this takes the cake" before and I'll probably say it again,
> but for today, this takes the cake.
>
> So he says, get this: You had the red hand (our "flashing don't walk"
> sign) and the red hand means you can't cross."
>
> Can you believe that?

Here is my personal best bizarre driver justification story. I was
going north in a bike lane, approaching a side street. The driver had
been heading south, and was stopped in the middle turn lane waiting to
make a left turn across my path into the side street. He was looking
right at me, so I assumed he would not turn in front of me. Wrong. He
turned in front of me, forcing both of us to swerve and brake to avoid
a collision, and as he sped away he yelled out the window "Goddammit,
couldn't you see there was a car coming?" I guess in his mind cars
always have the right of way in all situations, and he had been
expecting me to stop so he could make his left turn.

Andy

 

[Andy Gee]

"Andy" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Goddammit,
> couldn't you see there was a car coming?"

That's precious. I've seen moves like that, and guessed that was what was
in their minds, but never had it crystallized so nicely.

How about the general rules that turning traffic must yeild to straight
through traffic, and that if you make someone apply the brakes, you've
committed a reckless manouver. We are the bastards of the road.

--ag