Bicycle riders will get more respect once they start obeying the laws that govern them.

[me]

"Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> me wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Wayne thank you kindly for your response. Out of respect and
>> concern I must say the following.
>>
>> The problem appears to be that you think (like some motorists) that
>> it is always the other guy that needs to watch out and work around
>> whatever you want to do. Obviously you have never pulled a 11,000lb
>> livestock truck over back country roads. I invite you to try out
>> here some nice Saturday in May.
>>
>> Besides being risky for the valuable animals, you would find very
>> quickly there is no way to stop and still control the vehicle when
>> rounding a curve or coming over a hill an encountering two
>> bicyclists riding abreast. Believe me, there are many deer possums
>> and squirrels that have found this to be true during their last
>> moments on earth.
>
> Dear Me,
>
> What do you do if there is a car stopped in the road? Bash it? No,
> you come to a controlled stop. That is your responsibility, and you
> are required to drive slow enough and have your vehicle in control
> to be able to do so. If it requires driving even slower, so be it.
> It is NOT the responsibility of vehicle users, including bicyclists,
> to watch out from behind.
>

OK Wayne,

I think you are intentionally being thick.

One last time, then I give up. A car stopped on the road is illegal.
If a car is stopped in the middle of the road out of the line of site
of oncoming traffic it is parked illegally. If I bash it while I am
within the posted speed limit and I cannot see it, the operator of
that vehicle is responsible and will be ticketed. However in you case
the ticket would be given to you heirs

>>
>> Additionally, I am not required by law to risk my life avoiding
>> those thumbing their noses at Darwin, while I am within the posted
>> speed limits. (see the reasonable man statutes) so for your own
>> health and safety, I respectfully suggest that you do pay
>> attention.
>
> Me,
>
> Again, YOU must control your vehicle.
>
> §20-141. Speed restrictions.
> (a) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway or in a public
> vehicular area at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent
> under the conditions then existing.

Bicycles riding two abrest are not reasonable and prudent and
therefore unexpected.

> (m) The fact that the speed of a vehicle is lower than the foregoing
> limits shall not relieve the operator of a vehicle from the duty to
> decrease speed as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any
> person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway, and
> to avoid injury to any person or property.
>
> Let me say it another way for you. All drivers must travel no faster
> than sight distance and conditions allow them to slow or stop to
> avoid colliding with other traffic moving slower or stopped in the
> road ahead. The default safe speed in a traffic lane at a given
> point is the speed of the slowest user, whether it is a bicycle,
> farm tractor, transit bus, or any legally slow(ed) or stopped
> vehicle or crossing pedestrian.
>

Nope you are wrong. There have been many fatalities of bicyclists that
have been ruled not the fault of the driver and you know it. I hope
you are never in that situation, but if you are, it will be your
fault.

>>
>> See: http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
>>
>> Denning L.J. in Morton vs. Wheeler said
>> "if a reasonable man, taking such contingencies into account and
>> giving close attention to the state of affairs would say: 'I think
>> there is quite a chance that someone going along the road may be
>> injured if this stays as it is', then it is a danger; but if the
>> possibility of injury is so remote that he would dismiss it out of
>> hand saying: 'Of course it is possible but not in the least
>> probable' then it is not a danger"".
>>
>> I would argue that this opinion applies equally to bicycles as well
>> as motorists.
>
> I would argue that you are the type of person who tries to blame the
> victim.
>
> Wayne
>

I would argue that you are unreasonable in the face of reason and
intentionally argumentative. Good luck with that attitude in real
life.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
>>This statute applies to motor vehicles, not bicycle vehicles, and
>>clearly exempts those vehicles that have limited operating speeds due to
>>their design and use.
>
>
>
> I won't be happy until roller skates, scooters, tricycles,
> skate boards, and bicycles are prohibited on any roadway
> with a speed limit greater than 35 mph.
>
> There are no more dangerous roadhogs than a mob of (supposed)
> adult bicyclists on a highway - particularly a rural one.
>
> Let them obtain a parade permit for races, rallies, etc.


Your happiness is not my concern.

Why don't I have troubles with "dangerous roadhogs" when I'm driving my
car and encounter a group of cyclists? Oh I know, you and most other
motorists are incompetent and like to blame others.

Wayne

 

[me]

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>
>> This statute applies to motor vehicles, not bicycle vehicles, and
>> clearly exempts those vehicles that have limited operating speeds
>> due to
>> their design and use.
>
>
> I won't be happy until roller skates, scooters, tricycles,
> skate boards, and bicycles are prohibited on any roadway
> with a speed limit greater than 35 mph.
>
> There are no more dangerous roadhogs than a mob of (supposed)
> adult bicyclists on a highway - particularly a rural one.
>
> Let them obtain a parade permit for races, rallies, etc.

Although I tend to agree, In general I think operators that behave as
if operating the vehicle is secondary to some other activity are by
far more dangerous than slow moving vehicles .

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 4, 8:43 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
> > Here - I'll tell it like it is - kiss my ass. As the driver of 3500 lbs of
> > steel moving at 40+ mph traffic laws are important and necessary. As the
> > rider on a 20 lb bicycle without a shred of protection some **********
> > with a big mouth like yours ought to just say something like that to my
> > face so that I can kick your ass for sure.
>
> This is symtomatic of the psychological side effects of those in this sport
> who take testosterone injections to improve their performance. Suggest you
> lay off the juice for a while, bro.

While I may have been a bit over the top you need to understand what
it's like riding a bicycle on the street. Surely there are people who
do not give motor vehicles their proper right of way when it is
demanded by law. But most cyclists respect other's rights regardless
they run lights or stop signs when no other traffic is present.

Here's some of the experiences I've seen or had:

I approached a light heading east. Two other cyclists pull into the
middle lane coming in the opposite direction since the right lane was
a right turn only lane. A truck pulled up behind them intending to
turn left and started screaming names at them and shouted "If you
don't get out of in front of me I'll KILL YOU!" The light was still
red, the truck couldn't proceed and the bicyclists could accelerate
faster than the truck. I was standing directly next to a cop parked on
the sidewalk in full view of the stupid truck driver. His window was
open. I asked, "What are you going to do about that?" He replied,
"Nothing," started his car, pulled off the sidewalk, turned right and
drove away before the light changed. Luckily as he turned the dumbass
truck driver spotted him and toned down and as the light changed the
cyclists were long gone before he could even put the truck in gear.

A couple of months ago I was riding on a street in Concord that is
almost a freeway early in the morning. There was no traffic at all on
the road. This road has two lanes in each direction. I was on the
shoulder of the road and there was a turn off into a housing area at
that point so there was a right turn lane divided from the main road
by 40 feet of cross-hatch striped divider. (This is termed an "island"
and it is illegal to drive on them.) A vehicle traveling well over the
maximum speed limit crossed from the fast lane all the way across the
other lane, the island and the right turn lane and came within inches
of me and then swerved out into the fast lane again.

I could add another dozen experiences to these stories - but the point
is that if you haven't the slightest clue about what cyclists have to
content with you ought to keep your comments to yourself of expect
more than a disproportionate response.

 

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

abby now wrote:
>
> "Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Bicyclists need not pay attention to passing motorists. It is the
> > responsibility of those wishing to pass to pay attention and to pass
> > safely.
>
> This is why motorists hate bicyclists!

It's time for proposing a law here that has been in use in
Germany for at least a number of decades:
"It is a violation of law for the operator of any vehicle
to insist upon his right of way".

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 10:43 am, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
> me wrote:
> > I do not object to bicycles on the roads, nor do I want to
> > unintentionally (or even intentionally) harm or kill anyone.
>
> > It occurs to me that some of the riders around here ride closer to
> > each other than three feet apart. Often times they are leisurely
> > riding two abreast down the road having a conversation when they are
> > approached from behind (if I am driving, going below the posted speed)
> > by a 4-6 ton truck towing a trailer. They probably do not realize that
> > in some cases a truck like this does not slow from 50 to 5 mph quickly
> > enough to not hit them. The only alternative then is to pass. If I am
> > pulling around a pair of bicyclists with a trailer and oncoming car or
> > truck (often going to fast) appears suddenly, guess who gets squeezed?
> > To me, these bicyclists are the equivalent of drivers whose priority
> > is a cell phone conversation.
>
> > Alternatively there are serious riders that stay right, move at a good
> > clip, are generally respectful and aware of the traffic and do not
> > have priorities other than riding. These people generally do not
> > become speed bumps.
>
> > I think if both parties (drivers and bicyclists) use their heads and
> > *pay attention* on the road, giving respect to the other person, most
> > times things work out. However it does not take a rocket surgeon to
> > know that riding a bicycle on the same road with 2-10 ton vehicle (and
> > some of the nut cases driving them) is *dangerous*. I suggest that if
> > you are out for a leisurely ride to chat and not pay particular
> > attention to what you are doing, there are approximately 7000 acres
> > (an area 8 miles long and 2 miles wide) in the center of the triangle
> > that has paved roads and is almost empty on the weekends, it is called
> > the RTP. IMO this is a *much* safer alternative for most of the
> > recreational bicycle riders I see on the county roads.
>
> There should never be the *need* to pass rather than slow. All vehicle
> drivers should be able to come to a complete stop in time to avoid
> hitting a stationary object, like a vehicle stopped at a traffic signal.
> A moving bicyclist creates significant margin for error.
>
> Bicyclists need not pay attention to passing motorists. It is the
> responsibility of those wishing to pass to pay attention and to pass
> safely.

And it's more than time that those who believe that they have the
right to pass anywhere and at any time because their vehicle is
capable of greater speeds than yours to be arrested and taken directly
to jail.

This will happen as the price of gas goes up and it becomes more
apparent to the citizens of this country that the superiority complex
assumed by drivers is a mental problem that can be reduced only with
penal penalty.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 11:10 am, "geoff" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So, the guy who wants to kick ass, please call the Cary police and let them
> know you will be kicking their ass. I am sure they will have a reply for
> you.

I see that you still don't seem to have a grasp on the difference
between a MOTOR vehicle and a vehicle. Moreover, you don't seem to
understand what "self propelled" means in the context of law.

That's OK though, I'm sure that a police officer will be more than
happy to explain it to you as he is writing you up when you fail to
give a cyclist sufficient room when passing.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 11:23 am, "me" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Additionally, I am not required by law to risk my life avoiding those
> thumbing their noses at Darwin, while I am within the posted speed
> limits. (see the reasonable man statutes) so for your own health and
> safety, I respectfully suggest that you do pay attention.

In case you're unaware of it, ALL OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLE ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFE OPERATION OF THEIR VEHICLES.

You see you ARE required by law to never injure another person on the
road whether or not he is breaking the law. Overtaking vehicles are
ALWAYS required to operate at a speed at which they can stop
regardless of any other circumstances.

I know that's difficult for drivers to understand that they should be
severely penalized for unsafe operation of thousands of pounds of self-
propelled vehicles but in a sane society you would be jailed the
second you took a single chance with someone else's life.

 

[Wayne Pein]

me wrote:


> OK Wayne,
>
> I think you are intentionally being thick.
>
> One last time, then I give up. A car stopped on the road is illegal.

No Me, it is not illegal.

> If a car is stopped in the middle of the road out of the line of site
> of oncoming traffic it is parked illegally.

Don't be a buffoon. If a car is stopped in the middle of the road it may
be doing so because of a legitimate reason such as a flagman, an
accident, a crossing deer, congestion, etc. Quit victim blaming. And
learn the rules.

If I bash it while I am
> within the posted speed limit and I cannot see it, the operator of
> that vehicle is responsible and will be ticketed. However in you case
> the ticket would be given to you heirs

Hehehehe. You're a hoot. Further, bicyclists don't stop in the middle of
the road. You are clearly displeased with bicycle drivers driving along
the road at less than the posted speed limit. Well, get used to it. Farm
tractors, front loaders, stopped busses and delivery vehicles, etc. are
all slow, and you are required to adjust. Sorry.


> Bicycles riding two abrest are not reasonable and prudent and
> therefore unexpected.


Yes, they are. Farm tractors are as slow as bicycles, and they are
reasonable and prudent aren't they. Further, it is reasonable and
prudent for a single bicyclist to use the full lane, ie ride in the left
tire track.

The NCDOT Driver’s Manual provides the useful guidance, “Bicyclists
usually ride on the right side of the lane, but are entitled to the use
of a full lane....When passing a bicyclist, always remember the
bicyclist is entitled to the use of the full lane.”

Again, you are trying to rationalize your own short comings as a motor
vehicle operator, and transfer the blame to others. You try to couch
your argument as being concerned for bicyclist safety, but you really
are concerned with your own convenience.


>
>
>>(m) The fact that the speed of a vehicle is lower than the foregoing
>>limits shall not relieve the operator of a vehicle from the duty to
>>decrease speed as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any
>>person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway, and
>>to avoid injury to any person or property.
>>
>>Let me say it another way for you. All drivers must travel no faster
>>than sight distance and conditions allow them to slow or stop to
>>avoid colliding with other traffic moving slower or stopped in the
>>road ahead. The default safe speed in a traffic lane at a given
>>point is the speed of the slowest user, whether it is a bicycle,
>>farm tractor, transit bus, or any legally slow(ed) or stopped
>>vehicle or crossing pedestrian.
>>
>
> Nope you are wrong. There have been many fatalities of bicyclists that
> have been ruled not the fault of the driver and you know it. I hope
> you are never in that situation, but if you are, it will be your
> fault.

Victim blaming. You don't have a clue as to bicyclist-motor vehicle
collision causality or fault statistics, so don't try to fake it.
I think you need to read (m) again.


> I would argue that you are unreasonable in the face of reason and
> intentionally argumentative. Good luck with that attitude in real
> life.

It's served me well for 44 years of bicycle riding so I think I'll stick
with it.

Wayne

 

[Derek Mark Edding]

me wrote:
> Besides being risky for the valuable animals, you would find very
> quickly there is no way to stop and still control the vehicle when
> rounding a curve or coming over a hill an encountering two bicyclists
> riding abreast. Believe me, there are many deer possums and squirrels
> that have found this to be true during their last moments on earth.
>
> Additionally, I am not required by law to risk my life avoiding those
> thumbing their noses at Darwin, while I am within the posted speed
> limits. (see the reasonable man statutes) so for your own health and
> safety, I respectfully suggest that you do pay attention.

You, sir, are in denial. "I'm driving a big heavy truck, I'm plunging
along out of control and y'all better clear the road." If you are not
able to respond to changing conditions in the road ahead, then you are
driving recklessly. The fact that you are hauling a large, heavy
trailer adds to your level of responsibility - it does not pass it on to
everyone else.

There could be any number of obstructions in the road around a "blind"
curve - not just a bicyclist. A cop writing a ticket. A fallen tree.
A farmer's tractor. A stalled driver. Someone walking across to their
mailbox. I've seen all of these in the past couple of months. If you
plow into something or someone out of your own carelessness, you take
the chance of having a manslaughter charge and jail time as a result.

-dreq

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 12:48 pm, Derek Mark Edding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There could be any number of obstructions in the road around a "blind"
> curve - not just a bicyclist. A cop writing a ticket. A fallen tree.
> A farmer's tractor. A stalled driver. Someone walking across to their
> mailbox. I've seen all of these in the past couple of months. If you
> plow into something or someone out of your own carelessness, you take
> the chance of having a manslaughter charge and jail time as a result.

Thanks to his postings, if we could identify him, it could now be
second degree murder.

 

[me]

"Derek Mark Edding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> me wrote:
>> Besides being risky for the valuable animals, you would find very
>> quickly there is no way to stop and still control the vehicle when
>> rounding a curve or coming over a hill an encountering two
>> bicyclists riding abreast. Believe me, there are many deer possums
>> and squirrels that have found this to be true during their last
>> moments on earth.
>>
>> Additionally, I am not required by law to risk my life avoiding
>> those thumbing their noses at Darwin, while I am within the posted
>> speed limits. (see the reasonable man statutes) so for your own
>> health and safety, I respectfully suggest that you do pay
>> attention.
>
> You, sir, are in denial. "I'm driving a big heavy truck, I'm
> plunging along out of control and y'all better clear the road." If
> you are not able to respond to changing conditions in the road
> ahead, then you are driving recklessly. The fact that you are
> hauling a large, heavy trailer adds to your level of
> responsibility - it does not pass it on to everyone else.
>
> There could be any number of obstructions in the road around a
> "blind" curve - not just a bicyclist. A cop writing a ticket. A
> fallen tree. A farmer's tractor. A stalled driver. Someone walking
> across to their mailbox. I've seen all of these in the past couple
> of months. If you plow into something or someone out of your own
> carelessness, you take the chance of having a manslaughter charge
> and jail time as a result.
>


Uh-huh like this one:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2305031

 

[me]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 5, 12:48 pm, Derek Mark Edding <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> There could be any number of obstructions in the road around a
>> "blind"
>> curve - not just a bicyclist. A cop writing a ticket. A fallen
>> tree.
>> A farmer's tractor. A stalled driver. Someone walking across to
>> their
>> mailbox. I've seen all of these in the past couple of months. If
>> you
>> plow into something or someone out of your own carelessness, you
>> take
>> the chance of having a manslaughter charge and jail time as a
>> result.
>
> Thanks to his postings, if we could identify him, it could now be
> second degree murder.
>

Unfortunately the statistics do not bear your assertion out:



Fault
Bicyclist at Fault
Both at Fault
Fault cannot be determined
Motorist at Fault
Neither at Fault
Unknown
Totals
2005
475
66
0
269
2
164
976
Totals
475
66
0
269
2
164
976



http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat/re...5=Yes&type=5&V_FIELD=FAULT&LVL=BIKE_A&PERSON=

 

[me]

Daniel Patrick Moynahan used to say "everyone is entitled to their own
opinions, but not their own facts". In that spirit and after all of
this noise and combative rhetoric in this thread, I looked up the
statistics on bicycle vs. motor vehicle accidents from the NCDoT at
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat/bike_main.htm

Lo and behold it was exactly as I thought, for the period 1997 to 2005
(this is all of the stats I could find, and would welcome the addition
of 2006 & 2007 data) It was more than twice as likely that the
bicyclist was deemed at fault as the motorist, in fact adding up all
the causes other than bicyclist at fault did not add up to half of the
total accidents:

Bicyclist at fault - 4583
Both at Fault - 1229
Fault Cannot be Determined - 292
Motorist at Fault - 2000
Neither at Fault - 38
Unknown - 744
Total - 8886

So sorry bicyclists, *you* are the cause of most of the motor
vehicle/bicycle problems in this state (and I suspect most, if not all
others). I think it would be prudent and reasonable to take stock of
your behaviours and maybe buy some extra insurance based on these
facts.

 

[Wayne Pein]

me wrote:

> Daniel Patrick Moynahan used to say "everyone is entitled to their own
> opinions, but not their own facts". In that spirit and after all of
> this noise and combative rhetoric in this thread, I looked up the
> statistics on bicycle vs. motor vehicle accidents from the NCDoT at
> http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat/bike_main.htm
>
> Lo and behold it was exactly as I thought, for the period 1997 to 2005
> (this is all of the stats I could find, and would welcome the addition
> of 2006 & 2007 data) It was more than twice as likely that the
> bicyclist was deemed at fault as the motorist, in fact adding up all
> the causes other than bicyclist at fault did not add up to half of the
> total accidents:
>
> Bicyclist at fault - 4583
> Both at Fault - 1229
> Fault Cannot be Determined - 292
> Motorist at Fault - 2000
> Neither at Fault - 38
> Unknown - 744
> Total - 8886
>
> So sorry bicyclists, *you* are the cause of most of the motor
> vehicle/bicycle problems in this state (and I suspect most, if not all
> others). I think it would be prudent and reasonable to take stock of
> your behaviours and maybe buy some extra insurance based on these
> facts.
>
>

This has nothing to do with the issue of bicyclists legally riding along
a road and the fact that motorists wishing to pass must do so cautiously.

Wayne

 

[geoff]

> That's OK though, I'm sure that a police officer will be more than
> happy to explain

I am talking about cyclists impeding traffic, try to keep up, and you are
right, the police will explain it. That is why I called the watch commander
today and asked again. The law says:

'every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions
of [Chapter 20 (Motor Vehicles)'

.. . . got it? Did you see the word 'motor'?

Morons.

-g

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> abby now wrote:
>>
>> "Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Bicyclists need not pay attention to passing motorists. It is the
>> > responsibility of those wishing to pass to pay attention and to pass
>> > safely.
>>
>> This is why motorists hate bicyclists!
>
> It's time for proposing a law here that has been in use in
> Germany for at least a number of decades:
> "It is a violation of law for the operator of any vehicle
> to insist upon his right of way".

So what? This is true in most jurisdictions (maybe all) in the U.S. as
well - and means no more than you aren't allowed to use your 'right of way'
to deliberately let an accident happen. If you have the reasonable ability
to prevent an accident (given that a situation may present you with a series
of choices and you may be choosing the best of a bad bunch), you must. That
includes not deliberately cutting off a jerk that overtakes on the right in
a merge lane, as an example. You may have the right of way, but if you speed
up to claim it and hit the other motorist, the jerk will probably win.

The reality is that an anti-cyclist motorist does not want to drive in
Germany or many other European countries, where the onus is on the motorist
to avoid a cyclist absolutely in many situations, excuses be damned.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

"me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
....> One last time, then I give up. A car stopped on the road is illegal.
> If a car is stopped in the middle of the road out of the line of site of
> oncoming traffic it is parked illegally. If I bash it while I am within
> the posted speed limit and I cannot see it, the operator of that vehicle
> is responsible and will be ticketed. However in you case the ticket would
> be given to you heirs
>
>>>
>>> Additionally, I am not required by law to risk my life avoiding those
>>> thumbing their noses at Darwin, while I am within the posted speed
>>> limits. (see the reasonable man statutes) so for your own health and
>>> safety, I respectfully suggest that you do pay attention.
>>
>> Me,
>>

Yeah, you are. One of the near absolutes in traffic ticketing is that if
someone hits another legal vehicle from the rear, either the one that hits
from the rear gets a ticket or neither gets a ticket (extenuating
circumstances). The general assumption is that you drive within your vision
and your brakes - failing to do so is a violation. Period.

You come around a curve and fail to stop for a motorist in an accident
stopped on the roadway, a bicyclist legally using the roadway or a drunk
lying in the road, you better start making up excuses and hope you end up in
front of a relative as judge in court.

And as someone that HAS driven livestock trucks and driven a lot in
livestock areas, you better be able to stop before hitting a grown piece of
roaming livestock, especially a steer (or worse, a farmer checking the crops
from the roadway at 5 mph). I've had to stop for at least one or the other
in every state west of the Mississippi and a few states East (spent half an
hour outside of Hutchinson, KS once trying to figure out what a stubborn
steer was going to do next). And in the East there were all those pesky
deer. People that overdrive their vision, headlights and/or brakes are
idiots - in any state of the U.S. of A.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Wayne Pein]

geoff wrote:

>>That's OK though, I'm sure that a police officer will be more than
>>happy to explain
>
>
> I am talking about cyclists impeding traffic, try to keep up, and you are
> right, the police will explain it. That is why I called the watch commander
> today and asked again. The law says:
>
> 'every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions
> of [Chapter 20 (Motor Vehicles)'
>
> . . . got it? Did you see the word 'motor'?
>

Ignoramus,

Bicycles are not motor vehicles. Bicycles are not subject to all
provisions of Chapter 20.

NC. §20-4.01 (49).
....for the purposes of this Chapter [20] bicycles shall be deemed
vehicles and every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to
the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle
*except those which by their nature can have no application.*

“...except those which by their nature can have no application.” means
that certain obligations of motorists are not applicable to bicyclists.
Some of these exceptions are noted below.


§20-7. Issuance and renewal of drivers licenses.
(a) License Required. - To drive a motor vehicle on a highway, a person
must be licensed by the Division under this Article or Article 2C of
this Chapter to drive the vehicle and must carry the license while
driving the vehicle.

The requirement for a driver’s license applies only to those who want to
drive a motor vehicle. Motor vehicle operators must also have insurance,
and motor vehicles must be registered, inspected, and be assessed for
property taxes.


§20-138.1. Impaired driving.
(e) Exception. - Notwithstanding the definition of "vehicle" pursuant to
G.S. 20-4.01(49), for purposes of this section the word "vehicle" does
not include a horse, bicycle, or lawnmower. (1983, c. 435, s. 24; 1989,
c. 711, s. 2; 1993, c. 285, s. 1.)


Bicycle operators are exempt from statutes governing impaired driving.


§20-141. Speed restrictions.
(h) No person shall operate a motor vehicle on the highway at such a
slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic
except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in
compliance with law; provided, this provision shall not apply to farm
tractors and other motor vehicles operating at reasonable speeds for the
type and nature of such vehicles.

This statute applies to motor vehicles, not bicycle vehicles, and
clearly exempts those vehicles that have limited operating speeds due to
their design and use.


Ch 20 also directs motorists to turn their headlights on when their
windshield wipers are on, but this does not apply to bicycles which do
not have windshield wipers. I could go on, but you are not worth the
effort. Oh, but please pass this information on the the Cary Police.

Have a bad day.

Wayne

 

[geoff]

Ok good, you have a worthy life goal, impede traffic and if a policeman
should ccome, you can explain the law to him, and like the other guy, kick
his ass.

Also, rather than write here, call the watch commander at the Cary police,
call him an ignoramus, and tell him if a bicycle is impeding traffic, he can
do nothing.

Nice job.

-g