Bicyclist found guilty of blocking traffic

[Sc Hiker Biker]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>He's beaten his two other citations for impeding traffic.

I've never been cited for such an offense and this guy has been cited several times. I think there
is more to this than any of us know. But what I do though is if I am backing up traffic big time is
to simply pull over to ride down a side road for a minute or two and return. Maybe he is a Critical
Mass sympathizer. We just don't know.

 

[Sc Hiker Biker]

Dennis P. Harris wrote:
>
> oh, they also asked:
>
> * Do you think bicyclists should ride on busy streets during rush hour?
>
> Email [email protected]
>

Yes, they should have the right to use busy streets (not Interstates and such)... but if there are
alteratives, they should be used instead. As a courtesy, if traffic is backed up real bad, I go down
a side street for a minute and return back to the road.

 

[Sc Hiker Biker]

Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> Run on courtesy or not at all.

I agree. Sometimes, it is just best to ride down a side street for a minute to allow backed up
traffic to pass and then return to your busy highway. You don't break speed that much and add just a
tad more distance to your ride. I ride about 1 or 2 foot from the white line of death, not hugging
the line asking to be passed closely but not taking the whole lane either.

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

> For your info, Luigi, Speedway Blvd is 4-lane, so two full lanes in each direction. Arizona law
> allows two cyclists abreast max.

Man I LOVE 4-lane streets! Smooth pavement. Easy grades. High speed. And all the space in the world
for cars and trucks to be able to pass safely.

Bouncing around on the streets of London, I miss the freshly-laid asphalt of NoVA. Whatever else
they do, VDOT certainly is good about resurfacing roadways...

-Luigi

 

[One Of The Six]

"SC Hiker Biker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> >
> > oh, they also asked:
> >
> > * Do you think bicyclists should ride on busy streets during rush hour?
> >
> > Email [email protected]
> >
>
> Yes, they should have the right to use busy streets (not Interstates and such)... but if there are
> alteratives, they should be used instead. As a courtesy, if traffic is backed up real bad, I go
> down a side street for a minute and return back to the road.
>
>

As a courtesy (not to mention obedience to law) motor vehicle operators could wait until it's safe
to pass and then pass with due care. While doing so they could not let their panties get in a wad by
the less than 5 seconds the whole procedure (moving that big heavy foot off the gas pedal, then
moving it way over to the brake pedal, then all the way back over again) takes. I rode over 8000
miles this last year and have not ever caused more than 20 seconds delay to any motorist. Many of
them have acted like they were seriously inconvenienced and risked my life for it. (certainly not
the majority, but way too many)

 

[Comutrbob]

So did this guy think he was doing cyclists a favor of some kind?

I hate it when cyclists behave badly and are inconsiderate to motorists. It's just a silly war to
wage and all that's ever going to result is heightened hostility towards us.

Interesting how that article talks about all the future cases that will be thrown out if the
Superior Court judge rules in the cyclists favor. So what happens if he doesn't? That'll be
a big help.

Bob C.

 

[Bernie]

SC Hiker Biker wrote:

> Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> >
> > oh, they also asked:
> >
> > * Do you think bicyclists should ride on busy streets during rush hour?
> >
> > Email [email protected]
> >
>
> Yes, they should have the right to use busy streets (not Interstates and such)... but if there are
> alteratives, they should be used instead. As a courtesy, if traffic is backed up real bad, I go
> down a side street for a minute and return back to the road.

"As a courtesy?" Cyclists can and do ride on the street. You don't have to take an alternate route
just to be courteous. You have the right to ride in public. Just do it. Okay, I fully believe the
above statement. However, as a traffic avoider of the first water, I take sidestreets a lot and
enjoy the fact that they are just as fast (for me) as the congested street one block away, except
with about 1/50th the cars. I'm not afraid of traffic, but the benefits of no traffic, no stress,
same trip home... why would I ride with the cagers on the "big" streets? Best regards, Bernie

 

[Bernie]

one of the six billion wrote:

> "SC Hiker Biker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> > >
> > > oh, they also asked:
> > >
> > > * Do you think bicyclists should ride on busy streets during rush hour?
> > >
> > > Email [email protected]
> > >
> >
> > Yes, they should have the right to use busy streets (not Interstates and such)... but if there
> > are alteratives, they should be used instead. As a courtesy, if traffic is backed up real bad, I
> > go down a side street for a minute and return back to the road.
> >
> >
>
> As a courtesy (not to mention obedience to law) motor vehicle operators could wait until it's safe
> to pass and then pass with due care. While doing so they could not let their panties get in a wad
> by the less than 5 seconds the whole procedure (moving that big heavy foot off the gas pedal, then
> moving it way over to the brake pedal, then all the way back over again) takes. I rode over 8000
> miles this last year and have not ever caused more than 20 seconds delay to any motorist. Many of
> them have acted like they were seriously inconvenienced and risked my life for it. (certainly not
> the majority, but way too many)

I hear you "One". That's been my experience also. I do at least 100 miles/week and the number of
people who risk MY life every week is absurd. They blow by while I am downhilling at the legal speed
limit with cars right in front of us (where could they be going?) or honk at me because conditions
are busy and a bit dicy so I have decided to hold position in the middle of my lane - they want to
brush by and gain about 50 feet ?? Yours truly, A Happy Commuter (who sometimes wants to carry a
little armament) Bernie

 

[Richard Kaiser]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:03:45 -0700, one of the six billion wrote:

> This was posted on rec.bicycles.misc.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martha J. Retallick" <[email protected]> Newsgroups:
> rec.bicycles.rides Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:28 AM Subject: Bicyclist found guilty of
> blocking traffic
>
>
> This is from today's (23 January 2003) Arizona Daily Star newspaper in Tucson, Arizona:
>
> http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/30123BICYCLIST2fsrl-jmd.html
>
> NOTE: The link will change tomorrow. Best way to go back to the story would be to go to:
>
> http://www.azstarnet.com/
>
> and navigate to the Thursday Star. Use the "Thursday" link that's halfway down the page on the
> left side.
>
> With regards from Tucson, Martha Retallick

Here is what I posted on this tread on r.b.rides. Since I wrote this I realized that I did not
mention that Leo could have been cycling two or more abreast or not riding in a bike lane. Since the
article did not mention these charges I assume the ticket did not either. If this assumption is
correct then my view still stands.

My previous posting:

I noticed there was an email address to send in some feedback. I took advantage of this, I pasted my
reply below. Anyone in the area please feel free to send in your own reply. Feel free to paraphrase
what I wrote, but do not copy is that may be poorly received.

The cyclists, Leo Mellon, has good grounds for appeal based on my reading of the Arizona
traffic code.

Richard Kaiser

* What do you think of Tucson's bicycle route and path system?

No path or trail system can be as safe as the road nor can it go everywhere a cyclist needs to go.
Bike lanes cannot improve safety as bike lanes do not protect cycles from conflicts in intersections
where almost all car-bike accidents occur. Poorly implemented bike lanes can add conflicts and
reduce visibility resulting in more accidents.

* Do you think bicyclists should ride on busy streets during rush hour?

Increased cycling is one way of reducing congestion. If the outside lane is wide enough to share
then there is no problem. If the road is not wide enough to share that is not the fault of the
cyclist. In actual practice a cyclists only delays a motorist a few seconds and then the motorists
can quickly regain their position in traffic. Since a cyclists has equal rights to the road are
motorists in heavy traffic cited for obstructing bicycles who are capable of going faster?

* From my reading of the Arizona traffic code on Leo Mellon's obstructing traffic case:

From section 28-812 of the AZ traffic code: "A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder
adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to
the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except special rules in
this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their
nature can have no application."

So motorists and cyclists have the same right to use public roads and cyclist do not have to get out
of the way. This section should have been enough of a defense as cyclists by their very nature
cannot travel as fast as a motorist and so are exempt from being required to do so.

Section 28-704 A on blocking traffic by driving slow explicitly states it applies to motor vehicle
so it cannot be applied to a person riding a bicycle. Paragraph C requires using a pullout or where
sufficient room exists only when traveling on a two lane highway where passing is unsafe. Since this
was a four lane road this section does not apply.

The only special instructions for a person riding a bicycle that may apply is section 28-815 A
which states:

"A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and
place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:" [irrelevant sections not
shown] "4 If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a
vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane." [irrelevant sections not shown]

Practicable means the cyclist does not have to sacrifice his or her safety and utility for the
convenience of motorists.

If Leo was riding one to three feet from the right side of the road that was wide enough to share
then the he was legal. If the road was not wide enough to share then paragraph A4 exempts cyclists
from riding to the right and allows him or her to take the lane.

Richard Kaiser Littleton, Colorado

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> The thing about busybodies and handwringers is it always comes out. They may have been transformed
> from frogs into princes, but since they were never princes before, the frog keeps escaping.
>
> Stop signs and stoplights are for cars.

I was tempted to respond to the troll, but I remembered my resolution.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Sc Hiker Biker]

one of the six billion wrote:

>
>
> As a courtesy (not to mention obedience to law) motor vehicle operators could wait until it's safe
> to pass and then pass with due care.

Yes they could. Some cars do that, some don't. However, this case is not about illegal car passing
nor does it excuse bike riders from acting bad on the road also. Let's keep the topic at hand in
focus. We are talking about a bicyclist convicted of slowing down traffic and ways to help avoid
backing up traffic. We can't control what some cars do. We can control what we do though.

<tirade deleted>

> I rode over 8000 miles this last year and have not ever caused more than 20 seconds delay to any
> motorist.

Well our experiences are different then.

 

[Sc Hiker Biker]

Bernie wrote:

> "As a courtesy?" Cyclists can and do ride on the street. You don't have to take an alternate route
> just to be courteous. You have the right to ride in public. Just do it.

Yes you do have the right, but when your right is interferring so much with others, like causing a
5+ car backup, sometimes a little courtesy is in order. Yes, we can argue that we have the right to
be on the road doing this. For us to earn repsect, we have to humble enough to give some also. If
enough people did this, then perhaps some motorist would return the favor.

But I agree, and I try to avoid busy roads if an alterate is available.

 

[Sc Hiker Biker]

Bernie,

You are getting off topic. We are not talking about cars that pass us illegally or close or harass
us, we all know that is a major problem. And it has nothing to do with the conviction of this
bicyclist.

Regardless, it does not excuse us bicyclist to do stupid things either.

 

[Bernie]

SC Hiker Biker wrote:

> Bernie wrote:
>
> > "As a courtesy?" Cyclists can and do ride on the street. You don't have to take an alternate
> > route just to be courteous. You have the right to ride in public. Just do it.
>
> Yes you do have the right, but when your right is interferring so much with others, like causing a
> 5+ car backup, sometimes a little courtesy is in order. Yes, we can argue that we have the right
> to be on the road doing this. For us to earn repsect, we have to humble enough to give some also.
> If enough people did this, then perhaps some motorist would return the favor.
>
> But I agree, and I try to avoid busy roads if an alterate is available.

Try to think of how those discourteous drivers who brush past you in such a dangerous fashion would
behave if you were driving a back hoe. Both are slow moving vehicles going from A to B, legally
using the road. Joe Driver may fume a bit to be stuck behind a slow moving vehicle, but he will be a
lot more careful about passing.

Of course people are people and the whole of society uses the road, the good the bad, the ugly. It's
no different if we are talking motorists or cyclists, some are 'good' some are 'bad'. The 'bad' ones
who drive a lethal weapon are a concern though. Bernie

 

[Jon Isaacs]

>Here is what I posted on this tread on r.b.rides. Since I wrote this I realized that I did not
>mention that Leo could have been cycling
two or more abreast or not
>riding in a bike lane.

>Since the article did not mention these charges I assume the ticket did not either. If this
>assumption is correct then my view still stands.

Personally I think this is a fairly big assumption. It does go against my observations of
group rides.

But it might be a valid assumption, don't know.

Jon Isaacs

 

[Scott]

I think this guy should win his case, but, who the hell would want to ride on Speedway in commute
traffic?! Good God, the route is a nightmare! And for a club ride? There are other alternatives
unless it was for a short distance to get to some particular location. On the many occasions I've
driven on Speedway, I've often thought it was one of the worst cycling roads I'd seen.

Scott

Richard Kaiser <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:03:45 -0700, one of the six billion wrote:
>
> > This was posted on rec.bicycles.misc.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martha J. Retallick" <[email protected]> Newsgroups:
> > rec.bicycles.rides Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:28 AM Subject: Bicyclist found guilty of
> > blocking traffic
> >
> >
> > This is from today's (23 January 2003) Arizona Daily Star newspaper in Tucson, Arizona:
> >
> > http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/30123BICYCLIST2fsrl-jmd.html
> >
> > NOTE: The link will change tomorrow. Best way to go back to the story would be to go to:
> >
> > http://www.azstarnet.com/
> >
> > and navigate to the Thursday Star. Use the "Thursday" link that's halfway down the page on the
> > left side.
> >
> > With regards from Tucson, Martha Retallick
>
> Here is what I posted on this tread on r.b.rides. Since I wrote this I realized that I did not
> mention that Leo could have been cycling two or more abreast or not riding in a bike lane. Since
> the article did not mention these charges I assume the ticket did not either. If this assumption
> is correct then my view still stands.
>
> My previous posting:
>
> I noticed there was an email address to send in some feedback. I took advantage of this, I pasted
> my reply below. Anyone in the area please feel free to send in your own reply. Feel free to
> paraphrase what I wrote, but do not copy is that may be poorly received.
>
> The cyclists, Leo Mellon, has good grounds for appeal based on my reading of the Arizona
> traffic code.
>
> Richard Kaiser
>
>
>
> * What do you think of Tucson's bicycle route and path system?
>
> No path or trail system can be as safe as the road nor can it go everywhere a cyclist needs to go.
> Bike lanes cannot improve safety as bike lanes do not protect cycles from conflicts in
> intersections where almost all car-bike accidents occur. Poorly implemented bike lanes can add
> conflicts and reduce visibility resulting in more accidents.
>
> * Do you think bicyclists should ride on busy streets during rush hour?
>
> Increased cycling is one way of reducing congestion. If the outside lane is wide enough to share
> then there is no problem. If the road is not wide enough to share that is not the fault of the
> cyclist. In actual practice a cyclists only delays a motorist a few seconds and then the motorists
> can quickly regain their position in traffic. Since a cyclists has equal rights to the road are
> motorists in heavy traffic cited for obstructing bicycles who are capable of going faster?
>
> * From my reading of the Arizona traffic code on Leo Mellon's obstructing traffic case:
>
> From section 28-812 of the AZ traffic code: "A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a
> shoulder adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties
> applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except
> special rules in this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this
> title that by their nature can have no application."
>
> So motorists and cyclists have the same right to use public roads and cyclist do not have to get
> out of the way. This section should have been enough of a defense as cyclists by their very nature
> cannot travel as fast as a motorist and so are exempt from being required to do so.
>
> Section 28-704 A on blocking traffic by driving slow explicitly states it applies to motor vehicle
> so it cannot be applied to a person riding a bicycle. Paragraph C requires using a pullout or
> where sufficient room exists only when traveling on a two lane highway where passing is unsafe.
> Since this was a four lane road this section does not apply.
>
> The only special instructions for a person riding a bicycle that may apply is section 28-815 A
> which states:
>
> "A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and
> place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
> curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:" [irrelevant sections
> not shown] "4 If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle
> and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane." [irrelevant sections not shown]
>
> Practicable means the cyclist does not have to sacrifice his or her safety and utility for the
> convenience of motorists.
>
> If Leo was riding one to three feet from the right side of the road that was wide enough to share
> then the he was legal. If the road was not wide enough to share then paragraph A4 exempts cyclists
> from riding to the right and allows him or her to take the lane.
>
>
> Richard Kaiser Littleton, Colorado

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 22:24:12 GMT, SC Hiker Biker <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dennis P. Harris wrote:
>>
>> oh, they also asked:
>>
>> * Do you think bicyclists should ride on busy streets during rush hour?
>>
>> Email [email protected]
>>
>
>Yes, they should have the right to use busy streets (not Interstates and such)... but if there are
>alteratives, they should be used instead. As a courtesy, if traffic is backed up real bad, I go
>down a side street for a minute and return back to the road.
>
As somebody posted, Speedway is at least four lanes (with occasional turn lanes), so it's possible
for drivers (and cops) who want to pass to do so. As I recall, the development in Tucson is such
that the "alternative" is go wander through walled mazes called subdivisions, until you get a mile
or so off Speedway. There you will find another four lane road that goes more than a quarter mile
without a right angle turn. IIRC, it's about five miles perpendicular to Speedway that you find a
through street going the same length.

So in those circumstances, does the bicyclist have a right to use the road for public
transportation or not?

Like Bob Hunt, who hates to hear of crackpot cops, I'd like to know why only a quarter of the
cyclists got tickets. I have a hunch they were the ones who talked back, asking questions like,
"Don't we have a legal right under Arizona law to use public roads?" Maybe we don't have all the
information, but people who've actually been in Tucson can make a pretty good guess the cops are
trying to stop legal, if unpopular, bike riding.

Pat

 

[Sc Hiker Biker]

Scott wrote:
> I think this guy should win his case, but, who the hell would want to ride on Speedway in commute
> traffic?!

Thinking about it, I agree. If this person were coming from work or going to the store, that's one
thing but this was a group ride. But why would a group ride of 16 riders choose such a route during
rush hour? It's insane! It's not wise judgment at all. They weren't commuting from work either, it
was a training/pleasure ride. Odd to so such on a busy road. Cars would have to not pass one rider,
but sixteen.

The more I read the responses, the more I think this was a Critical Mass thing or sympathizers
toward it. It was horrible judgment.

 

[Brian Huntley]

SC Hiker Biker wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> I think this guy should win his case, but, who the hell would want to ride on Speedway in commute
>> traffic?!
>
>
> Thinking about it, I agree. If this person were coming from work or going to the store, that's one
> thing but this was a group ride. But why would a group ride of 16 riders choose such a route
> during rush hour? It's insane! It's not wise judgment at all. They weren't commuting from work
> either, it was a training/pleasure ride. Odd to so such on a busy road. Cars would have to not
> pass one rider, but sixteen.
>
> The more I read the responses, the more I think this was a Critical Mass thing or sympathizers
> toward it. It was horrible judgment.
>

If it was a bus with 16 people aboard, and had a minor mechanical problem that prevented it from
driving fsater than 20 mph, would the driver have been ticketed?

I didn't hear that it was a Critical Mass. Perhaps it was just a Free Assembly of Bicyclists (FAB.)

 

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article <[email protected]>, SC Hiker Biker <[email protected]> wrote:
>Scott wrote: I agree. If this person were coming from work or going to the store, that's one thing
>but this was a group ride. But why would a group ride of 16 riders choose such a route during rush
>hour? It's insane! It's not wise judgment at all. They weren't commuting from work either, it was a
>training/pleasure ride.

Maybe this was the only route from their meeting place to the beginning of their training route?
Maybe they just felt like it? What difference does it make? Even assuming this was unwise, why was
it illegal?

> Odd to so such on a busy road. Cars would have to not pass one rider, but sixteen.

Did they stop all the car drivers and ask them whether they were going somewhere important or just
driving somewhere for recreation?--b.