On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:56:04 -0600, Hunrobe wrote:
>>Doug Kennedy
[email protected]
>
> wrote in part:
>
>>His lawyer's argument was that there was both a median lane and a curb lane, and that the median
>>lane was clear for passing. Perhaps a four lane road with two lanes in each direction? If that was
>>the case, I think it would be fine for a group of 16 to take the curb lane and ride together,
>>rather than string out 16 long. As a car driver I'd rather cleanly pass the group in the median
>>lane, rather than squeeze by a long line of cyclists.
>
> If I understand what you're saying correctly, I must respectfully disagree. If the law says "no
> more than two abreast" and your hypothetical group in the median lane is riding four abreast then
> it is not okay no matter what any one person's opinion is. That's what a law means.
I should have said "LEGALLY ride together", as in two-abreast, 8 in a line. That's what I had in
mind. I forget this was USENET so I have to add "... and not violating any other laws"
The law is
there for a reason, more than two across doesn't leave much room for steering around potholes.
If there was a curb lane with enough space to allow cars to pass safely without leaving the lane,
then I would ride single file if there was a lot of traffic passing. Unfortunatly, where I live none
of the four lane streets in town are wide enough to consider this, even on recently widened roads
If the group in question was riding as a "clump" (I've seen this on club rides of people who should
know better, 4+ abreast) then they could have been ticketed with violating the two-abreast law, if
they have that in their state. Maybe that explains why only certain members of the group were
ticketed? Perhaps they were the ones on the outside of the lane and/or impinging on the other lane?
I've seen this firsthand at the start of rides, people chit-chat and double, then triple, then
quadruple up, even to the point of going into the other lane in the face of oncoming traffic. It's
an accident waiting to happen and these folks get griped at. I hang waaay back by myself and wait
for the pace to quicken and thin the herd.
> Contrary to what R. Hardin thinks, laws aren't enacted solely to make people rigidly conform
> merely for the sake of conformity. They substitute our collective judgement for the judgement of
> the individual. For example, if a stretch of roadway carries an inordinate amount of traffic and
> there is a law on the books against impeding traffic then it's perfectly reasonable to
> emphatically enforce that law on that road. Some road users may disobey that law because they
> value *their* judgement more than the collective judgement of those that monitor roadway
> conditions and those that pass laws based on that collective judgement. When they do that they
> aren't being "rugged individualists". They are saying in effect, "I'm more important and smarter
> than anyone else." and in my experience those that think they are smarter than everyone else
> seldom are.
Just to be devil's advocate- what if 'collective judgement' decreed that road cycling was 'too
dangerous' (or too inconvenient for cars) to continue on any public street? When does collective
judgement become tyranny of the majority? I hope this doesn't happen but of course I've had drivers
express to me exactly that opinion.
Doug Kennedy
