Bike aerodynamics / weight

[Matt O'Toole]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:59:54 -0500, Wayne Pein wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>> Okay, Wayne. Let's assume your incredibly hopeful interpretation of
>> this law is correct. That means that any time you are not in a marked
>> lane--that is, just about any time you are riding on a residential
>> street and several other instances besides--you are required to be as
>> near to the curb as practicable, even if no other traffic is present
>> (unless you can maintain the posted speed limit). How is this law any
>> less 'discriminatory' than the Colorado law which requires moving right
>> only in the presence of faster traffic?
>>
>>
> Robert,
>
> The "as far right as practicable" rule is irrelevant if there is no
> other traffic because its intent is to provide for orderly overtaking.
> Your incredibly pessimistic interpretation of the NC law is not useful.
>
> Further, your characterization of my interpretation of the NC statute as
> incredibly hopeful is wrong. I justify my interpretation logically,
> while a more pessimistic interpretation has no justification.
>
> The origin of the "as far right rule" is from yesteryear when stripeless
> roads were the norm. Various states have twisted it in their own ways to
> discriminate against bicyclists and force them to share the marked lane,
> which was marked in the first place to channelize and contain one
> vehicle. That's wrong. I'm OK with letting motorists use my lane to
> pass, but it's under my terms. Slow traffic should not be marginalized.

The solid white line on the right side of the road is a *fog line*, its
purpose being to make the edge of the road more visible in poor lighting
so drivers don't run off the road. It has nothing to do with
"channelizing" traffic or marking lanes, though many people mistakenly
assume this.

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:53:57 -0600, A Muzi wrote:

> Because local conditions vary, and vary by season, time of day and
> weather too! It's hard to be categorical here which is why statutes use
> terms such as "as far as practical".

That's "practicable." There's a difference!

> Some shoulders are more encrusted with 'derbis' and glass shards than
> others.

Especially after VA Tech football games.

Matt O.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> For those wondering about the unusual white herrings in an otherwise
> straightforward matter, here are some pictures.
>
> The street corner near Fogel labs around noon today, not terribly
> suitable for 700c tires at 20 mph:
>
> http://i12.tinypic.com/3yyse3k.jpg
>
> The winter route two blocks from Fogel Labs, also not terribly
> suitable:
>
> http://i3.tinypic.com/2uf7vjo.jpg
>
> The far side of the City Park, wish I could get there without a mile
> of snowpack:
>
> http://i13.tinypic.com/2jbmt61.jpg
>
> Rural highway 96, would have been nice without a mile of snowpack and
> sub-freezing temperatures:
>
> http://i12.tinypic.com/3z8by9v.jpg
>
> It's just a few inches of snow, packed down.

What is that dark matter beneath the snow? Holy
God, is that PAVEMENT?? I've heard tell of such
things.

> North of Pueblo toward Colorado Springs, Denver, and Boulder, much
> more snow and Robert's horrible conditions.
>
> East of Pueblo, tens of thousands of dead cattle that will never be
> turned into hamburgers.
>
> The last time such snowpack was seen here was over 20 years ago. The
> state law, the police, and the judges all agree that bicyclists shall
> ride on the right on the shoulder. Obviously, they'll accept unusual
> circumstances, but not nonsense about how shoulders are inherently
> dangerous or there was a bit of glass or similar special pleading.

The law says that one's objection to riding in an available
shoulder, and choosing otherwise to obstruct faster traffic (in
such a fashion that might attract the attention of nearby
law officer), would have to be specific and reasonable.
Ultimately, of course, whether one's reasons to do so are
reasonable enough may depend on the subjective
judgment of potentially clueless individuals--cops, judges, etc.
But there's nothing really special about ambiguities
in the written law. Because people tend to be more
clueless about the needs of cyclists than they are
about other things, a laundry list of exceptions has been
attached to the nation's various ride-to-the-right rules.

> In fact, I've proved it. Cost me $15, plus a mysterious $2 surcharge
> tacked on to all traffic tickets.



> That the police do not routinely stop bicyclists breaking the law and
> that some bicyclists can get off by going to court no more invalidates
> the obvious intent of the law than the fact that many drivers break
> the speed limit without being pulled over and that some drivers then
> get off by going to court.

The law is codified common sense. It is in place to
keep guys like Wayne from going off on their own
personal Critical Mass whenever they feel like it.
It is in place to keep slower traffic from blocking faster
traffic for no good reason. It has survived in the same
basic form since long before there were bicycles or
automobiles. If people don't like it, all they need to
do is ride fast enough to pass cars on state highways.

Robert

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:40:46 -0500, Matt O'Toole
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>The solid white line on the right side of the road is a *fog line*, its
>purpose being to make the edge of the road more visible in poor lighting
>so drivers don't run off the road. It has nothing to do with
>"channelizing" traffic or marking lanes, though many people mistakenly
>assume this.
>
>Matt O.

Dear Matt,

The many people who mistakenly assume that the white line marks a lane
include judges, or so ten seconds with Google suggests:

One-foot crossing of highway fog line is sufficient to justify traffic
stop leading to discovery of illegal drugs
SEARCH & SEIZURE
United States v. Alvarado,
No. 05-4064, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2005)(Utah).

Appeal of district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress
drug evidence seized during traffic stop.

HELD: Where there were no weather conditions, road features, or other
circumstances interfering with defendant’s ability to keep his vehicle
in a single lane, police officer had reasonable articulable suspicion
that single instance of defendant’s vehicle crossing one-foot over fog
line of highway violated Utah traffic law. Therefore, traffic stop
leading to discovery of drug evidence in defendant’s vehicle was
reasonable under Fourth Amendment.

http://directappeal2.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html

Note the phrase "to keep his vehicle in a single lane."

Note also that someone was using the kind of arguments seen in this
thread in a legal appeal.

Note what the appeals court ruled.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel