Re: Bad bicycle reporting on Channel 5 in Kansas City

[Jym Dyer]

>> If they were two abreast, one was NOT riding as near to the
>> right side of the roadway as safe.

=v= Bad assumption. We don't know the whole story, but we do
know the car was passing around a curve. In that situation it
is generally wrong and unsafe for the car to attempt to pass,
but *not* wrong and unsafe for bicyclists to take the lane.

> Note that riding two abreast is specifically permitted in
> Missouri "when not impeding other vehicles".

=v= I can't find Missouri's definition of "impeding" but in
most states the definition takes safety into account. If it
is unsafe to pass, one is not "impeded" by not being able to
pass.
<_Jym_>

 

[Jym Dyer]

> "Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file
> when being overtaken by another vehicle."
>
> There are no "if, and's, or but's."

=v= New York State's laws are archaic when it comes to bicycles.
Fortunately, for folks in New York City, there are ifs ands or
buts: Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1642 authorizes large-enough
cities to override some of these, and § 4-02(e) of the New York
City Traffic Rules does exactly that.
<_Jym_>

 

[Jym Dyer]

> "307.190. ... Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding
> other vehicles."

=v= Thanks for looking this up. Can you look up the definition
of "impeding?"
<_Jym_>

 

[Jym Dyer]

>> Second, riding two abreast on that road was arguably
>> unlawful.
> Agreed.

=v= But also arguably lawful. The whole thing depends on
whether it was safe to pass around the curve.
<_Jym_>

 

[Arthur Harris]

"Jym Dyer" wrote:

> Art Harrias wrote:

>> "Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file
>> when being overtaken by another vehicle."
>>
>> There are no "if, and's, or but's."
>
> =v= New York State's laws are archaic when it comes to bicycles.
> Fortunately, for folks in New York City, there are ifs ands or
> buts: Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1642 authorizes large-enough
> cities to override some of these, and § 4-02(e) of the New York
> City Traffic Rules does exactly that.

What specifically do the NYC rules say about riding two abreast?

Art Harris

 

[Bob]

Chris Neary wrote:
> >I'm almost assuredly wasting my time replying because everyone seems
to
> >have already made up their mind what happened and what Missouri law
> >means so I'll point out just three things. First, it's rare for one
> >operator to be *solely* to blame in any collision that occurs in
moving
> >traffic. Sharing the road means sharing responsibility no matter
what
> >kind of vehicle one uses. In this case the cyclists were familiar
with
> >the road, knew that it had blind curves and grades that obstructed
> >sight lines but still chose to ride two abreast. Their decision to
ride
> >two abreast was a bad one and directly contributed to the crash.
>
> I disagree with this point. The driver had the ultimate
responsibility for
> his actions. He made the decision to pass in an unsafe manner.
>
> Further, there hasn't been any evidence offered that the driver
passed in a
> less safe manner because they were riding two abreast, so we have no
reason
> to believe the same outcome would not have occured had they been
riding
> single file.
>
Two cyclists were present. If the only cyclist that was struck was the
cyclist furthest away from the right I think it's a fair assumption to
make that his position on the roadway contributed to the crash. Of
course if the cyclist nearest the right was the one struck it's an
entirely different story.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Chris Neary]

>Two cyclists were present. If the only cyclist that was struck was the
>cyclist furthest away from the right I think it's a fair assumption to
>make that his position on the roadway contributed to the crash. Of
>course if the cyclist nearest the right was the one struck it's an
>entirely different story.

No, I have to disagree.

Assuming the driver believed he was passing the leftmost rider with
sufficient room, why should we assume he would have been any more competent
at passing "singled-up" riders?



Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

 

[Bob]

Chris Neary wrote:
> >Two cyclists were present. If the only cyclist that was struck was
the
> >cyclist furthest away from the right I think it's a fair assumption
to
> >make that his position on the roadway contributed to the crash. Of
> >course if the cyclist nearest the right was the one struck it's an
> >entirely different story.
>
> No, I have to disagree.
>
> Assuming the driver believed he was passing the leftmost rider with
> sufficient room, why should we assume he would have been any more
competent
> at passing "singled-up" riders?
>
>
>
> Chris Neary
> [email protected]

Allow me to put your question in a cycling context. If you can't keep
your tires on a two inch wide strip of roadway, why should we assume
you'd be more competent to keep your tires on a two foot wide strip?
That the cyclist positioned himself badly doesn't relieve the driver of
his duty to not pass unless he can do so safely but to assume that the
cyclist's position on the roadway didn't contribute in any way to the
crash seems counterintuitive at best to me.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bob]

Jym Dyer wrote:
> >> Second, riding two abreast on that road was arguably
> >> unlawful.
> > Agreed.
>
> =v= But also arguably lawful. The whole thing depends on
> whether it was safe to pass around the curve.
> <_Jym_>

The problem with situations that are "arguably (un)lawful" is in order
to arrive at any meaningful conclusion somebody has to be the test case
since the courts, not Usenet NGs, decide what's lawful and what is not.
;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Jym Dyer]

> What specifically do the NYC rules say about riding two
> abreast?

=v= The state requirement is overruled and no such requirement
is reinstated in the sections overruling it.
<_Jym_>