Quote: Originally Posted by
frenchyge .
Quote: Originally Posted by
sitzmark .
The same applies to rolling a stop sign. It may not be convenient to stop and put a foot down, but it is the law and the safest interpretation of the rule. Citing a disadvantage in acceleration power is no excuse.
I understand that it's the law, but that wasn't the question. How is it safer to put a foot down and whose safety does it increase? The disadvantage in acceleration is problematic because if you roll up to the line at a busy intersection, then take the time to do the full, required stop (including requisite unclip), then take off again, you will probably be run over in the middle of the intersection by the crossing motorists because you took too long. Requiring the full stop puts the cyclist in a situation where they are disrupting the normal flow of traffic rather than allowing them to blend in to the safe and orderly flow.
I'm not sure I'm following the example, but if it is stopping and unclipping to make a left turn (or straight through) a cross traffic situation, I do that almost every time I ride. Never had a problem. If the concern is the traffic behind me at the stop sign ... well, too freakin' bad because the law says it's my lane and my turn in the queue to make the next safe entry into the cross street.
Quote: Originally Posted by sitzmark .
I think having common laws for all vehicles is actually a rare act of the KISS principle.....
I don't disagree, but I also don't see that as a good thing because exceptions are what people take notice of and exercise caution around. If motorists are comfortable adopting a "you'd better stay out of my way" mentality regarding cyclists, then the laws to promote safe travel on our roadways have failed us.
According to the law they can't adopt a "you'd better stay out of my way" attitude. In legal terms we're not sharing a lane - we own the lane and have the right of way if we are ahead of another vehicle. If they can pass us safely, they may do so ... if not they wait. Doesn't matter if it is a cyclist, a motorcycle, or Grandma Jones in her classic Buick Roadmaster on a slow Sunday morning drive ... if it isn't safe to pass, they follow until it is. Our responsibility is to not unnecessarily impede traffic.
In Massachusetts, the law now clarifies that on a roadway with two lanes traveling in the same direction, cyclist are legally allowed to ride two abreast and control one of the lanes - the right unless making a left turn. (All vehicles should also be in the right hand lane unless passing or turning, but most Americans are ignorant of that rule). A single cyclist has always had the right to control a lane if is not safe to travel to the right hand side of the road.
If someone is inclined to adopt a "stay out of my way" approach, then a special law (or exception) isn't going to change their attitude.
: