RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Today, my story about highway workers(21 posts)

Today, my story about highway workersBreakfast
Sep 19, 2002 6:28 PM
I went on a 50 mile loop that includes a 2 mile section of twisty mountain road that is an absolute blast to ride down, except I was going in the reverse direction in order to climb it, which is also pretty cool. Anyway, traffic was held up as the road crew was escorting cars either up or down but only in one direction at a time because workers took up one lane or the other in various places.

So, I'm at the bottom, where a line of cars is waiting, I ask permission to go up and I am granted a go ahead by workers and highway patrol. Meanwhile the pilot, or escort vehicle is leading a line of cars down slowly and I meet them about halfway up. At this point, the pilot vehicle and a line of following vehicles is in the proper lane for their direction of travel and I'm riding in my proper lane and there's no obstructions here in either direction. I happen to pass the pilot vehicle and I'm positioned in the middle of my empty lane and he's in his and the driver yells "MOVE OVER!".

What! I've got a clear lane, traffic coming up behind me is forced to wait until the pilot vehicle and the rest pass them at the bottom and I'll even finish the climb before that happens, this guy is just being a jerk.

Now, when I reach the guy who's holding the stop sign at the top, keeping the next line back I tell him that the guys in the pilot vehicles were jerks and need to me more careful driving. He looked at me strange, but so what. I just hoped word would maybe reach a supervisor or get back to these idiots.

It was odd they would have to say anything to me at that point except to just yell at a guy (me) who they weren't in charge of at that moment.

Funny how a little power makes people behave.
Thing is...PODIUMBOUNDdotCA
Sep 19, 2002 6:40 PM
I'll admit the guy was a dumbass.

But why get in the habit of doing something you'd never do normally just cus you can? If theres no cars on a road does that mean you go in the middle?

Cheers,
Nick
PodiumBound.ca
Yes, it's cleaner where the tires of cars roll.Breakfast
Sep 19, 2002 6:58 PM
So, not exactly in the middle where oil and fluids accumulate but where the road is cleanest. In normal conditions with cars passing me on the left and I'm hugging the right I'm in the debris laden zone, when cars pass and it's clear to occupy a better area of the road I move over. I also ride there to assert my position on some curves so motorists think before passing. On nearly empty roads, I always move a little more left.

Isn't this the way to ride?
Good pointsPODIUMBOUNDdotCA
Sep 19, 2002 7:33 PM
To each his own I guess. I learned to ride riding on the shoulder of highways as far right as I could move using the white line as a do not cross... on major city roads or roads with no shoulder I'll move about away from the curb a couple feet.

I feel its not worth the risk of moving myself into traffic or aggravating drivers to move out of the debris unless its really bad. To each his own...

Cheers,
Nick
PodiumBound.ca
CYLCIST are NEVER REQUIRED to RIDE ON THE SHOULDER!teamsloppy
Sep 19, 2002 8:09 PM
According to the Uniform Vehicle Code (at least 30 states follow this) , Cyclists are not required to ride on the shoulder. Cyclists have the right to move into the lane to avoid obstacles including pedestrians, debris, rocks etc.

In fact, cyclists have all the rights as a car and can take the lane. Using California as the reference for the Uniform Vehicle Code:

Section 21200 of the California Vehicle code states that

21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the
rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver
of a vehicle ...

This section not only requires that cyclists obey all the normal traffic laws, but also requires that drivers treat bicycles the same as other vehicles.

http://svbcbikes.org/bked/laws/ca/cvc21200.html

Cyclists have to ride as far to the right as is reasonably possible. For example, Cyclists are not required to ride close to parked cars (the doors constitute a serious hazard).

If there is a 4 foot wide bike lane, cyclist must ride in the bike lane except to avoid pedestrians and obstacles including parked cars, debris and road hazards.

The definitive statement is in Section 21202 ( http://svbcbikes.org/bked/laws/ca/cvc21202.html )
of the California Vehicle Code. The exceptions include preparing for a left turn, approaching a place where a right turn is permitted, passing slower cyclists, voiding obstructions, and avoiding hazards. Hazards include lanes that are too narrow to share with other vehicles, in which case the cyclist may use the full lane (subject to the same rules as slower drivers for using turnouts). Furthermore, the requirement to use a bike lane (please see Section 21208) has all of these same exceptions, and is applicable only when riding slower than traffic and when the bike lane was installed according to state standards for bike lanes. Not all bike lanes meet state or federal standards.

The Law requires that that a driver should expect to see a cyclist at any position at the road; and, the driver should be aware that hazards and other situations exist that require the full use of a traffic lane by the cyclist. And the driver must realize that these situations may not be easy to spot from within the confines of an automobile.

And because of the definition of "roadway", CYLCIST ARE NEVER REQUIRED TO RIDE ON THE SHOULDER.
Nice summary. Thanks. (nm)mickey-mac
Sep 19, 2002 8:42 PM
nm
So what?irregardless
Sep 19, 2002 8:44 PM
The motorist most likely to run you over probably doesn't know the law. So while he gets fined or thrown in jail, or gets off because he didn't know the law, you're dead. Your suggestion reminds me of pedestrians who refuse to look both ways because they're in the crosswalk. Fewer of them around every day.
Irregardless is a fool's expressionteamsloppy
Sep 19, 2002 9:45 PM
Regardless is the correct word in the english language.

"Irregardless" is some sort of blundering mis-speak: a double negative or silly redundancy, used by little old ladies or stupid old men trying to impress.

You probably didn't do very well on those SATs, if you are young enough to have ever taken them or managed to graduate high school. (Did high schools exist before World War 2 ?).

But sadly, you probably have a driver's license.
wow.Steve_0
Sep 20, 2002 3:21 AM
to be fair, he never used the word 'irregardless'; he merely titled himself with it.

One could easily argue 'teamsloppy' is a fool's expression as well.
Irregardlessfiltersweep
Sep 20, 2002 4:20 AM
I assumed irregardless was used with a sense of irony... Mr. Sloppy? Or are you to be taken literally as well?
The irony was missed on you apparentlyirregardless
Sep 20, 2002 6:18 AM
I'm a writer as well as cyclist - I know full well that it isn't a word. That's why I chose it. I laugh every time I hear it, which is way too often. And, by the way, making erroenous assumptions about me based upon my name instead of addressing the subject of my email speaks volumes about your maturity level.
hmmmmm,Steve_0
Sep 20, 2002 6:26 AM
didnt mention your SAT scores. I'll bet you never even WENT to highschool. lol.
tsk, tskirregardless
Sep 20, 2002 7:50 AM
Attacking the messenger instead of the message.

OK, I'll play. I graduated from Stanford. Look up their entry SAT scores and knock yourself out.

That said, would my opinion really be worth less if I had low SAT scores? High SAT scores do not common sense make, you know.

I share the road. If there's a rideable shoulder, I use it. I don't try to "educate" motorists about my rights by taking up the full lane when I don't need to. I respect the size and speed of their vehicles more than I feel compelled to make a point by risking my health or life. The law isn't going to do me any good if I'm dead.

Just my opinion. Reasonable people (even reasonable people with low SAT scores) may differ.

P.S. "Highschool" is really spelled "high school."
Steve_0
Sep 20, 2002 8:02 AM
I was being facetious. I guess irony can be wasted on the intelligent also.
You can't precieve the double-meaning of a simple sentence.teamsloppy
Sep 20, 2002 9:00 PM
Maybe it's the word "fool" that is some subliminal attractant here. We all know there are a lot of fools out there. It's kind of entertaining to see how you all rise up to try to defend each other, however insipid the logic or garbled the reasoning.

I reject everything "irregardless" wrote. The plethora of delusional premises of his/her/its writing are that 1) the law is irrelevant, 2) cyclist don't belong on the roadway, 3) cyclist belong on the shoulder, 4) no one should stand up for their rights, 5) vehicular manslaughter is a fine or minor jail term, and 6) ignorance of the law is a valid legal defense.

Try going to a court to get out of a speeding ticket by saying you didn't know what the speed limit was. Try going to court and say that you didn't know it was illegal to kill someone.

I can't decide whether you are pubescent ( Oh, golly teacher, I didn't know it was against the rules to smoke in the bathroom) or senile old men.

For the other reading-impaired, the post did not say irregardless is not a word. It said that irregradless is an expression used by fools. And the reading impaired individual, that somehow decided that the topic was irregardless is not a word , he even points out that irregardless may be accepted in speech, but not in writing! Writing,isn't that what we are doing here. He can't even understand his own writing. Zero is an apt description.

In case you still can't figure out the double meaning: 1) the word irregardless is commonly used by fools and 2) the poster named "irregardless" is expressing the opinions of a fool.
You're digging yourself in deeperirregardless
Sep 21, 2002 2:12 AM
and don't even realize it. Your continued personal attacks only serve to confirm your own immaturity.

I tell you what. You go ahead and keep taking up the entire lane every time you ride just because the law says you can. Just like the pedestrian who crosses at the crosswalk without looking both ways just because the law says he has the right of way, I encourage you to be assertive and teach those inattentive, ignorant and impatient motorists a lesson the hard way. The world will be a better place for it.
Whoa, a little testy aren't we?Mel Erickson
Sep 20, 2002 6:47 AM
As much as you might hate the word it is, indeed, an accepted word in the english language. Look it up, it's there. Here's a reference from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

I agree there are better words to use but it's hardly worth getting on someones case for using it.
Rightmickey-mac
Sep 19, 2002 9:51 PM
Many motorists are ignorant of the laws that apply to cyclists, so we cyclists should also remain ignorant of them. Now I see your point.
Rightrbb
Sep 20, 2002 3:53 AM
Wow! Steve_O is right! And to be honest all this feuding from the main story of the construction area! To be fair in another right- the pilot driver probably thought you had jumped the line of cars and were maybe riding carelessly through their well marked site. This was probably to protect you from being hit by a car or one of their construction vehicles- Give the guy a break, how was he to know that you asked permission to go ahead from so many people at the bottom of the climb?? Anyways, let's all just calm down- IT'S FRIDAY!!!!
Take care

-Bob
EXAMPLE...Steve_0
Sep 20, 2002 4:42 AM
Im sure a lot of us would get pretty ticked off if people were strolling through our offices while were trying to work. Even if they are 'legally' allowed to.
Thick SkinLEW
Sep 20, 2002 5:06 AM
If you are going to ride on the road and mix it up with traffic you (we) have to be thick skinned. So the guy yelled "move over". Give a friendly wave and continue on. Maybe the guy was actually looking out for your safety; or maybe he was a jerk, big deal, don't let this ruin your day. Over the years I have learned that honking, yelling, etc. are not worth getting my blood pressure up over. I feel a lot better if I just wave, talk to myself and ride on.

Don't get me wrong. I know there are circumstances where the situation is blatant, that is a different story. But remember the big eat the little, ride safe and friendly.