Police car buzzes cyclists

[LegendRider]

https://youtu.be/yvCF9D7B8iA

Unacceptable that a cop would do that. But, the police department acknowledged the problem without being defensive, so kudos for that. (see comments)

[earlfoss]

The officer who did this will totally not do it again after receiving retraining on GA Code 40-6-56. That is a great solution.

[CampyorBust]

Yeah not cool.

[jmoore]

double yellow line too

[Seramount]

a fair number of LEOs are not model drivers...

routinely see city cops turning or changing lanes with no signal, driving in low-light/inclement weather with no lights on, speeding (and no they weren't on their way to a call)...

state troopers seem to do a little better job at the wheel.

[rugbysecondrow]

it was a tight pass he probably shouldn't have made. It looks like the outside rider swerved out right as the car was passing (fiddling with his shoe or something) so maybe that was part of the reason.

He should have waited. Not sure why that fella can't ride single file though.

[velomonkey]

It's a pass he shouldn't have made. Period. Yes, the rider to the right wasn't totally steady - he is more inline than most people on bikes.

The cop is an jerk. He knew 100% what he was doing: putting people in their place - it's just this time rather than an every day joe in a every day car it was a cop in a cop car. No surprise.

Dude should be punished by going to the local train station and standing 3 inches from the platform and walk straight as a train comes in - let's see how he likes it.

Idiot.

Good for the PD department for getting right on it and offering no excuses, though "judgement" isn't what he is lacking - dude is full of ire and prejudice and that is an issue.

[dustyrider]

Since when is it safe to ride two abreast?

[velomonkey]

Let's go down the "is it safe to ride 2 abreast" - this thread will get shut down by page 3.

[dustyrider]

Well if you're going to hold one person to a standard, shouldn't you hold the other person to the same standard?

[zap]

Not sure why that fella can't ride single file though.

Quite possibly the group was riding a double paceline. Very common.

[velomonkey]

Well if you're going to hold one person to a standard, shouldn't you hold the other person to the same standard?

2 abreast is legal in GA where this occurred. The "standard" you so callously refer to isn't the law per se, it's endangering life. 3 feet laws exist for a reason (or do you not get that). 2 abreast exists for a reason - so even if the "standard" you are looking for is to be legal then your argument is negated.

It amazes me we have video evidence - proof with your own eyes - and yet we turn on ourselves and go into hall monitor mode.

I simply don't get it.

[dustyrider]

2 abreast is legal in GA where this occurred. The "standard" you so callously refer to isn't the law per se, it's endangering life. 3 feet laws exist for a reason (or do you not get that). 2 abreast exists for a reason - so even if the "standard" you are looking for is to be legal then your argument is negated.

It amazes me we have video evidence - proof with your own eyes - and yet we turn on ourselves and go into hall monitor mode.

I simply don't get it.

You don't get anyone and no one gets you...it's a theme!

You're right about Georgia law! Bad cop. Personally my life is important to me, and I protect it at all costs. Riding next to someone on an open road doesn't fall into protecting my life. Enjoy.

[azrider]

that cop is completely in the wrong......I would be friggin livid

[donevwil]

Not surprised. In 21 years riding in NorCal I've been run off the road once, by a Marin County Sherriff doing a more aggressive version of this on Hwy 1.

[velomonkey]

Riding next to someone on an open road doesn't fall into protecting my life. Enjoy.

So you ride next to people on closed roads. Great. You can do that. That doesn't change anything in the video about the cop being 100% wrong.

No reason to make it a personal attack.

Oddly I was hit by a car - on a road riding by myself. My buddy was hit last week - woke up hours later in a hospital with a broken hip - he was by himself.

Doesn't mean I have a rule to never ride by myself.

Let's be friends :beer:

[holliscx]

The riders shouldn't be two abreast in an area with traffic or the double line. It looks like a busy road and if I were in the same situation I would yell car back and tell my buddies to ride single file.

[djg21]

Quite possibly the group was riding a double paceline. Very common.

It was stupid to ride two abreast on a road with absolutely no shoulder. There was no double paceline here. The cop was in the wrong for passing so closely; the cyclist(s) were in the wrong for riding unsafely. Another example of cyclists acting stupidly and being their own worst enemies.

[velomonkey]

The riders shouldn't be two abreast in an area with traffic or the double line. It looks like a busy road and if I were in the same situation I would yell car back and tell my buddies to ride single file.

Seriously I am not 'starting' anything. I gotta ask.

You could make that judgement in 5 seconds of film. Assuming they are going 20mph that's 29.333 feet per second or, let's be generous, 150 feet of road.

You can make a judgement call on a road you don't know, with riders you don't know, in a state with a 3 foot law, in a state with a two abreast law - you're gonna make the call that the riders were in the wrong?????

I'd really love to hear how if you were gonna testify as an expert witness against the riders how they were in the wrong (despite them breaking no laws and the cop breaking a 3 foot law and a double yellow line law).

[flydhest]

Why is it wrong to ride two abreast? Locals there say it is legal. If you are impeding a lot of traffic, it is good to be considerate, but that isn't the same thing.

[dustyrider]

I didn't know Georgia law until I looked it up!

I need to feel safe when I ride my bike, therefore I don't put my safety into the 3' law. I can't count the amount of times I've been buzzed. Pretty much every time I ride my bike! Where I ride, it's a sport to see if you can clip a cyclist with your mirror, or at least that's how it feels. Been clipped by more mirrors than I care to recall.

Because of my need for safety, I don't think riding 2 abreast on an open road way is safe. Even if it is legal.

Here's a great little lesson my father taught me:
As a young man, a few of my friends and I had a bit of angst in our young minds and bodies. We used to walk right into traffic stating the traffic code that entitles pedestrians to the right of way. Squealing brakes and burning rubber were all part of the fun!

I did this once when I was walking with my father. He asked me what the hell I was thinking?
I explained to him that cars have brakes and pedestrians have the right of way!
He told me about how he used to do something very similar as a kid growing up.
Pretty typical behavior for a certain age group; I see it every day at the High School I work at.
He continued to tell me about one day when he and his friend walked out in front of car. His friend was just a step ahead of him and the car they chose to step in front of didn't have working brakes.
The car was a wonderful 50s beast with protruding chrome bumpers. One of those bumpers hooked his friend and dragged him down the road for quite awhile.
My father then asked me to consider whether my presumptions about working brakes and knowledge of pedestrian traffic laws were stronger than the pain his friend had to endure?
It was a rhetorical question and needed no response.

I think it is all to easy to look at the actions of others and say they're in the wrong. All the while neglecting to consider your own actions. In the end, just because someone's actions are wrong that doesn't make your actions any more right!

Velomonkey, you're not on my ignore list. :beer: to you too!

[djg21]

The fact that its legal in some circumstances doesn't make it smart or necessarily legal in all circumstances. I don't know GA law, but my guess is that cyclists cannot obstruct traffic by riding two abreast even though it may be allowed when traffic conditions permit. And even aside from the law, on a narrow road like that with no shoulder, the riders should have moved into single file as matter of common courtesy so that faster traffic could safely pass. The cyclists at least contributed to the unsafe condition by riding two abreast where conditions didn't permit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bcroslin]

http://blogs.swa-jkt.com/swa/10361/files/2014/03/big-brother-orwell-rally-privacy-loss.jpg

[zmudshark]

I saw Lance and squad a few years ago riding three abreast on Pima Rd in N. Scottsdale a few years ago.

Just thought I'd toss Lance into the mix to get this locked sooner.

BTW, here's the same ride as in the OP, Kyle 'Schlecks' a shift:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JJMqCrTRkc

[velomonkey]

I mean I get that and, frankly, it's a bit naive to live your life any other way - I learned, I think it was the 90s, what good does being 'right' mean when you're in traction recovering from getting hit. I get that.

Here is the reality - cyclist can do everything right and within the safety lines and STILL get nailed by an impatient driver. Some of those drivers can be cops.

The very police department that the cop works for immediately apologized (I saw the link early this morning and only 200 people had viewed it and their apology was posted) and STILL people on this board, who know nothing of the road are going to sit in judgment against the riders and go so far as to say "cyclists acting stupidly and being their own worst enemies."

Sorry - it just doesn't reconcile with me. We don't have to agree.

[Cicli]

I saw Lance and squad a few years ago riding three abreast on Pima Rd in N. Scottsdale a few years ago.

Just thought I'd toss Lance into the mix to get this locked sooner.

BTW, here's the same ride as in the OP, Kyle 'Schlecks' a shift:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JJMqCrTRkc

Yeah, next you will say the cop uses EPO.

[zmudshark]

Yeah, next you will say the cop uses EPO.Statistically, it is likely PEDs are involved somewhere in that video.

Can anyone confirm that Kyle was riding SRAM?:p

[velomonkey]

BTW, here's the same ride as in the OP, Kyle 'Schlecks' a shift:


I mean, he's uploading CAT 5 videos. The guy who video'd Eric Garner's death wasn't so stand up, either. If I were a betting man, Kyle is riding SRAM.

[ergott]

Riding 2 abreast. It is safer for the cyclists.

For your reading pleasure.

http://www.bikewalknc.org/2015/04/why-cyclists-ride-two-abreast/

[LegendRider]

Georgia code:

Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, or when a special event permit issued by a local governing authority permits riding more than two abreast.

[rugbysecondrow]

It was stupid to ride two abreast on a road with absolutely no shoulder. There was no double paceline here. The cop was in the wrong for passing so closely; the cyclist(s) were in the wrong for riding unsafely. Another example of cyclists acting stupidly and being their own worst enemies.




Agreed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[djg21]

Riding 2 abreast. It is safer for the cyclists.

For your reading pleasure.

http://www.bikewalknc.org/2015/04/why-cyclists-ride-two-abreast/

This is opinion, and probative of nothing. Another equally viable opinion is that the cyclists were riding two abreast because they had no regard for others and believed that as members of some special class -- bicyclists -- they were entitled. I'm not saying the LEO's pass was appropriate, but the cyclists (or the single cyclist on the left) created a more dangerous condition by obstructing the lane and not riding single file.

Yes I'm all for cyclists making themselves visible to oncoming motorists and discouraging improper passing, but this doesn't justify cyclists acting like asses and obstructing traffic. To do so is stupid, discourteous and unsafe. There are times when cyclists can ride two abreast safely. I do it all the time. I also know that I should pull over and ride single file when there is auto traffic behind me, and that there are certain roads where riding two abreast is never appropriate or safe.

There is blame on both sides here.

[Tony T]

Only one rider (in view) was riding two abreast.
That rider saw (if he was paying attention) the oncoming car and should have pulled in.

The cyclist was wrong, IMO

The cop must not have seen the "Pyramid of Humanity"


http://flyingpigeon-la.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/pb130113.jpg

[oldpotatoe]

Since when is it safe to ride two abreast?

No shoulder with traffic behind=single file here. ???

[weisan]

Seriously, pals?

[djg21]

No shoulder with traffic behind=single file here. ???

You are being cryptic again. ;) I'm not sure whether you mean that the riders should have been single file, or two abreast, because there was no shoulder and traffic behind.

[Tony T]

You are being cryptic again. ;) I'm not sure whether you mean that the riders should have been single file, or two abreast, because there was no shoulder and traffic behind.

He meant the cyclists should have ridden single file.

[zmudshark]

Honestly folks, law or no law, when is it permissible to buzz someone?

[Tony T]

Honestly folks, law or no law, when is it permissible to buzz someone?

When by not doing so would result in a head-on collision?
(Didn't the cyclist who was "buzzed" see the approaching car? And if so, shouldn't he have anticipated that there could be a car approaching in his rear?)

When I see oncoming traffic, I don't look to see if there is a car approaching me, I just pull as far to the right as I can — But that's just me.

[Dustin]

It's legal to ride two abreast. You need to wait to safely to pass, whether it's a group of bikers or a slower car. No one owns the road. We all pay for it. It's a public good. End of story.

[djg21]

Honestly folks, law or no law, when is it permissible to buzz someone?

When I look at the video, I didn't think the LEO came all that close to the cyclist (the one cyclist not riding single file). I wonder if the cyclist was being a bit overly dramatic or was perhaps unexperienced riding in traffic.

What bothered me more was the LEO pulling across the yellow line and accelerating to pass the cyclist while there was oncoming traffic in the other lane. The LEO obviously was in a rush to get somewhere.

[rugbysecondrow]

A wide berth should be given, but it is also fair for a cyclist to give space as well. My man not only didn't budge, but he actually narrowed the gap right as the cop passed.

Quite a few acts of douchebagery in that video.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rugbysecondrow]

It's legal to ride two abreast. You need to wait to safely to pass, whether it's a group of bikers or a slower car. No one owns the road. We all pay for it. It's a public good. End of story.


Conversations like this are why I say "I ride bikes", but I am not s cyclist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[velomonkey]

I weep.

I weep for the people who think they can tell by a 5 second film that this was not "a double paceline" - um, you did see only 2 riders were behind (seems normal to me on a group ride) you also did see the video footage came from a rider on the left and you can see the tire of the rider on the right - you did see that, right?

I weep for the people on a bike board that seem to think a law is the ceiling not the floor. A law is passed because for whatever reason some people need to be reminded - don't kill people, don't rape people. A law granting right is the same thing - gays can marry, bike riders can ride 2 abreast. DEAL WITH IT. If you hate gays - deal with it. If you're driving your car and your inconvenienced by bikers - deal with it. Don't hate, don't buzz - take a deep breath and realize in the grand scheme of things it's not about you.

Seriously, as someone with a forensic science degree I actually laugh that people think they can pass judgment on a 5 second video of a road they don't know when the cops themselves have admitted they were wrong. It would be comical if it were so pathetically sad.

[rugbysecondrow]

Man, you either weep a lot are are over dramatic, both of which might require some intervention.


The 5 second clip was enough to form an opinion that wrong doing was done by party A, but apparently not enough for others to form an opinion about the actions of party B or others?

I think you are just being condescending.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EDS]

Is it possible the dude that got buzzed was rotating off the front of the paceline and thus that is why he is not in single file with the rest?

Every paceline I have ridden involves at least some moments where riders are two abreast.

[shovelhd]

You don't rotate off when there is a car behind you, no matter who is driving. You stay on the front and wait for the pass.

Equal baggery on this one. The cop should know better.

[velomonkey]

Man, you either weep a lot are are over dramatic, both of which might require some intervention.

The 5 second clip was enough to form an opinion that wrong doing was done by party A, but apparently not enough for others to form an opinion about the actions of party B or others?

I think you are just being condescending.


I hear this tripe time and time again. "I ride bikes" not "I'm a cyclist." A distinction without a difference, brother. So the drunk bishop was out looking for cyclist not bike riders? Or the dude who hit the teacher raising funds for cancer- he was a cyclist not a bike rider, right? Whatever - it's a distinction without a difference and frankly psych 101 classes give me some theories why you insist on saying this on a bike board, but no reason to go there, the fact is, the people in the vehicles that can kill you don't know and don't care and those are the only people who matter.

And, yea, you have no training or knowledge of the area to override those that do (i.e., the cops who already acknowledged it was wrong), but go on, tell yourself and all of us you do. Cause cops are always acknowledging other cops doing wrong (did my sarcasm register, it's not condescension, it's sarcasm and I want to make sure it registered). My FS degree, and I don't know the area, hum . . I see a fire hydrant, I see a construction sign in the other direction - I see no other cars behind the riders . . . looks like someone got held up - maybe the riders were riding paceline, maybe they were regrouping after a construction zone - the fact is, they were legal and the cop was illegal - I don't know any more specifics, you don't know, no one here knows, but the cops acknowledged it - that plus the video is more than ample - except to some people it's not. . . but I'm sure you know better.

[Tony T]

It's legal to ride two abreast. You need to wait to safely to pass, whether it's a group of bikers or a slower car. No one owns the road. We all pay for it. It's a public good. End of story.

Please post your cite, like this:
https://www.gahighwaysafety.org/campaigns/bicycle-and-pedestrian-safety/laws-pertaining-to-bicycles-and-bicycling/
40-6-294.
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, except when turning left or avoiding hazards to safe cycling, when the lane is too narrow to share safely with a motor vehicle, when traveling at the same speed as traffic, or while exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction; provided, however, that every person operating a bicycle away from the right side of the roadway shall exercise reasonable care and shall give due consideration to the other applicable rules of the road.
(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, or when a special event permit issued by a local governing authority permits riding more than two abreast.

[rugbysecondrow]

I hear this tripe time and time again. "I ride bikes" not "I'm a cyclist." A distinction without a difference, brother. So the drunk bishop was out looking for cyclist not bike riders? Or the dude who hit the teacher raising funds for cancer- he was a cyclist not a bike rider, right? Whatever - it's a distinction without a difference and frankly psych 101 classes give me some theories why you insist on saying this on a bike board, but no reason to go there, the fact is, the people in the vehicles that can kill you don't know and don't care and those are the only people who matter.

And, yea, you have no training or knowledge of the area to override those that do (i.e., the cops who already acknowledged it was wrong), but go, tell yourself you do. My FS degree, and I don't know the area, hum . . I see a fire hydrant, I see a construction sign in the other direction - I see no other cars behind the riders . . . looks like someone got held up and got a little too impatient - it happens. It also risked the lives of the less vulnerable who were well within their rights and has been acknowledged by the local police and they very department that did this . . . . . but I'm sure you know better.


I get it man. You have a FS degree. You know better than everybody else. Cheers!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[djg21]

I hear this tripe from you time and time again. "I ride bikes" not "I'm a cyclist." A distinction without a difference, brother. So the drunk bishop was out looking for cyclist not bike riders? Or the dude who hit the teacher raising funds for cancer- he was a cyclist not a bike rider, right? Whatever - it's a distinction without a difference and frankly psych 101 classes give me some reasons why this might be occurring, but no reason to go there, the fact is, the people in the vehicles that can kill you don't know and don't care.

And, yea, you have no training or knowledge of the area to override those that do (i.e., the cops who already acknowledged it was wrong), but go, tell yourself you do. My FS degree, and I don't know the area, hum . . I see a fire hydrant, I see a construction sign in the other direction - I see no other cars behind the riders . . . looks like someone got held up and got a little too impatient - it happens. It also risked the lives of the less vulnerable who were well within their rights and has been acknowledged by the local police and they very department that did this . . . . . but I'm sure you know better.

It's funny you keep harping on your degree. I often laugh at people who hold themselves out as experts in a field on the basis that they have a degree. I also get to work with forensic scientists quite regularly. The ones that are worth a salt acknowledge that formal education and degrees are no substitute for common sense. It doesn't take a degree in a forensic science to view this video and conclude that at least the one cyclist and the LEO both acted somewhat recklessly.

[mg2ride]

Making poor choices and over dramatization, it is why they hate us. It is also why I favor fewer riders over more. Some of us insist on acting like dumb monkeys.

[velomonkey]

When I look at the video, I didn't think the LEO came all that close to the cyclist (the one cyclist not riding single file). I wonder if the cyclist was being a bit overly dramatic or was perhaps unexperienced riding in traffic.



Totally not that close. . . . it's like what I got between my legs, minimally a foot a half!!!!! (I can see the comments now: they aren't far enough to the right, that dude is too far to the left - he's reaching for something, blah, blah, blah - so you're gonna to buzz someone and teach them a lesson. OK. Stick to that, but don't try to say it wasn't that close.)

[velomonkey]

It's funny you keep harping on your degree. I often laugh at people who hold themselves out as experts in a field on the basis that they have a degree. I also get to work with forensic scientists quite regularly. The ones that are worth a salt acknowledge that formal education and degrees are no substitute for common sense. It doesn't take a degree in a forensic science to view this video and conclude that at least the one cyclist and the LEO both acted somewhat recklessly.

I haven't practice it in like 18 years, I just said it was a degree. It s funny, no? I often laugh at people, too.

[ergott]

Let me ask this. If one rider is in lane a cyclist will typically take up about 4 feet of space into the lane. We're not riding on a stationary trainer. Cyclists have some left to right movement. A car must pass with 3 feet of space to be safe. A typical car is 6 feet wide. A typical lane is 9-12 feet wide.

The math doesn't add up. A car has to cross the yellow to safely pass a cyclist. If that's the case what's the difference if they cross the yellow a little to pass one cyclist or if they completely ride in the next lane if there are two cyclists riding two abreast (doesn't matter how many long the line is)?

[velomonkey]

Making poor choices and over dramatization, it is why they hate us. It is also why I favor fewer riders over more. Some of us insist on acting like dumb monkeys.

I see what you did there. Poor choice.

[Tony T]

When I look at the video, I didn't think the LEO came all that close to the cyclist (the one cyclist not riding single file). I wonder if the cyclist was being a bit overly dramatic or was perhaps unexperienced riding in traffic

It was very close, and yes, the rider was inexperienced (i.e an idiot), as he had room to pull back
(and if he didn't have his head up his a$$, he would have seen the oncoming car and should have anticipated this happening)

[velomonkey]

It was very close, and yes, the rider was inexperienced (i.e an idiot), as he had room to pull back

You're little arrow is about as long as the calf on the rider to the right - so um, how long is YOUR calf.

[charliedid]

Based on the limited info I say no harm no foul on the entire deal.

I ride in Chicago and cars get this close all the time.

[ergott]

From the PD dept in question.

"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It is imperative that our officers lead by example and this is not setting a good example. We will address the issue with the officer in question and retrain on GA Code 40-6-56, commonly known as The Three Foot Law. The Milton Police Department apologizes to the community for this instance of poor judgement."

[phutterman]

Exactly.

This is why riding two abreast on narrow roads like this can be safer, because it forces passing in the other lane rather than trying to squeeze by in the lane.

Plus if the car is going to move over, they don't have to move over for as long to pass the more compact bunch vs long single file line.

As I've said before when this topic has come up, I've always been shocked at how much more space I'm given by passing cars in the rural part of northeastern California I grew up than here in the Bay Area, and I tend to chalk it up to some combination of my being more of an oddity there plus people there already being used to passing slow full-width vehicles like farm equipment, logging trucks, etc.

Let me ask this. If one rider is in lane a cyclist will typically take up about 4 feet of space into the lane. We're not riding on a stationary trainer. Cyclists have some left to right movement. A car must pass with 3 feet of space to be safe. A typical car is 6 feet wide. A typical lane is 9-12 feet wide.

The math doesn't add up. A car has to cross the yellow to safely pass a cyclist. If that's the case what's the difference if they cross the yellow a little to pass one cyclist or if they completely ride in the next lane if there are two cyclists riding two abreast (doesn't matter how many long the line is)?

[Tony T]

You're little arrow is about as long as the calf on the rider to the right - so um, how long is YOUR calf.

I see plenty of room for him to pull back to single file (as he should have been to begin with) when he should have seen the oncoming traffic.

[ergott]

I see plenty of room for him to pull back to single file (as he should have been to begin with) when he should have seen the oncoming traffic.

Except there was at least one rider in front of him, the cameraman!
:crap:

[djg21]

It was very close, and yes, the rider was inexperienced (i.e an idiot), as he had room to pull back
(and if he didn't have his head up his a$$, he would have seen the oncoming car and should have anticipated this happening)

It's hard to tell from the video given the perspective of the camera. I'm sure someone with the requisite expertise could approximate the actual distance between be vehicle and the cyclist, but I cannot. And in my experience, I could find experts to disagree too.

[Tony T]

Except there was at least one rider in front of him, the cameraman!
:crap:

:confused: So he had the opportunity to pull single file in front of the leading cyclist?

No way to know if anyone else was double breast in front of him but he was the only one in the back.

If I see oncoming traffic, I pull to the right, assuming that there may be traffic coming up behind me, I don't pull to the center lane and decide that this is a good time to have a drink (the cyclist put his group at risk, as well as himself)

[Tony T]

Exactly.

This is why riding two abreast on narrow roads like this can be safer, because it forces passing in the other lane rather than trying to squeeze by in the lane.


Yeah, that video demonstrates just how safely it is :crap:

[shovelhd]

:confused: So he had the opportunity to pull single file in front of the leading cyclist?

No, where the arrow was pointing. There's a gap between the rider to his right and the pair behind him.

[shovelhd]

Exactly.

This is why riding two abreast on narrow roads like this can be safer, because it forces passing in the other lane rather than trying to squeeze by in the lane.

Plus if the car is going to move over, they don't have to move over for as long to pass the more compact bunch vs long single file line.


I will never subscribe to this way of riding. It's selfish and dangerous.

[Tony T]

No, where the arrow was pointing. There's a gap between the rider to his right and the pair behind him.

So you agree that he could have easily pulled back to single file (you just want me to move the arrow??)

[oddsaabs]

Riding 2 abreast. It is safer for the cyclists.

For your reading pleasure.

http://www.bikewalknc.org/2015/04/why-cyclists-ride-two-abreast/

Thank you for posting that link. Excellent read.

[velomonkey]

So you agree that he could have easily pulled back to single file (you just want me to move the arrow??)

Fact, in front of the rider is two abreast riders - the rider with the camera and the rider the wheel you can see to the left (if you look earlier the wheel is there).

Now, are the 2 riders in the video frame riding close together and as far to the right as they can? No. However, that's what is not being discussed.

There is video evidence of a police car coming within inches of a rider - without any question whatsoever this occurred. We have a public apology from the police department in question. Both are indisputable facts.

And some people - I don't know if it's to get their post count up or to be funny or what - go and say "yea the cop car wasn't that close. It's the bike riders fault"

I've been amazed before, tonight I am bewildered. I'm flummoxed: self-loathing or narcissism.

[djg21]

From the PD dept in question.

As a matter of politics and optics, what would you expect? The PD would get no points arguing with constituents and there was no harm in reading the relevant 3-ft law to officers at a briefing ("retraining"). This is not an admission by the offending LEO.

[velomonkey]

As a matter of politics and optics, what would you expect? The PD would get no points arguing with constituents and there was no harm in reading the relevant 3-ft law to officers at a briefing ("retraining"). This is not an admission by the offending LEO.

So words don't mean what they mean.

It is imperative that our officers lead by example and this is not setting a good example. Yea, I can see that, it's an admission of nothing.

retrain (verb) - teach (someone) new skills, especially so that they can do a different job. I think what they meant was that the cop wasn't driving close enough.

The Milton Police Department apologizes to the community for this instance of poor judgement. Suck it you 2 wheel hippies!!!!

[gdw]

"So words don't mean what they mean."

Yup, it isn't uncommon and puts the issue to rest quickly. Basic PR.

I'm not going to take sides here but the cyclist did move further to the right, closer to the overtaking car, as he reached for his water bottle.

[p nut]

I ride in Chicago and cars get this close all the time.

Man, remind me never to ride in Chicago. I'd have given up riding a long time ago if what you say is true.

By the way, I'm in the single-file camp. 2 or 3 wide is just idiotic and inconsiderate.

[Tony T]

Fact, in front of the rider is two abreast riders - the rider with the camera and the rider the wheel you can see to the left (if you look earlier the wheel is there).

Now, are the 2 riders in the video frame riding close together and as far to the right as they can? No. However, that's what is not being discussed.

There is video evidence of a police car coming within inches of a rider - without any question whatsoever this occurred. We have a public apology from the police department in question. Both are indisputable facts.

And some people - I don't know if it's to get their post count up or to be funny or what - go and say "yea the cop car wasn't that close. It's the bike riders fault"

I've been amazed before, tonight I am bewildered. I'm flummoxed: self-loathing or narcissism.

I only see one rider in the middle of the road.
Agreed, the patrol car should not have passed.
However, the cyclist should not be in the middle of the road (getting a drink) when he sees a car approaching in front, he must assume that there can be a car approaching from the rear.

Being "right" and alive is better than being right and dead.

[shovelhd]

So you agree that he could have easily pulled back to single file (you just want me to move the arrow??)

I don't know about easily. It depends how fast the car was going.

[Tony T]

I don't know about easily. It depends how fast the car was going.

Agreed, but what the hell was he doing in the middle of the road is the first place (besides getting a drink)

Not sure why there are so many posts in defense of this rider. (Yes, the patrol car was wrong to pass, but what the hell? Where did this guy learn to ride?)

[Dustin]

Conversations like this are why I say "I ride bikes", but I am not s cyclist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Eh ... And I'm a driver and not a motorist, a lover and not a fighter, a poet but not a philosopher. And a Sagittarius.

[djg21]

So words don't mean what they mean.

It is imperative that our officers lead by example and this is not setting a good example. Yea, I can see that, it's an admission of nothing.

retrain (verb) - teach (someone) new skills, especially so that they can do a different job. I think what they meant was that the cop wasn't driving close enough.

The Milton Police Department apologizes to the community for this instance of poor judgement. Suck it you 2 wheel hippies!!!!

A statement made by the Police Department is not attributable to the police officer who was driving the cruiser. Only the police officer had first-hand knowledge of what actually happened and only the police officer could make an admission of any evidentiary or probative value.

As to the PM you sent me, asking that I put you on ignore because I "seem to memorize your posts" and then use your contradictions to impeach your opinion and conjecture, and because you "really hate being dragged into this," I'll gladly oblige. But you were the one who started with the rude and patronizing comments leveled against anyone who didn't share your opinions. I'm still not sure why you are continuing to argue, or what you are arguing about. But you should try not to be such a sanctimonious ass.

[velomonkey]

This is just gone on too long, is too obtuse, makes no sense and is in circles and has gotten way, way too personal.

Keep the rubber side down all. Stay safe.

[djg21]

This is just gone on too long, is too obtuse, makes no sense and is in circles and has gotten way, way too personal.

Keep the rubber side down all. Stay safe.

Please stop abusing the PM. I didn't appreciate receiving the message which I will post in full here so everyone can see it. To be clear, I didn't solicit your message, and never agreed to maintain its privacy. It is abusive and unacceptable:

At this point you are so pathetic I need to ask: are you OK? Is there something you need to talk about?

As for the police apology - you want they apologized about "this" incident they didn't mean the officer. (What a stupid, stupid, statement).

Oh and when I said you memorize my posts, I didn't mean it in the sense that you somehow do some magic mental judo and make me look the fool. I meant it that it's weird. Its' creepy. It's not normal.

Since you swore first allow to me respond in kind - at this point I think you are ï½·ï½·ï½·ï½·ing pathetic.

Have a great day. Oh and congrats, you are first to be on my ignore list.

[mg2ride]

.....
As to the PM you sent me, asking that I put you on ignore...

Lol! He sent me a similar PM just a while ago. However he said that I was already on his ignore list. He must have lied about you being his first.

This was not my first threatening PM from him. At 1 point he offered to fight me.

[cinema]

:hello::hello::hello:

[Tony]

Because this is the internet I should just brush this stuff off. However, I do have higher expectations here, this is sad.

[JAllen]

Don't go on paceline for a day and look at all the excitement I've missed!

[rugbysecondrow]

Eh ... And I'm a driver and not a motorist, a lover and not a fighter, a poet but not a philosopher. And a Sagittarius.


The difference seems to be an attitude, a manner in which one interacts with others. Cyclists seem to be out to ride for themselves, for their time, for their training. Everything about them being on the road is only about them. This is 100% apparent in their attitude towards others, how they use the road and how they interact with traffic.

Bike riders seems to interact differently. Yes, they are pedaling and on two wheels, but there seems to be a greater awareness, they seem more respectful of others.

I know this is just my view, which is completely fine. I don't expect Webster's t change anything based on what Paul thinks, but so long as cyclists keep acting they way they do, it is going to make it hard for the rest of the bike riders in the country. Nobody likes douchebaggery, and cyclists excel at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cicli]

Its disapointing how this has turned out.

[jzisk]

+1 "Disappointing..." in lots of ways.

[Joachim]

The difference seems to be an attitude, a manner in which one interacts with others. Cyclists seem to be out to ride for themselves, for their time, for their training. Everything about them being on the road is only about them. This is 100% apparent in their attitude towards others, how they use the road and how they interact with traffic.

Bike riders seems to interact differently. Yes, they are pedaling and on two wheels, but there seems to be a greater awareness, they seem more respectful of others.

I know this is just my view, which is completely fine. I don't expect Webster's t change anything based on what Paul thinks, but so long as cyclists keep acting they way they do, it is going to make it hard for the rest of the bike riders in the country. Nobody likes douchebaggery, and cyclists excel at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting you mention this. I always remind myself that they are on their way to work (to simplify the argument) and I am out for training/riding (but also on my way to work, most likely they feel I am in their way). It helps to be conscious of the different goals of each party and keeps me safe.

[djg21]

Interesting you mention this. I always remind myself that they are on their way to work (to simplify the argument) and I am out for training/riding (but also on my way to work, most likely they feel I am in their way). It helps to be conscious of the different goals of each party and keeps me safe.

I had a similar thought here. While the LEO clearly shared fault, I wondered why he/she was rushing. I am reluctant to believe that the LEO "buzzed" the cyclists just to teach a lesson or make a point (though it's certainly possible). Could the LEO have been responding to call without his light bar on?

[velomonkey]

For anyone that might care - here is a perfect example that showcases how I am confused.

This was posted yesterday to the Chainlink (http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/car-starts-to-weave-into-your-lane-you-knock-bang-to-get-their?id=2211490%3ATopic%3A949104&page=1#comments) (like paceline a very popular site). Let's review the high levels.


A rider is riding in the bike lane, he claims a car swerves into his lane, he knocks on car glass, driver was off-duty cop, driver stops and arrests rider. Poster takes pictures, gets witness testomony and is unable to get info to arrested rider so posts to chainlink

No video evidence, no public apology for the police department and certainly a far more grey area that the video in this thread.


Now let's review the comments on chainlink - 3 pages of comments all in support for the rider and the person who offered to help. Maybe one comment that was somewhat critial.

Here it took the 1st page to be critical of the riders - when there is considerably more proof, shows lives at risk and has a public appology - then we got to "it wasn't that close" - "that wasn't an apology or an admission of anything."

:crap::crap::crap:

[Tony T]

Its disapointing how this has turned out.

How so? What outcome did you want?

[William]

How so? What outcome did you want?

Civil discussion, no name calling or insulting...in the General forum or in PM's. Keep it civil or you'll get shut down.






William

[Cicli]

How so? What outcome did you want?

Insults and PM's and insulting PM's. I dont know, maybe acting like adults would be nice?

[Tony T]

Oh that (yes), I thought you were referring to the thread topic.

[Tony T]

For anyone that might care - here is a perfect example that showcases how I am confused.

This was posted yesterday to the Chainlink (http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/car-starts-to-weave-into-your-lane-you-knock-bang-to-get-their?id=2211490%3ATopic%3A949104&page=1#comments) (like paceline a very popular site). Let's review the high levels.


A rider is riding in the bike lane, he claims a car swerves into his lane, he knocks on car glass, driver was off-duty cop, driver stops and arrests rider. Poster takes pictures, gets witness testomony and is unable to get info to arrested rider so posts to chainlink

No video evidence, no public apology for the police department and certainly a far more grey area that the video in this thread.


Now let's review the comments on chainlink - 3 pages of comments all in support for the rider and the person who offered to help. Maybe one comment that was somewhat critial.

Here it took the 1st page to be critical of the riders - when there is considerably more proof, shows lives at risk and has a public appology - then we got to "it wasn't that close" - "that wasn't an apology or an admission of anything."

:crap::crap::crap:

A bit (a lot) different than what occurred here.

"Here" a cyclist was riding in the middle of the lane (edit) when he should have moved to the right when he saw that oncoming traffic, but instead he decided that that was a good time to have a drink.

"There" a cyclist was riding in a bike lane and a car swerved into his lane and almost hit him.

[Tony T]

.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/4d44b650a3d001319788005056a9545d

[velomonkey]

Insults and PM's and insulting PM's. I dont know, maybe acting like adults would be nice?

I publicly apologize for my PMs.

MG has been on my mack since day 1. I never pm'd him to fight, that's a bunch of BS. I pm'd him last night and said "just put me on your ignore list already." MG is always on my mack and other people's mack both here and across the hall. It happens.

The other guy I don't know, never knew and asked to be on his ignore list. Then he called me an ass in the forum so I swore back over PM. Shouldn't have done that - not cool - I apologize.

[velomonkey]

A bit (a lot) different than what occurred here.

"Here" a cyclist was riding in the middle of the road when he should have moved to the right when he saw that oncoming traffic, but instead he decided that that was a good time to have a drink.

"There" a cyclist was riding in a bike lane and a car swerved into his lane and almost hit him.

Sorry man, just gonna have to disagree. Also, the "middle of the road" is not the same as the "middle of the lane" - big distinction. There is nothing to indicate the rider was in the middle of the road.

But if you want to see one as a crime against a rider (with no evidence) and the other as not (with evidence and an public admission) then you for sure can.

[Tony T]

Sorry man, just gonna have to disagree. Also, the "middle of the road" is not the same as the "middle of the lane" - big distinction. There is nothing to indicate the rider was in the middle of the road.

But if you want to see one as a crime against a rider (with no evidence) and the other as not (with evidence and an public admission) then you for sure can.

Yes, I meant middle of the lane (as indicated by the pic's posted in this thead), sorry for the confusion, I'll edit that.

Still, comparing "this" to "that" is comparing apples and oranges.

To me it would seem to be responsible behavior for a cyclist to move to the right when he sees oncoming traffic (unless he is certain that there is no car approaching from behind). This would be similar to "that" other rider that was riding in a bike lane (not the middle of the road, err… lane)

Also, there was no public admission by the driver, the admission was by someone in the PD (also a big distinction)

And yes, the driver was also in the wrong (as I had previously said).

[fuzzalow]

Wow, too bad this went cluster, there were enough mistakes made by either party that nobody had any call or claim to higher ground.

There were actions and decisions made that I would have done differently were I either the cyclist or the motorist. And the reason the actions actually taken by "Changing Diabetes cyclist" and Police-Cruiser were so screwed up and stupid is that they were actions "correct" in their own limited sense as applicable only to themselves, as cyclist and motorist, but incorrect as a response to the bigger picture. This video illustrated the contradictions and compromises needed but not carried out by either parties. Being in the right about something also means a person understands why and what are the rationales behind laws and proper actions and having the judgement and self restraint to modify one's own actions accordingly, as necessary and required. I assume that goes with the turf in being a thinking adult but here both the cyclist and the cop were stupid because they both were inflexible in their reaction and response to a traffic situation. All the while fulfilling what each saw as their obligation to the law and to each other as mixed vehicles on a public roadway.

The cyclist was technically correct about his legal right to ride two abreast and also to the practical experience of "taking the lane" to avoid being squeezed/sideswiped by overtaking traffic on a narrow roadway. But doing this, even if technically correct, was wrong and ignorant of the perception given to others as to being a responsible, mature, safe & courteous rider. This rider should have been in single file but instead behaved like a entitled douchebag which could only come across to the general public as an arrogant, unsafe entitled prick as cyclists are often seen to be. The road was narrow. He should have been riding in single file to show responsible action that he was cooperating and contributing to creating a safer traffic condition for not just himself but for all parties involved in that instants traffic scenario. So that everybody can get through safely and that everybody wins. However no self restraint was exercised by this imbecile rider in this situation and it plays out as militancy in further poisoning the public's attitude towards cyclists.

The LEO was completely wrong as in violation of statute pertaining to GA's three foot passing law. And on that basis alone did the PD apologize because they, in the representation of LEO/Police Cruiser, could not be seen as ignorant and scofflaw to GA statute.

But the LEO drives a car as stupidly and as unskilled as most motorists. And because the adherence to the solid-double-yellow roadway marking is not inviolate - if you are going to pass safely it is prudent to allow a greater clearance rather than to buzz the rider. The narrowness of the roadway means the car enters the opposing lane to pass so there is no reason not to use ALL of the opposing roadway if neccesary. The priority is safety on the road NOT obeying the yellow line by sneaking over only by just a little bit in making a passing manoeuver. Any driver making a pass on any roadway must execute with decisiveness and commitment - don't screw around - hit the throttle hard and give plenty of space - get the pass done.

There is subtlety and nuance in everything which is why many end up not having a clue. Sorry about the length of this post.

[velomonkey]

To me it would seem to be responsible behavior for a cyclist to move to the right when he sees oncoming traffic (unless he is certain that there is no car approaching from behind). This would be similar to "that" other rider that was riding in a bike lane (not the middle of the road)


I understand the rider wasn't fully to the right - or as right as he could or should have been (something that would have benefitted him). However, that is no excuse to pass too closely and that was confirmed by the police. I'm sure you've noticed that police are getting filmed and in vast majority of instances they don't offer any public apology - they did here, without any ambiguity.

I get on a micro-level there is stuff the rider should have done, but on a macro level the cop was in the wrong.

one would think since when a rider does wrong they risk their own life and limb - and when a driver does wrong they risk the rider's life and limb - and that this is a bike board - one would think the rider gets the benefit of the doubt (especially with such video evidence and a public apology). BTW, seen plenty of dudes in cities get way too aggressive knocking on car windows even when they ride to close to a car. However, as a rule I only did it or do it when it gets really bad and a car comes on me, not me on a car.

Guess I am wrong - I've certainly been wrong before and will be wrong again.

[Tony T]

The cyclist was technically correct about his legal right to ride two abreast.

Good post, but according to the laws of his state, he does not have a legal right to ride two abreast
(I disagree with that, but it is the law in GA)

[Tony T]

I get on a micro-level there is stuff the rider should have done, but on a macro level the cop was in the wrong.


Yes, I've said (in most, but not every one of my posts here) that the cop was also in the wrong.

[fuzzalow]

Good post, but according to the laws of his state, he does not have a legal right to ride two abreast
(I disagree with that, but it is the law in GA)

Yeah, you are correct. I missed your earlier post quoting GA DMV statute. So the imbecile cyclist is now a bigger imbecile. Just kidding but only a little, he's still an imbecile.

Practically speaking, cyclist often ride two abreast. Whether the law allows it or not, IMO most people won't go apesh_t over whether a cyclist does this or not if proper courtesy is show to others as to not be a burden & bother to others in riding two abreast. So applying a little common sense goes a long way.

C'mon people, I'm a cyclist too, whose side do ya think I'm on? But jeepers this self immolation we do is embarrassing. So when the general public craps all over us, it is hard not to think we deserve some of it and have brought it down on ourselves. It is not self loathing, it is the disappointment and reality that we cannot manage ourselves to advance as a group to get where we wanna go.

[marciero]

The law prohibits "more than two abreast" so two abreast is legal.

[fuzzalow]

Good post, but according to the laws of his state, he does not have a legal right to ride two abreast
(I disagree with that, but it is the law in GA)

The law prohibits "more than two abreast" so two abreast is legal.

Hey, Tony T gave me the stutter step and head fake and I fell for it! I DID read the quoted statute correctly the first time!

No matter, the imbecile rider needs to play the game better, even if it is all politics and all show to move into single file on a narrow road with "car back"...duh!

[velomonkey]

OK, cause I was confused, too.

For the record: GA it is legal to ride two abreast.

[cderalow]

Why is it wrong to ride two abreast? Locals there say it is legal. If you are impeding a lot of traffic, it is good to be considerate, but that isn't the same thing.

It's legal to ride two abreast. You need to wait to safely to pass, whether it's a group of bikers or a slower car. No one owns the road. We all pay for it. It's a public good. End of story.


The legality of riding two abreast varies by state (and sometimes by jurisdiction even).

Same with crossing or riding double yellow lines to pass slower moving vehicles.

Maryland Stautes:
 Marylandç—´ traffic laws apply to bicycles and motor scooters. (TRｧ21-1202)
A person riding a bicycle shall ride as close to the right side of the road as practicable and safe,
except when:
o Making or attempting to make a left turn;
o Operating on a one-way street;
o Passing a stopped or slower moving vehicle;
o Avoiding pedestrians or road hazards;
o The right lane is a right turn only lane; or
o Operating in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle to travel safely side-by-side within
the lane (TRｧ21-1205).
 Where there is a bike lane, a person must use those and not ride a bicycle or motor scooter in
the roadway except: (TRｧ21-1205.1)
o If passing safely cannot be done within the bike lane or shoulder;
o When preparing for a left turn;
o To avoid hazards; or
o When the bike lane is also a right-turn or merge lane.

Maryland law prohibits vehicles from operating two abreast in a single traffic lane.

[shovelhd]

Yes, I've said (in most, but not every one of my posts here) that the cop was also in the wrong.

Same here, even if he was responding to a silent call. Cops have to take reasonable precautions while doing their job. They can't just throw all the laws out the window and endanger the public wantonly.

That said, riding in a manner that is least disruptive to other road users is just the right thing to do. Taking the lane is a tactic that needs to be used with a great deal of discretion, as it can put all road users in danger.

[marciero]

It is always easy to dissect these types of events-accidents/near accidents, terrorist attacks, etc-after the fact. And it always seems so obvious in hindsight what should have/could have been done differently. But these types of analyses dont often seem to prevent future occurrences. (This is one of the main premises of Nassim Taleb's book Black Swan)

Having said that, my take is:
For sure, as others have pointed out, there were things both LEO and cyclist could have done differently to mitigate this. But I think it was poor judgement rather than intentional on part of the cop- he had to squeeze over due to the oncoming car. He should have waited for the oncoming lane to be clear before passing. And if the cyclist had not inadvertently swerved left it would not have been quite so close and we may not be having this discussion.

[marciero]

Taking the lane is a tactic that needs to be used with a great deal of discretion, as it can put all road users in danger.

Absolutely. And I think applies almost exclusively to single riders or very small groups, in very specific types of situations.

[Zoodles]

That the rider moved left (ya not the right time to take a drink) is exactly the reason he should have been given more room, moving objects are somewhat unpredictable. A driver wouldn't 'squeeze' by another car in case it adjust position and, obviously, neither should it squeeze by a bike.

I'd suggest reading the NC doc linked to earlier, it wisely points out that a double pace line is more obvious, takes less time to pass, and forces other traffic to pas safely rather than squeeze by.

[djg21]

Hey, Tony T gave me the stutter step and head fake and I fell for it! I DID read the quoted statute correctly the first time!

No matter, the imbecile rider needs to play the game better, even if it is all politics and all show to move into single file on a narrow road with "car back"...duh!

You need to consider the entirety of the statute too. Subsection (a) states that:

"Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, except when turning left or avoiding hazards to safe cycling, when the lane is too narrow to share safely with a motor vehicle, when traveling at the same speed as traffic, or while exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction; provided, however, that every person operating a bicycle away from the right side of the roadway shall exercise reasonable care and shall give due consideration to the other applicable rules of the road."

The one rider in the video was not riding as far to the right as practicable and the exceptions enumerated in the statute don't appear to apply. One could argue that the road was too narrow to share safely, but a motorist certainly could have passed safely if the rider was riding to the right side of the road and the incoming lane was clear. This defense would be weak.

Was the cyclist exercising reasonable care? We can disagree, but I don't think so. If the cyclist had been hit and civil litigation resulted, the PD would argue contributory negligence and the cyclist likely would be held partially responsible for any injuries he sustained.

As to "due consideration of other applicable rules of the road," I'm sure GA's vehicle and traffic law prohibits the obstruction of traffic. In summary, riding two abreast in GA appears to be permissible, except when it is not.

In the end, this really isn't about the law, but about common sense and the due consideration and courtesy that should be extended to other users of public roadways irrespective of whether they, or we, are on bicycles or in automobiles.

As I and others have said repeatedly, the LEO here appeared to be driving recklessly. But at least the one cyclist in the video was riding recklessly and acting inconsiderately.

I really don't see what the disagreement here is about. Are we supposed to give a free pass to an inconsiderate and reckless jerk just because he is an inconsiderate and reckless jerk on a bike?

On edit: the other thing I will agree with Velomonkey about is none of us know what happened before the beginning of the 5 seconds of video we saw. I'd like to know how long the LEO was behind the cyclists, if the LEO had signaled to the cyclists that he wanted to pass, how the cyclists responded, etc. I am suspicious as to why only a brief excerpt of the video has been posted to YouTube.

[christian]

As I've said before when this topic has come up, I've always been shocked at how much more space I'm given by passing cars in the rural part of northeastern California I grew up than here in the Bay Area, and I tend to chalk it up to some combination of my being more of an oddity there plus people there already being used to passing slow full-width vehicles like farm equipment, logging trucks, etc.

This is my experience in rural areas as well. I'd love it if motorists just thought I was a really handsome tractor, and treated me as such.

[Tony T]

The law prohibits "more than two abreast" so two abreast is legal.

Yes, you are correct, I misread that.

[zap]

Maryland law prohibits vehicles from operating two abreast in a single traffic lane.

ummm, in Merryland it is legal to ride 2 abreast as long as you are not impeding traffic.

[fuzzalow]

You need to consider the entirety of the statute too. Subsection (a) states that:

"Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, except when turning left or avoiding hazards to safe cycling, when the lane is too narrow to share safely with a motor vehicle, when traveling at the same speed as traffic, or while exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction; provided, however, that every person operating a bicycle away from the right side of the roadway shall exercise reasonable care and shall give due consideration to the other applicable rules of the road."

The one rider in the video was not riding as far to the right as practicable and the exceptions enumerated in the statute don't appear to apply. One could argue that the road was too narrow to share safely, but a motorist certainly could have passed safely if the rider was riding to the right side of the road and the incoming lane was clear. This defense would be weak.

Was the cyclist exercising reasonable care? We can disagree, but I don't think so. If the cyclist had been hit and civil litigation resulted, the PD would argue contributory negligence and the cyclist likely would be held partially responsible for any injuries he sustained.

As to "due consideration of other applicable rules of the road," I'm sure GA's vehicle and traffic law prohibits the obstruction of traffic. In summary, riding two abreast in GA appears to be permissible, except when it is not.

In the end, this really isn't about the law, but about common sense and the due consideration and courtesy that should be extended to other users of public roadways irrespective of whether they, or we, are on bicycles or in automobiles.

As I and others have said repeatedly, the LEO here appeared to be driving recklessly. But at least the one cyclist in the video was riding recklessly and acting inconsiderately.

I really don't see what the disagreement here is about. Are we supposed to give a free pass to an inconsiderate and reckless jerk just because he is an inconsiderate and reckless jerk on a bike?

On edit: the other thing I will agree with Velomonkey about is none of us know what happened before the beginning of the 5 seconds of video we saw. I'd like to know how long the LEO was behind the cyclists, if the LEO had signaled to the cyclists that he wanted to pass, how the cyclists responded, etc. I am suspicious as to why only a brief excerpt of the video has been posted to YouTube.

djg21, forgive me, I don't have any idea what you are trying to say here or what point(s) you are trying to make in quoting me in your post.

It sounds like you are violently agreeing with me in what I think is your reiterating some of what I already posted. Except the incongruent part about the "free pass" for the cyclist nearest the police cruiser in the video - I wasn't suggesting any free pass to this rider and my referral of him as an imbecile was reflective of my judgement of his actions.

Gentlemen, the legality of two abreast has little to do with excusing the stupid riding evidenced in the video. Also, this is not something that somehow looks different in reviewing a video with the benefit of time in hindsight - we make snap decisions all the time whilst riding in traffic. Some of us know what to do and others might make mistakes. But even making mistakes is not a bad thing if the rider is not injured or killed by his mistake AND he learns not repeat making that same mistake.

I called the rider an imbecile because it was a colorful, albeit course, way to describe his riding behaviour in the video. My hope is that he rides in a less imbecilic manner in the future.

[djg21]

djg21, forgive me, I don't have any idea what you are trying to say here or what point(s) you are trying to make in quoting me in your post.

It sounds like you are violently agreeing with me in what I think is your reiterating some of what I already posted. Except the incongruent part about the "free pass" for the cyclist nearest the police cruiser in the video - I wasn't suggesting any free pass to this rider and my referral of him as an imbecile was reflective of my judgement of his actions.

I don't know about "violently" but I agree with virtually all of what you have posted. I was actually pointing out that you were not entirely incorrect in asserting that riding two abreast is unlawful under the applicable GA statute. The answer to the question of whether riding two abreast is lawful in GA, based on the entire statute, appears to be: it depends. :beer:

[fuzzalow]

^ OK, gotcha and roger that. :beer:

I hate to keep harping on this rider, but I can't tell if he flips the cop the bird after getting buzzed. Or simply a "What the heck" wave. This guy is in his own glory every minute he's out on the road, ain't he special!

That's all for me on this one, I've made my points as best as I could so no use beating on this one anymore. See you at the next stop.

[ergott]

I think there is a lot of assumption about what's in front of the rider in question. The cameraman is at least one cyclist in front of the rider in question. There's no confirmation I read/saw that would tell us if there are any other riders also in the second column.

If you can definitively say you know for a fact that the rider in question is the most outboard cyclist of the group then by all means show me.

We are hammering this rider, but I've been in enough pacelines around the eastern seaboard (several states worth) that run a similar degree of tightness between the two columns of riders. He swerved out a little when grabbing the bottle. I challenge anyone on this board to tell me how perfect they are in their riding skills that they have never, ever swerved a little for any reason.

Don't forget, the video started out here. The video isn't long enough to know if anyone called out "car back". You can't always hear a car coming from behind in a paceline. You don't go single file in a large group every time an oncoming vehicle approaches.

Riding two abreast might be logistically impossible on some roads, but not every road. There isn't enough video to prove one way or the other if double column riding is a bad idea (traffic volume, etc.)

https://ergottwheels.smugmug.com/Other/Randoms/i-9CkBqnX/0/L/Paceline%20LEO-L.jpg



What I can opine is that even in single file, a vehicle should not pass while there is also oncoming traffic. As others have stated even passing a single rider, a vehicle should at least partially cross the yellow to safely pass by a margin of 3 feet.

[djg21]

I think there is a lot of assumption about what's in front of the rider in question. The cameraman is at least one cyclist in front of the rider in question. There's no confirmation I read/saw that would tell us if there are any other riders also in the second column.

If you can definitively say you know for a fact that the rider in question is the most outboard cyclist of the group then by all means show me.

We are hammering this rider, but I've been in enough pacelines around the eastern seaboard (several states worth) that run a similar degree of tightness between the two columns of riders. He swerved out a little when grabbing the bottle. I challenge anyone on this board to tell me how perfect they are in their riding skills that they have never, ever swerved a little for any reason.

Don't forget, the video started out here. The video isn't long enough to know if anyone called out "car back". You can't always hear a car coming from behind in a paceline. You don't go single file in a large group every time an oncoming vehicle approaches.

Riding two abreast might be logistically impossible on some roads, but not every road. There isn't enough video to prove one way or the other if double column riding is a bad idea (traffic volume, etc.)

https://ergottwheels.smugmug.com/Other/Randoms/i-9CkBqnX/0/L/Paceline%20LEO-L.jpg



What I can opine is that even in single file, a vehicle should not pass while there is also oncoming traffic. As others have stated even passing a single rider, a vehicle should at least partially cross the yellow to safely pass by a margin of 3 feet.

If you look at the screenshot you posted, there is the bike on which the camera is mounted, and you can see the rear tire of a second bike in the bottom left hand corner. The bike with the camera looks to be approximately halfway between the two bikes behind him, despite having a bike on his right just next to him. It certainly appears that all of the bikes were closer to the road edge than than the cyclist we are discussing, but we obviously cannot see any riders in front of the camera.

Or, the video is being shot from a handheld rather than a camera mounted to the seat-post and there is only one bike in front?

[ergott]

but we obviously cannot see any riders in front of the camera.

If anything it looks like there was a bit of a slowing up front and the rider in question moves outside momentarily since he's a bit half wheeled. Cameras are usually mounted under the saddle so he's closer to the camera bike than it looks.

Fun for me to dissect this few seconds of video without getting all cranked up.

It's bad timing that the rider is as far out as he is the moment the vehicle passes. If we were to look at this video and there was no car I don't think anyone would even mention the distance between the side by side riders. Would love to see the longer clip both before and after.

[zap]

I think there is a lot of assumption about what's in front of the rider in question. The cameraman is at least one cyclist in front of the rider in question. There's no confirmation I read/saw that would tell us if there are any other riders also in the second column.

If you can definitively say you know for a fact that the rider in question is the most outboard cyclist of the group then by all means show me.

We are hammering this rider, but I've been in enough pacelines around the eastern seaboard (several states worth) that run a similar degree of tightness between the two columns of riders. He swerved out a little when grabbing the bottle. I challenge anyone on this board to tell me how perfect they are in their riding skills that they have never, ever swerved a little for any reason.

Don't forget, the video started out here. The video isn't long enough to know if anyone called out "car back". You can't always hear a car coming from behind in a paceline. You don't go single file in a large group every time an oncoming vehicle approaches.

Riding two abreast might be logistically impossible on some roads, but not every road. There isn't enough video to prove one way or the other if double column riding is a bad idea (traffic volume, etc.)

Agreed.

This is an interesting thread. It has been clear (to me) for some time that some here in The Paceline are not exactly cyclists with varied group experience.
I could go on.......but I'm heading out for a ride now.

[LegendRider]

FWIW

Although I don't know what road this occurred on, it's important to note that Milton, GA is the very outer reaches of metro Atlanta. I would describe it as a rural area that is being suburbanized as Atlanta's growth continues. Also, it's popular with the horse crowd and there lots of big homes on sprawling lots - in other words, not densely populated.

Some roads there are so untravelled that riding two abreast while chatting with your riding partners is no problem. It would be wise to remain single file irrespective of GA law on other roads in Milton.

[Gummee]

Riding 2 abreast. It is safer for the cyclists.

For your reading pleasure.

http://www.bikewalknc.org/2015/04/why-cyclists-ride-two-abreast/

Vimeo link (https://vimeo.com/136215353) (cause they have a tendency to autoplay)

Its actually safer to be 2-wide, yet...

M

[cat6]

Vimeo link (https://vimeo.com/136215353) (cause they have a tendency to autoplay)

Its actually safer to be 2-wide, yet...

M

Likely a lot of veins rising on the foreheads of the hall monitors here when watching such an extreme video.

[beeatnik]

Hey, if a kid curses (haha, anachronism) and his pops smacks him in the face or simply calls him a dirty POS, is the father in the wrong? Here's my deal, I drive a car and I live in the United States of America. And in the USA, drivers have to meet a higher standard (have you folks driven in Tijuana, Mexico or Beijing, China), which is to say that whether or not a pedestrian or a cyclist or a golden retriever is being a "douchebag" on the highway, I have a responsibility to not be a "douchebag" driver. It starts and ends there.

Check out these groovy Los Angeles pics:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/628/20981841323_4d04e1d781_o.jpg
Rapha Model Ben L
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/280/19728648721_73a18c1330_o.jpg
The World Famous Rose Bowl Ride
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/420/19728650381_8df6638a1d_o.jpg[

We own the Road
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/341/18691606174_719ed9159e_o.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3681/19127983099_017571951c_o.jpg

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5756/21455579334_2dfca90df6_b.jpg


https://farm1.staticflickr.com/262/18653883843_f9578f85bf_b.jpg

[mg2ride]

I have a responsibility to not be a "douchebag" driver. It starts and ends there.


No it doesn't. You also have the responsibility not to be a douchebag cyclist. Many roadies don't seem to get that.

[rustychisel]

sheesh.... Fear & self-loathing.

Are some of you guys even sure there's anything about being a cyclist that you like or endorse?

[cat6]

sheesh.... Fear & self-loathing.

Are some of you guys even sure there's anything about being a cyclist that you like or endorse?

Photos of bikes leaning on garage doors.

[Dustin]

sheesh.... Fear & self-loathing.



Are some of you guys even sure there's anything about being a cyclist that you like or endorse?


Yes, it's like some kind of car culture Stockholm syndrome.

[Gummee]

Likely a lot of veins rising on the foreheads of the hall monitors here when watching such an extreme video.

There's another one before this one. Boardman is a bigwig in UK cycling advocacy these days. Top Gear cycling spoof vid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OYeYgiHBdwQ)


Anyone for some lighthearted fun?

M

[Gummee]

No it doesn't. You also have the responsibility not to be a douchebag cyclist. Many roadies don't seem to get that.

I *for one* refuse to ride like a scared bunny. If I need the lane to stay safe, I'm taking the lane.

If there's a corner coming and I can't see around it, I'm going to 'ride wide' till I can see that its safe

If I'm coming up to the crest of a hill, I'm going to wide again till I can see if its safe

If that makes me a douchebag cyclist, then so be it. I'd rather be visible/'in the way' if it keeps people from making bad decisions around me that may impact my safety.

M

[mg2ride]

There's another one before this one. Boardman is a bigwig in UK cycling advocacy these days. Top Gear cycling spoof vid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OYeYgiHBdwQ)


Anyone for some lighthearted fun?

M
Lol, that is good stuff.

I must admit I often plan my routes with mostly right turns for that very reason.

I'm going to slap some tooth paste on my balls before my next ride to see if it makers me fell safer. It would seem that for many "feeling" safe is all that matters.

[mg2ride]

...
If there's a corner coming and I can't see around it, I'm going to 'ride wide' till I can see that its safe

If I'm coming up to the crest of a hill, I'm going to wide again till I can see if its safe...



I honestly don't get these two.

How does taking your lane make you safer when you can't see what is coming in the on coming lanes?

[Gummee]

I honestly don't get these two.

How does taking your lane make you safer when you can't see what is coming in the on coming lanes?

Makes people think about how far into the other lane they're going to be when they get to said blind corner or to the crest of the hill and seems to influence their decision to not pass.

I've tried riding 'as far right as possible' like the drivers seem to want us to ride. Without fail, I get more people passing me unsafely that way than I do being on the left side of the right tire track and making myself 'wide.'

M

[djg21]

I *for one* refuse to ride like a scared bunny. If I need the lane to stay safe, I'm taking the lane.

If there's a corner coming and I can't see around it, I'm going to 'ride wide' till I can see that its safe

If I'm coming up to the crest of a hill, I'm going to wide again till I can see if its safe

If that makes me a douchebag cyclist, then so be it. I'd rather be visible/'in the way' if it keeps people from making bad decisions around me that may impact my safety.

M

I think the functional word in your post is "need." I'm all for taking up a lane and making myself visible when it is necessary. I do it all the time when taking a left turn, on single-lane bridges where I don't want cars to attempt to pass, etc. But I will not impede traffic where autos could pass safely in the travel lane or by momentarily moving into the oncoming lane.

I'd bet most of us are drivers. I'd bet most of us, while driving, have come across cyclists acting like buffoons and thought ···. I know I have, and it probably pisses me off more than most drivers because I'd like to think I know how to behave when riding my bicycle.

[mg2ride]

Makes people think about how far into the other lane they're going to be when they get to said blind corner or to the crest of the hill and seems to influence their decision to not pass.

I've tried riding 'as far right as possible' like the drivers seem to want us to ride. Without fail, I get more people passing me unsafely that way than I do being on the left side of the right tire track and making myself 'wide.'

M

Got it! Used judiciously, this makes complete sense.

Thanks for explaining.

[Gummee]

I think the functional word in your post is "need." I'm all for taking up a lane and making myself visible when it is necessary. I do it all the time when taking a left turn, on single-lane bridges where I don't want cars to attempt to pass, etc. But I will not impede traffic where autos could pass safely in the travel lane or by momentarily moving into the oncoming lane. I agree. I'm pretty narrow when its safe.

If it isn't safe, I'm not moving till it is.

I'd bet most of us are drivers. I'd bet most of us, while driving, have come across cyclists acting like buffoons and thought ï½·ï½·ï½·. I know I have, and it probably pisses me off more than most drivers because I'd like to think I know how to behave when riding my bicycle.One thing most people forget is that the lane's the cyclist's till its safe to go around. If there's 'unsafe conditions' that they can see that your average driver can't it can come across as 'douchebag.' I know I've been avoiding cracks in the pavement, gravel, glass, etc and have had people aggravated at me.

I don't ask cagers to drive thru potholes, yet I'm supposed to ride over/thru em on my $1k wheels and tires?!

M

[ergott]

I have a few roads I avoid. Case in point.

One road is up hill with 2 lanes in each direction. Not only is there no shoulder, there's curb so there's no margin of error, I have to take at least 3 feet out of that lane. That's where the difficult decision comes. If I keep it tight against curb I will definitely have cars pass me close enough to feel their exhaust against my legs when they pass. If I take the lane I will get not only verbally assaulted, I have had drivers swerve in on me just to show me who's boss.

Technically, I have the right to the lane. Heck, there's even another lane to pass me, but that's not enough for some people. I impede them by all of 10-15 seconds and feel their wrath.

It's a shame really, but the wise cyclist will avoid the whole scenario in first place. You have to remind yourself that this is still just a hobby/lifestyle. I do have the option of a car or another route if my life depends on it and it does.

[weisan]

I really have no bone in this fight.

However, because of the attention it's getting, I want to share something that I have used with great effect on my ride to improve my odds against passing traffic coming from behind, hopefully it will benefit my pals here in terms of personal safety, maybe even save some lives.

But first, just to be clear, I have no "scientific data" to back me up except it seems to work at least 90-95% of the time based purely on my own personal experience.

And secondly, this method predicates on the fact that you are ALREADY hyper-aware of your surroundings and can see or hear an approaching vehicle or cyclist.

With that, without further ado....:D

Meh, hate to be dramatic about this, it's really quite simple...as a car or a cyclist is approaching from the back, say within 15 meters or so (shorter for cyclist), and the distance is important - don't wait till they get too close and also don't "execute the move" too soon when they are still far out because the goal here is to catch their attention and allow them time to react or respond.

What's the "move" I am talking about?

Simply, turn your head briefly to the left about 20 degrees. You are not really looking at the back so don't turn all the way. It's the movement of your head that is important and don't move too fast. What you want to do is make it very deliberate so that the driver or the cyclist took notice or saw your head moving to the left. You can do it several times ...

Our natural human response to seeing someone moving their head is:

"Oh, he or she knows I am coming..."

What is happening at that instance is a mutual acknowledgment of our personal space.

Rider: "I know you are coming..."
Driver or cyclist: "Oh, Ok..."

The minute that link is established, the driver or the cyclist would register something in their head and mechanically, their body will automatically respond and start to make the necessary course correction to avoid "violating your personal space" --- in other words, crashing into you! :D

And normally, what I have found is - if you do this at the right timing or distance, by the time they reached you, they would have already steered quite a bit away from you to give you that comfortable safety distance, essentially giving you a wider berth than otherwise. And if there's an incoming traffic on the opposite side, the driver behind will also tend to wait out before it's safe to pass at a greater distance away from you or at the very least, if they are the impatient type, they will sloooow down as they pass, again, a testament to the fact that they have registered in their brain of your existence and your claim to that personal space.

You can choose to use this method...or not. I don't have a patent on it. ;)
It works for me most of the time except on best-in-class jerks. :eek: :beer:

[brockd15]

I *for one* refuse to ride like a scared bunny. If I need the lane to stay safe, I'm taking the lane.

If there's a corner coming and I can't see around it, I'm going to 'ride wide' till I can see that its safe

If I'm coming up to the crest of a hill, I'm going to wide again till I can see if its safe

If that makes me a douchebag cyclist, then so be it. I'd rather be visible/'in the way' if it keeps people from making bad decisions around me that may impact my safety.

M

Right on.

This is the way I ride and the way I think most "cyclists" do ride. Be courteous to drivers as much as possible, but not to the point that it puts you at risk to avoid their inconvenience. When there's room, and most of the time there is, I stay to the right to let cars get around. In those situations where there's not room I'll take the lane. When I can move over I do, and I usually give a little wave, just for good measure.

On another note, yesterday I had a clueless guy in a compact buzz me and then right hook me. Then I got buzzed really close by a bus, and I'm pretty sure that one was intentional. Then I had a truck almost run me into a curb and smoosh me because he wanted to turn right. And this morning it rained (in CA!) and I don't have fenders on, so I get to work looking like I had an accident in my shorts!

But, at least it's Friday.

[ergott]

@Weisan

I agree. Making pointed eye contact "looking through the glass" is a good move. Works when people are coming out of streets and driveways to your right. I don't simply look through the corner of my eye. I turn my head right at them and stare until I get confirmation that they either see me and are waiting or I have to take evasive action.

[Tony T]

@Weisan

I agree. Making pointed eye contact "looking through the glass" is a good move. Works when people are coming out of streets and driveways to your right. I don't simply look through the corner of my eye. I turn my head right at them and stare until I get confirmation that they either see me and are waiting or I have to take evasive action.

I do that, as well as standing out of the saddle.

[djg21]

It's nice to see that that vitriol in this thread, which I still don't understand as there really doesn't appear to have been much disagreement, has subsided and there can actually be a constructive discussion of cycling safety issues.

[cinema]

Simply, turn your head briefly to the left about 20 degrees. You are not really looking at the back so don't turn all the way. It's the movement of your head that is important and don't move too fast. What you want to do is make it very deliberate so that the driver or the cyclist took notice or saw your head moving to the left. You can do it several times ...



I found this to be very effective as well and do it like 50 times a day. Often I am riding to hollywood from the valley and back and have to take a busy, two lane street with no shoulder and a little bit of elevation called the cahuenga pass. There is literally no other way to get into the city unless i go twice as far out of my way. It's very effective there even though I often have the tendency to take the lane.

I also want to add, though I may get chewed out for it here, that a little swerve, a little movement left and right helps a lot to make the motorist think you are incapable of holding a line and they will pass safely.

[Dustin]

I found this to be very effective as well and do it like 50 times a day. Often I am riding to hollywood from the valley and back and have to take a busy, two lane street with a little bit of elevation called the cahuenga pass. There is literally no other way to get into the city unless i go twice as far out of my way. It's very effective there even though I often have the tendency to take the lane.

I also want to add, though I may get chewed out for it here, that a little swerve, a little movement left and right helps a lot to make the motorist think you are incapable of holding a line and they will pass safely.


Reminds me of that study where drivers tended to give a wider berth to cyclists in "normal" looking clothing as opposed to spando-commando racing kit. The theory being that the former is seen as being less predictable, so drivers steer clear of them.

[rugbysecondrow]

I enjoy how the counter point to a popular one must be either a mental issue or that people are just poseurs.

It couldn't be that reasonable people disagree about something on reasonable grounds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cat6]

I enjoy how the counter point to a popular one must be either a mental issue or that people are just poseurs.

It couldn't be that reasonable people disagree about something on reasonable grounds.



It's well noted in the thread that riding two abreast is both legal and likely safer. You disagree with riding two abreast and think the cyclist in the video is a douchebag. That is not reasonable.

[beeatnik]

I also want to add, though I may get chewed out for it here, that a little swerve, a little movement left and right helps a lot to make the motorist think you are incapable of holding a line and they will pass safely.


Petersen [Grant] does however describe something he calls a safety swerve which I think is a throwback to bike driving mentality. The idea is that you mimic an inexperienced rider by executing carefully timed swerves into the traffic lane. Presumably this will startle car drivers and teach them to keep their distance from bike riders. Petersen gets this idea from a British study by Ian Walker et al.

[rugbysecondrow]

It's well noted in the thread that riding two abreast is both legal and likely safer. You disagree with riding two abreast and think the cyclist in the video is a douchebag. That is not reasonable.


You stated a bunch of untrue things to arrive at your conclusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cat6]

You stated a bunch of untrue things to arrive at your conclusion.



You stated an untrue thing in your response to my conclusion.

[beeatnik]

yo, cat6, let's ride two abreast around the World Famous Rose Bowl.

[Tony T]

It's well noted in the thread that riding two abreast is both legal and likely safer. You disagree with riding two abreast and think the cyclist in the video is a douchebag. That is not reasonable.

Since the rider in the video was nearly hit by the passing patrol car, looks like he would have been safer had he not been riding two abreast.

[cat6]

Since the rider in the video was nearly hit by the passing patrol car, looks like he would have been safer had he not been riding two abreast.

Jeez. There is a 3 foot law in the state where the incident occurred. It was the motorist that acted in an unsafe manner. The PD admitted fault. That should be the end of the story.

[rugbysecondrow]

You stated an untrue thing in your response to my conclusion.


Haha. You win Cat.

Everybody else who disagrees with you must be unreasonable.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[djg21]

Jeez. There is a 3 foot law in the state where the incident occurred. It was the motorist that acted in an unsafe manner. The PD admitted fault. That should be the end of the story.

You really should have read the entire thread before posting. So you don't have to, let me summarize (not in order of the posting, but you will get the gist):

1. The PD's statement was not an admission (the term actually is a term of art that has a legal meaning).

2. The cyclist on our right in the very brief video obviously put himself in peril or there would not have been a video in the first place.

3. There are certainly times when it is both safe and lawful to ride two abreast.

4. There are times when riding two abreast is unlawful or dangerous.

5. There are times when riding two abreast is discourteous.

6. There are times when riding two abreast, despite being arguably lawful, is stupid and dangerous.

7. There is virtually universal agreement that the LEO acted somewhat recklessly, and apparently violated the 3-ft rule.

8. Many agree that the cyclist on the right was a squid.

9. Many agree that we cannot be informed of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident from the very short video excerpt available, and that to fully assess the situation it would be helpful to know what was happening before the pass, i.e., was this a rotating paceline, did riders at the back caution the riders in front by yelling "car back,"was the LEO waiting for some time to pass, etc.

10. We all probably can agree that the odds aren't in your favor when you are riding a bicycle and tangle with a 3,000+ vehicle moving at speed.

11. Some (many or most) would agree that it is judicious to use common-sense and discretion in choosing if and when to ride two-abreast.

In response to your post, I'd add:

The fact that the LEO violated a 3-foot law is a separate question from whether it was legal, safe or prudent for the cyclists in the video to ride two-abreast on the road depicted. The road in question had virtually no shoulder, and it appears the cyclists may have been (unreasonably?) impeding traffic (for how long we don't know).

And again, we virtually all agree that the LEO passed too closely. But all the self-righteous indignation in the world is meaningless when you are being scraped off of the windshield of an automobile.

I think I got it all.

[djg21]

And I forgot: you should not use forum PMs to threaten or harass other forum members who disagree with you.

Maybe it's time to acknowledge that reasonable minds may differ and move on! We are beating a very dead horse.

[weisan]

Hey djg pal, you forgot sumthin' :butt:

12. If the cyclist on the right applies the "Head-Turning" technique (patent pending), none of this would have happened and this thread wouldn't exist.

[djg21]

Hey djg pal, you forgot sumthin' :butt:

12. If the cyclist on the right applies the "Head-Turning" technique (patent pending), none of this would have happened and this thread wouldn't exist.

I think Specialized already owns the patent so you may be SOL if you think I'm paying a licensing fee. :D

[cat6]

And I forgot: you should not use forum PMs to threaten or harass other forum members who disagree with you.

Maybe it's time to acknowledge that reasonable minds may differ and move on! We are beating a very dead horse.

I tried to PM you and let you know I think you're a jerk just now but your inbox is full. Are you suggesting that I contacted you prior to my recent attempt or referring to someone else that was able to make it through?

[djg21]

Must have missed your PM, but your opinion is duly noted. I've certainly been called worse things. :)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mg2ride]

You really should have read the entire thread before posting. So you don't have to, let me summarize (not in order of the posting, but you will get the gist):

1. The PD's statement was not an admission (the term actually is a term of art that has a legal meaning).

2. The cyclist on our right in the very brief video obviously put himself in peril or there would not have been a video in the first place.

3. There are certainly times when it is both safe and lawful to ride two abreast.

4. There are times when riding two abreast is unlawful or dangerous.

5. There are times when riding two abreast is discourteous.

6. There are times when riding two abreast, despite being arguably lawful, is stupid and dangerous.

7. There is virtually universal agreement that the LEO acted somewhat recklessly, and apparently violated the 3-ft rule.

8. Many agree that the cyclist on the right was a squid.

9. Many agree that we cannot be informed of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident from the very short video excerpt available, and that to fully assess the situation it would be helpful to know what was happening before the pass, i.e., was this a rotating paceline, did riders at the back caution the riders in front by yelling "car back,"was the LEO waiting for some time to pass, etc.

10. We all probably can agree that the odds aren't in your favor when you are riding a bicycle and tangle with a 3,000+ vehicle moving at speed.

11. Some (many or most) would agree that it is judicious to use common-sense and discretion in choosing if and when to ride two-abreast.

In response to your post, I'd add:

The fact that the LEO violated a 3-foot law is a separate question from whether it was legal, safe or prudent for the cyclists in the video to ride two-abreast on the road depicted. The road in question had virtually no shoulder, and it appears the cyclists may have been (unreasonably?) impeding traffic (for how long we don't know).

And again, we virtually all agree that the LEO passed too closely. But all the self-righteous indignation in the world is meaningless when you are being scraped off of the windshield of an automobile.

I think I got it all.

Amazing Summary.

[shovelhd]

Well said djg.

[gemship]

Amazing Summary.

yes it is an amazing summary but... and there is a big butt. I watched that video and I read a comment that stated exactly where the video was taken in reference to the rider who got buzzed. The thing is I get this feeling that the video gives you the impression things are closer than they appear.

[weisan]

I really have no bone in this fight.

However, because of the attention it's getting, I want to share something that I have used with great effect on my ride to improve my odds against passing traffic coming from behind, hopefully it will benefit my pals here in terms of personal safety, maybe even save some lives.

But first, just to be clear, I have no "scientific data" to back me up except it seems to work at least 90-95% of the time based purely on my own personal experience.

And secondly, this method predicates on the fact that you are ALREADY hyper-aware of your surroundings and can see or hear an approaching vehicle or cyclist.

With that, without further ado....:D

Meh, hate to be dramatic about this, it's really quite simple...as a car or a cyclist is approaching from the back, say within 15 meters or so (shorter for cyclist), and the distance is important - don't wait till they get too close and also don't "execute the move" too soon when they are still far out because the goal here is to catch their attention and allow them time to react or respond.

What's the "move" I am talking about?

Simply, turn your head briefly to the left about 20 degrees. You are not really looking at the back so don't turn all the way. It's the movement of your head that is important and don't move too fast. What you want to do is make it very deliberate so that the driver or the cyclist took notice or saw your head moving to the left. You can do it several times ...

Our natural human response to seeing someone moving their head is:

"Oh, he or she knows I am coming..."

What is happening at that instance is a mutual acknowledgment of our personal space.

Rider: "I know you are coming..."
Driver or cyclist: "Oh, Ok..."

The minute that link is established, the driver or the cyclist would register something in their head and mechanically, their body will automatically respond and start to make the necessary course correction to avoid "violating your personal space" --- in other words, crashing into you! :D

And normally, what I have found is - if you do this at the right timing or distance, by the time they reached you, they would have already steered quite a bit away from you to give you that comfortable safety distance, essentially giving you a wider berth than otherwise. And if there's an incoming traffic on the opposite side, the driver behind will also tend to wait out before it's safe to pass at a greater distance away from you or at the very least, if they are the impatient type, they will sloooow down as they pass, again, a testament to the fact that they have registered in their brain of your existence and your claim to that personal space.

You can choose to use this method...or not. I don't have a patent on it. ;)
It works for me most of the time except on best-in-class jerks. :eek: :beer:

Forgot to mention one other thing which I think is important....

When a driver or cyclist responded positively by giving me a wider berth in passing, I like to give them a friendly wave (car) or verbal "thank you" (cyclist), just to acknowledge them and also build the goodwill towards the next time they see another cyclist on the road...

[beeatnik]

:fight:

[djg21]

yes it is an amazing summary but... and there is a big butt. I watched that video and I read a comment that stated exactly where the video was taken in reference to the rider who got buzzed. The thing is I get this feeling that the video gives you the impression things are closer than they appear.


This was my sense too -- the perspective of the video camera may have made the cruiser appear closer than it actually was. Even so, it probably was too close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tony T]

Could be that the cyclist was surprised he was passed. After all, there was an oncoming car and he "took the road" — what could go wrong?

[shovelhd]

I'm riding with another rider single file today, on a narrow, twisting rural road with no shoulder. We are about 12" out from the road edge as we negotiate the turns. The speed limit is 35 and we are doing at least 32. Two cars are behind wanting to pass, but it would take a skilled driver to do so. We get to the bottom of the hill, pause at the stop sign, and roll into a flat section. Both cars pass us with passengers leaning out the window shouting "Get out of the road!!!".

They hate us out there. That's why every bit of common courtesy is important.

[weisan]

They hate us out there.

no, shovel pal, there were hatred in their hearts...even before you and your friend showed up.

[rugbysecondrow]

I don't think it is hate, there is just a very large contingent of road users who think cyclists have no business riding on the road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tony T]

When I get ahole drivers like that, I have to remember the ones that waved me on at a stop sign or gave me 6 feet when passing.

[Gummee]

I don't think it is hate, there is just a very large contingent of road users who think cyclists have no business riding on the road.
We're riding around on a kid's toy, wearing funny clothing, with even funnier shoes you can't walk in, with pedals you can't get out of.

What's not to like?!

On a serious note: we're a minority/outsider on the road. Its easy to to dislike the outsider. Add to that, if one person does something 'wrong' we're all tarred with the same brush. If one person's riding 'correctly' its an anomaly 'cause 'everyone knows' that all cyclists break the law.

M

[Tony]

I don't think it is hate, there is just a very large contingent of road users who think cyclists have no business riding on the road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, not hate, just ignorance.

[oldpotatoe]

I'm riding with another rider single file today, on a narrow, twisting rural road with no shoulder. We are about 12" out from the road edge as we negotiate the turns. The speed limit is 35 and we are doing at least 32. Two cars are behind wanting to pass, but it would take a skilled driver to do so. We get to the bottom of the hill, pause at the stop sign, and roll into a flat section. Both cars pass us with passengers leaning out the window shouting "Get out of the road!!!".

They hate us out there. That's why every bit of common courtesy is important.

Reality, what a concept. 'Taking the lane' or trying to 'prove' who is 'right'..could be dead right.

I got dusted off, in a wide shoulder, by a RDT bus, right tires about 1 foot to the right of the white line..got bus' number, place, time, date..and I got exactly nothing in response.

Be careful out there.

[Tony T]

About a year ago I got buzzed by a bus — on the back of the bus was a "3 feet, its the law" PSA :)