[david powers]
>>You can be neither.
[robert parks]
>Bicycle is a vehicle.
Actually as far as California law's concerned, a bicycle is a
"bicycle," not a "vehicle."
The sections of the California Vehicle Code that mention bicycles
(CVC also covers pedestrians, so don't get cute on me with the
"vehicle" part) has a particular section, 21202, which covers where a
bicycle is allowed to ride on the road. (21200 says the bike can and
should use the roadway and obey traffic laws.) Anyway in section
21202, a bike is expected to ride to as far to the right "as
practicable," unless the rider feels sharing the lane is unsafe, or
the rider's preparing to make a left-hand turn, or to keep cars from
cutting the bike off at a possible right-hand turn ahead.
21202 was put in place in the early 70s as a needed safety measure.
What's interesting is that this traffic law establishes safe riding
as a style, not a recommended practice. If people are not taught this
method, in many situations they will be riding dangerously, but
legally they are **waiving their right** to ride in the exceptional
(safe, legal) style of 21202. Motor vehicle drivers are not
responsible, unless they specifically forced the bicycle out of the
way, which is hard to prove.
An individual cyclist who does not have this basic information, and
who is forced by aggressive motorized traffic to share lanes in
situations where it is uncomfortable (and risky), yes that person is
still responsible for how they behave themselves, but come on, why
isn't the state out there teaching people how to do it right? The
answer to that is pretty easy ... riding in a comfortable manner cuts
into car traffic throughput.
(By "comfort" I mean: bicycle rider does not feel threatened; bicycle
rider has space on both sides for emergency maneuvering; bicycle
rider's speed is set by his or her own ability, not by pressure from
motorized traffic.)
My original sort of snide point was, bikes are commonly considered
neither pedestrian nor vehicle. Bikes are in their own zone. Street
designs do not accommodate bike traffic. Everybody has a different
opinion about where and how bicycles should be operated and very few
people know the bicycle-specific laws.
Case in point. How many times do people talk about lights & bright
clothing, or obeying traffic controls? Fairly frequently. That's what
a driver sees of a bicyclist. What is actually done about these
concerns? Nothing. Why: because people who don't now bicycle don't
see bicyclists as members of the same community. Bicycle-car
interactions are classified as Problems with Other People.
>there is an assumption of blame [for the motor vehicle] whenever
>there is contact between a bike and a bus (or other vehicle)
It is very easy for a driver to blame a bicyclist, especially when
the bicyclist is killed. I realize this goes against your
observations of behavior, but I'm talking about real outcome, not
likelihood. All sides need to be weighed equally. When they aren't,
you get situations like the one in Oakland one morning last year:
bicyclist killed on a multi-lane road with little traffic, well after
sunrise -- driver, who was likely speeding, from distance the bicycle
was thrown, said "I couldn't see the bike in the dark, it had a black
*frame*," (my emphasis) and the cop accepted that and let the driver
go.
I would say, if you are angry about how this shakes out in
investigations, you should be angry that there is no ongoing bike use
education program in San Francisco, or California. I am *sure* that
is where the problem lies. Individual behavior that is as widespread
as you describe is crying out for better public information programs,
which are again part of municipal and state governments taking bikes
seriously in many other, related ways.
Those will not happen without citizen pressure: the highway and oil
lobbies can kill bike funding pretty fast. Maybe less fast now with a
Demo government but who knows.
>Neat bicyclist trick...pull up alongside a bus at a light, grab the
>mirror to steady yourself, push off to get a jump on the green light
>(also keeps bus from moving as the mirror is readjusted).
Never seen this! Very cute. Who does this one?
>re: 2) you are far safer assuming that every bicyclist will violate
>traffic controls/laws.
This is true as a bicyclist, or pedestrian, also. You made that point
before and I think it's very good. One reason I'm a better driver for
my bicycling is that bicycling in S.F. means learning to guess which
way a particular car is headed (it won't tell you; it won't see you;
it *will* hurt you).
>Well under 10% [of bicyclists] signal.
Yeah, few riders signal. I do it but even then I have to be choosy,
because signaling means taking a hand off the handlebars. Do I feel
comfortable having a little less control of the bike, considering
speed and road conditions? Will people behind me significantly
benefit from having me signal -- in other words, will they be
comfortable reacting to my movement?
Most times if I'm heading left I signal, out of fear for my own skin.
Heading right usually just means getting out of someone's way, so I
choose to keep control of the turn, instead. Where I can't signal I
wobble my head and make eye contact and that works much better than
it sounds.
What kind of signaling would help you?
One of the frustrations of SF streets is the width of the lanes. Few
streets are wide enough to safely share, and those that are wide
enough probably narrow a couple of blocks ahead. Lots of merging and
unmerging, lots of guessing. It gets tiresome.
[continued in next message]