Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Mercedes driver - bicyclists contretemps
Date: 7 Jan 2025 20:46:25 GMT
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <lu5i51F3u82U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <vlgpfs$1kt7k$2@dont-email.me>
 <vlh1mk$1mo3e$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net dgKVLvdrGn7AfLdOpp6ukwLjh8O0SCYkr1kuz4vIbOVpdjijRs
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y3sW1urZZdV1AaQ81R2GEhAFBGc= sha1:JWMuttit0Xf4/Uv3gTkxqA1Q/Bk= sha256:WdLMYnhWo3GP/lHvalwHTkOeVsutY9JVRSVaMlEwzhI=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Bytes: 3471

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/6/2025 9:31 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> https://ktla.com/news/local-news/mercedez-benz-swerves-aggressively- 
>> through-crowd-of-cyclists-blocking-los-angeles-street/
>> \
> 
> That's interesting, from a legal standpoint. I don't know about 
> California, but I thought some states (not Ohio) restrict cyclists to 
> positions "as far right as practicable" only when "operating at less 
> than the prevailing speed of traffic," or some such phrasing.
> 
> And that limit on the restriction would make sense. If there's no 
> traffic, or if traffic is moving very slowly, there's no reason for a 
> cyclist to be prohibited from using the smoothest portion of the lane.
> 
> But what if the "prevailing speed of traffic" is bicycle speed? In that 
> video, the bicyclists _are_ the prevailing traffic. The assumption that 
> a group of bicyclists has to get out of the way seems at least partly 
> based on the idea that being in a motor vehicle automatically makes a 
> person more important than a cyclist. And that is, of course, a very 
> common attitude. Ask almost any motorist!
> 
The must get in front! Would seem American laws are more car centric from
Jaywalking to this sort of stuff.

The Highway Code 169 does suggest that if your a slow moving vehicle that
if necessary you pull over, but this is intended for heavy goods or trailer
and so on, and even then is could rather than a MUST which is when it’s the
law, hence they suggest you should wear a bike helmet rather than you MUST
with a Motorcycle.

I think only one police officer was unwise enough to attempt to do someone
for holding up traffic decades ago and the case didn’t go well for him!

There is right of passage along a highway though not to park interesting
enough and certainly not at any given speed so, would be difficult to bring
any case, hence protests if they are wise keep moving as along as they are
moving…

> BTW, the printed report says "Riding side-by-side should only be done 
> when it does not impede traffic." The video does better at explaining 
> that, noting that "California law doesn't prohibit riding two abreast..."
> 
> There's a fair amount of discussion of these issues in _Bicycling & The 
> Law_ by Olympian cyclist and lawyer Bob Mionske.
> 
> Yeah, the bicyclists should not have blocked the way. The motorist 
> should not have risked their lives to punish them. Idiocy begets idiocy.
> 
Seems to a big group of cyclists kinda difficult to assume blame on them
unless one knows what they were doing on the face of it doesn’t seem
particularly onerous?

Roger Merriman