these special interest groups kill me...

[Duke87]

So wrong for several reasons...

I think we have different ideas as to what the definition of a right hook is. I'm thinking of a situation where the car has passed the bike, is in front of the bike, but then slows down to make a right turn and, by the time he does so, the bike has caught back up and is directly in his path. In this situation the cyclist should see what the car is doing (since he was behind the car) and if he blatantly flies by the to the right of the car oblivious to the fact that it is looking to turn right, he is biking irresponsibly.

If you have a situation where a car pulls up alongside a bike and then makes a right turn straight into it without ever having been in front of it, then it's blatant obliviousness on the driver's part and the cyclist cannot be blamed. But my understanding is that this is not the most common scenario.


As for going left around the turning car, there is nothing poor about it so long as there is space to do so that doesn't put you in oncoming traffic or, if there are multiple lanes going one way, the left lane is clear. You move left the same exact way when looking to make a left turn.

[Special K]

So wrong for several reasons...

I think we have different ideas as to what the definition of a right hook is. I'm thinking of a situation where the car has passed the bike, is in front of the bike, but then slows down to make a right turn and, by the time he does so, the bike has caught back up and is directly in his path. In this situation the cyclist should see what the car is doing (since he was behind the car) and if he blatantly flies by the to the right of the car oblivious to the fact that it is looking to turn right, he is biking irresponsibly.

If you have a situation where a car pulls up alongside a bike and then makes a right turn straight into it without ever having been in front of it, then it's blatant obliviousness on the driver's part and the cyclist cannot be blamed. But my understanding is that this is not the most common scenario.

I haven't seen any statistics regarding the most common right-hook scenario and because of the fluidity of the situation, I would be skeptical of any report of hard numbers, regardless.

The textbook operation of a successful right-turn movement of a motorist vs. a through-moving cyclist would be one of two ways:
1) The motorist fully overtakes the cyclist, signals the turn and moves to the right side of the lane before making the turn. or
2) The motorist allows the cyclist to continue through the intersection before making the right turn.

In either of these two operations, the cyclist should move farther to the left of the lane to make clear his intention to continue straight.  This will also make the overtaking vehicle more conscious of the presence of the cyclist and take more care to *fully* overtake.

A right-hook collision happens when any one of these variables is not fully met.  Maybe the motorist just barely overtakes the cyclist before immediately making the turn.  Maybe the motorist doesn't signal.  Maybe the cyclist brazenly passes to the right of the motorist. 

Like I said, I haven't seen hard numbers to support this, but my own experience leads me to believe it's most often when a cyclist is left with too little time to react to the right-turning vehicle.

[vdeane]

Most bikes I've seen have been in the shoulder (or sidewalks) when there is one (I think this is a Rochester quirk) and I've never, ever seen one moving faster than 10mph (though I understand bikes can move faster); at that speed, they should be able to react to pretty much any right turn unless the motorist slams on his breaks fast enough to leave tire marks.

Fixed for you.

So when you drive, you cut off trucks while going down a hill, or position yourself along side a truck making a right turn?  If so, you're an accident waiting to happen.

There are good and bad drivers, but all cyclists and peds are self-absorbed pricks?  Using these generalities, it seems it's you who is inflexible.

Read my post again; I didn't use the word "all" even once.  The ped/bike lobbyists act this way though (which I should have specified, since when I don't specify I mean "in general", as does anyone else who isn't absorbed in political correctness, but I was half asleep).

[NE2]

Most bikes I've seen have been in the shoulder (or sidewalks) when there is one (I think this is a Rochester quirk) and I've never, ever seen one moving faster than 10mph (though I understand bikes can move faster); at that speed, they should be able to react to pretty much any right turn unless the motorist slams on his breaks fast enough to leave tire marks.

You're completely wrong.

Fixed for you.

So when you drive, you cut off trucks while going down a hill, or position yourself along side a truck making a right turn?  If so, you're an accident waiting to happen.

I don't pull over to let a truck pass.

There are good and bad drivers, but all cyclists and peds are self-absorbed pricks?  Using these generalities, it seems it's you who is inflexible.

Read my post again; I didn't use the word "all" even once.  The ped/bike lobbyists act this way though (which I should have specified, since when I don't specify I mean "in general", as does anyone else who isn't absorbed in political correctness, but I was half asleep).

You seem absorbed in the political correctness of driving.

[D-Dey65]

I don't pull over to let a truck pass.

Then deanej is right about you. You should give trucks the right of way for the same reason you do it for trains.

[NE2]

I don't pull over to let a truck pass.

Then deanej is right about you. You should give trucks the right of way for the same reason you do it for trains.

The fuck?

[D-Dey65]

The fuck?

You said you don't pull over to let trucks pass. That's a dangerous move on your part. They're bigger than you, have bigger engines, and need more room to stop and slow down. There have been tons of accidents where drivers pull out in front of trucks, and they ended up getting killed. The 1994 accident/tanker fire on the Long Island Expressway at the Sagtikos State Parkway that almost melted the Sagtikos overpass was caused by somebody who pulled out in front of a truck.

[NE2]

The fuck?

You said you don't pull over to let trucks pass. That's a dangerous move on your part. They're bigger than you, have bigger engines, and need more room to stop and slow down. There have been tons of accidents where drivers pull out in front of trucks, and they ended up getting killed. The 1994 accident/tanker fire on the Long Island Expressway at the Sagtikos State Parkway that almost melted the Sagtikos overpass was caused by somebody who pulled out in front of a truck.

The fuck?

[Special K]

The fuck?

You said you don't pull over to let trucks pass. That's a dangerous move on your part. They're bigger than you, have bigger engines, and need more room to stop and slow down. There have been tons of accidents where drivers pull out in front of trucks, and they ended up getting killed. The 1994 accident/tanker fire on the Long Island Expressway at the Sagtikos State Parkway that almost melted the Sagtikos overpass was caused by somebody who pulled out in front of a truck.

The fuck?

+1.  I'm not following any of this.

[J N Winkler]

Just a few observations from an experienced cyclist who commuted by bicycle for ten years:

*  Hooks (which I understand to mean situations where a car driver makes a turn and forces a cyclist on his nearside to make the turn with him) are nearly always a result of inattentive driving (i.e., the car driver being unaware that he has a cyclist on his flank), not some kind of overtaking maneuver where one party has failed to show due courtesy to the other.  It is sometimes suggested that hooks would not occur if cyclists queued at signals as if they were cars, but motorists would not like it if cyclists actually did this because it would hold up cars waiting behind cyclists, prevent them from getting to the detector loops in time to extend the green, and result in multiple-cycle waits.  Motorists waiting behind cyclists at an advanced stop line may have to wait a little longer for cyclists to clear the intersection, but at least the location of the detector loops works in their favor and their chances of getting through the intersection without a multiple-cycle wait are better.

*  A healthy adult cyclist riding a bicycle whose frame size is correctly matched to his inseam length, with the seat adjusted correctly, and in conditions favorable enough to permit smooth running, will generally be cruising in high gear at speeds well in excess of 10 MPH.  I never actually splashed out for a speed measurement device, but when the speed trailers were out in Oxford, I usually registered speeds of around 18 MPH in the absence of significant headwinds.  It is a recipe for serious (frequently fatal) closed-head injuries to expect cyclists moving at this speed to mix with pedestrians on a sidewalk.

*  Read the Kurt Vonnegut short story "Harrison Bergeron" to understand why it is unworkable to expect Freds (serious utility cyclists) to abide by the same car-friendly expectations as far less confident leisure cyclists.

[D-Dey65]

The fuck?

+1.  I'm not following any of this.

How can this not make any sense to either of you? You endanger your life and the lives of others when you pull out in front of trucks. The anti-highway lobby does the same thing when they say they want to make driving more difficult under the guise of being pedestrian/bicycle friendly because they think cars and trucks are the cause of all the problems in the world.

[Special K]

The fuck?

+1.  I'm not following any of this.

How can this not make any sense to either of you? You endanger your life and the lives of others when you pull out in front of trucks. The anti-highway lobby does the same thing when they say they want to make driving more difficult under the guise of being pedestrian/bicycle friendly because they think cars and trucks are the cause of all the problems in the world.

Who's pulling out in front of trucks?

[Grzrd]

inattentive driving (i.e., the car driver being unaware that he has a cyclist on his flank)

I have a question regarding visibility of cyclists.  In Georgia, bicyclists are required to use lights at night, but are not required to do so during the day.  In contrast, motorcyclists are required to run their headlights during all hours, presumably for greater visibility and theoretically greater safety.

Do any jurisdictions require bicyclists to run their lights during daylight hours?  Further, should bicyclists be required to use lights during all hours?

[Special K]

inattentive driving (i.e., the car driver being unaware that he has a cyclist on his flank)

I have a question regarding visibility of cyclists.  In Georgia, bicycles are required to use lights at night, but are not required to do so during the day.  In contrast, motorcycles are required to run their headlights during all hours, presumably for greater visibility and theoretically greater safety.

Do any jurisdicitions require bicycles to run their lights during daylight hours?  Further, should cyclists be required to use lights during all hours?

1) I'm not aware of any.

2) Possibly.  The vehicle codes of a lot of states have some catching up to do in regards to bicycle use.  Remember, though, that the lights on motorcycles and those on bikes have very different illumination capabilities.  I'm not sure how much visibility is gained from running day lights on a bike.

[agentsteel53]

add another "the fuck" to this.  if I'm going down a road and there is a truck behind me, I should pull over and let it pass, just in case it decides it's having an "I brake for no one" day??

[Special K]

Read my post again; I didn't use the word "all" even once. 

OK.  Let's have read, shall we?

While good drivers do recognize that they shouldn't cut off trucks, bikes and pedestrians seem to think that all the traffic should bend to their wishes.

Hmm.  You modified your statement about drivers with the word "good", yet didn't modify your statement about cyclists and peds.  I wonder how I made the mistake of thinking you referred to all of them?  Sorry.

[Special K]

add another "the fuck" to this.  if I'm going down a road and there is a truck behind me, I should pull over and let it pass, just in case it decides it's having an "I brake for no one" day??

Might as well pull over for every vehicle that approaches from the rear.  Right?

[agentsteel53]

Might as well pull over for every vehicle that approaches from the rear.  Right?

probably shouldn't even leave my house ever.

[english si]

I have a question regarding visibility of cyclists.  In Georgia, bicycles are required to use lights at night, but are not required to do so during the day.  In contrast, motorcycles are required to run their headlights during all hours, presumably for greater visibility and theoretically greater safety.

It's worse still in places where all motorised vehicles are required to have Daytime Running Lights (when I suggested on SABRE that the EU regulations mandating DLRs on new cars will mean that cyclists will fade into the background more as cars increase in visibility, I got a reply from a pro-DLR person saying (rightly) that if you can't see a bike in daylight without it having lights, you shouldn't be driving. My response was along the lines of "if you can't see a car without lights in daylight, not only should you not be driving, but you ought to see a doctor about you being legally blind - so what's the point of DLRs?". Discussion ended there for a good 6 months.

Special K gets the right answer here:

Remember, though, that the lights on motorcycles and those on bikes have very different illumination capabilities.  I'm not sure how much visibility is gained from running day lights on a bike.

Bike lights are typically 3V 5x superbright LED things (I think they've updated the rules in the UK to now allow these, rather than only allow low-wattage halogens - 4xAA battery type things). The best might be visible on a sunny day but then only in the shade. Overcast and foggy days they might bare some benefit, but not that much. Certainly I find mine useless at dusk.

Motorcycle lights are going to be the similar in power to car batteries - 12V, lots of amps from a big battery. There's no competition.

Certainly hi-vis ought to be strongly encouraged for cyclists - especially around twilight.

[J N Winkler]

I have a question regarding visibility of cyclists.  In Georgia, bicyclists are required to use lights at night, but are not required to do so during the day.  In contrast, motorcyclists are required to run their headlights during all hours, presumably for greater visibility and theoretically greater safety.

I think the requirement for motorcyclists to burn headlights have more to do with their capabilities for great speed and the difficulties car drivers have judging their speed and position.  For cyclists these problems do not exist to nearly the same degree, but it is common for less confident cyclists to use dorky tricks like the "red lamp on arm" to encourage motorists to pass them well to the offside.

Do any jurisdictions require bicyclists to run their lights during daylight hours?  Further, should bicyclists be required to use lights during all hours?

I know of no jurisdictions which require cyclists to burn lamps by day.  As Special K suggests, cycle lamps are not especially visible by day.  However, in Britain both front and rear lamps are required at night and it is not uncommon for the police to run "blitzes" and fine cyclists for not using them.  (The lamps were originally required to be steady-burn, but the law was liberalized several years ago to allow cyclists to comply using flashing lamps.  I disagreed with this change because I think steady-burn improves drivers' ability to locate cyclists at night.)  It is also increasingly the norm for cyclists to wear reflectorized fluorescent vests or sashes day and night, and in many continental European countries they are in fact required.

[vdeane]

You're completely wrong.

I'm just speaking from observation.  In the suburb I'm from, bikes are mainly considered toys and used by people too young to have a driver's licence.  Once the kids get their licence, they drive to school.

Fixed for you.
I don't pull over to let a truck pass.

This and future posts leads me to believe that you completely missed what I was saying.  I was talking about people cutting off trucks after they finish passing them (such as if you pass the truck going up the hill, cut him off at the top, and then wonder why he's on your tail going down) or who pull along side one making a right turn on a multi-lane street.

You seem absorbed in the political correctness of driving.

I hate political correctness.  I believe people should tell things like they are, regardless of whether it's "politically correct" or not.  I will not hop on the transit bandwagon simply because transit is "in" and cars are "out".

Who's pulling out in front of trucks?

Apparently NE2, though I think that's caused by him not understanding my post.

add another "the fuck" to this.  if I'm going down a road and there is a truck behind me, I should pull over and let it pass, just in case it decides it's having an "I brake for no one" day??

Yes if going down a steep hill and he's right on your tail, but this isn't really what I meant.

The anti-highway lobby does the same thing when they say they want to make driving more difficult under the guise of being pedestrian/bicycle friendly because they think cars and trucks are the cause of all the problems in the world.

This is the point of the whole thread which many seem to be missing.

Read my post again; I didn't use the word "all" even once. 

OK.  Let's have read, shall we?

While good drivers do recognize that they shouldn't cut off trucks, bikes and pedestrians seem to think that all the traffic should bend to their wishes.

Hmm.  You modified your statement about drivers with the word "good", yet didn't modify your statement about cyclists and peds.  I wonder how I made the mistake of thinking you referred to all of them?  Sorry.

Why should I have to modify it if I don't mean every last one?  The only people who think "all" is implied in the absence of modifiers are those trying to push political correctness.

[Special K]

You're completely wrong.

I'm just speaking from observation.  In the suburb I'm from, bikes are mainly considered toys and used by people too young to have a driver's licence.  Once the kids get their licence, they drive to school.

Your experience is from a single suburban city?  You must be quite the transportation expert.

Fixed for you.I don't pull over to let a truck pass.

This and future posts leads me to believe that you completely missed what I was saying.  I was talking about people cutting off trucks after they finish passing them (such as if you pass the truck going up the hill, cut him off at the top, and then wonder why he's on your tail going down) or who pull along side one making a right turn on a multi-lane street.

How often do either of these happen?  Really.

You seem absorbed in the political correctness of driving.

I hate political correctness.  I believe people should tell things like they are, regardless of whether it's "politically correct" or not.  I will not hop on the transit bandwagon simply because transit is "in" and cars are "out".

I'm not sure what you mean by "transit" here, because that's a catch-all term encompassing all forms of transportation, including cars.  I'm going to assume you mean all other forms of transport besides cars.

Cars will never be out.  At least not in our lifetimes.  However, it's clear that the economics of the car culture can't sustain itself forever and alternative forms of transportation will need to be accommodated.  It's better to be prepared for that time.

Who's pulling out in front of trucks?

Apparently NE2, though I think that's caused by him not understanding my post.

I'll have to admit, I'm not understanding some of what you are saying, either.

add another "the fuck" to this.  if I'm going down a road and there is a truck behind me, I should pull over and let it pass, just in case it decides it's having an "I brake for no one" day??

Yes if going down a steep hill and he's right on your tail, but this isn't really what I meant.

A 5-ton truck is tailgating a bike and it's the cyclist's problem?  'K.

The anti-highway lobby does the same thing when they say they want to make driving more difficult under the guise of being pedestrian/bicycle friendly because they think cars and trucks are the cause of all the problems in the world.

This is the point of the whole thread which many seem to be missing.

You and Mr. D-Dey seem to be attributing characteristics to the bike/ped lobby that are just not based in reality.  the last thing I want is for motorists to have a more difficult time, because that translates into decreased safety for me.   What we would like is for motorists to be aware of our presence, take the responsibility of operating a motor vehicle a little more seriously and not get worked up about possibly losing 30 seconds of time on the road.

Read my post again; I didn't use the word "all" even once. 

OK.  Let's have read, shall we?

While good drivers do recognize that they shouldn't cut off trucks, bikes and pedestrians seem to think that all the traffic should bend to their wishes.

Hmm.  You modified your statement about drivers with the word "good", yet didn't modify your statement about cyclists and peds.  I wonder how I made the mistake of thinking you referred to all of them?  Sorry.

Why should I have to modify it if I don't mean every last one?  The only people who think "all" is implied in the absence of modifiers are those trying to push political correctness.

An unmodified statement is automatically a general statement.  That's kind of how the English language works.

"Women are bad drivers"
Whoah! Hey!  What do you mean all women are bad drivers?
"Sorry.  I meant *most* women are bad drivers."
That's better.

See?  I had to modify that statement since it was too general in its original form.

Secondly, you seem to be slinging "political correctness" around when the subject really doesn't lend itself to that term.  I think the term you're searching for is "political agenda".

[agentsteel53]

A 5-ton truck is tailgating a bike and it's the cyclist's problem?  'K.

or a car.  or any other reasonable operator. 

"reckless driving" should be a significantly more vigorously enforced infraction.

[hobsini2]

I know I am going to get heat for this but it needs to be said.

First of all, deanj, 

The whole reason why some of us are "not so friendly" to cyclists and their lobby is because the lobby and most of their supporters do have the mentality that cars and trucks need to give way at all times which is complete bull. There is a reason why the signs say "Share The Road" and not "Yield The Road to Bikes and Pedestrians".  The so-called PC of the road seems to be leaning heavily on the non vehicle public. 

Like I said before. If the cycling public wants to share the road, I have no problem with that if they are mindful of other vehicles who do have the correct right of way at the appropriate time.

The definition of right of way does need to be inclusive to vehicles and cyclists.

The mentality of some of the cyclists on this forum is exactly what I don't like about some cyclists in general.  Unfortunately, until cyclists are given tickets for breaking the rules of the road, specifically dealing with stop signs and signals, the average mentality of the cyclist will not conform to the rules.

Also, I think it would be appropriate for a cyclist who uses the road to be required to have a license for such riding on the road. This way, you have the cyclists learn the rules of the road given by the secretary of state's office.  You need a special license for a motorcycle so why not for a bicycle? Besides, it would be another revenue for the state.

[hobsini2]

A 5-ton truck is tailgating a bike and it's the cyclist's problem?  'K.

or a car.  or any other reasonable operator. 

"reckless driving" should be a significantly more vigorously enforced infraction.

Agent, I absolutely agree that reckless driving should be more vigorously enforced. If it were up to me, someone convicted of RD should have an automatic 1 month suspension for the first offense, 3 months for a 2nd, and 1 year for a 3rd. But that being said, RD should be enforced on cyclists as well especially if it is proven that the cyclist was the cause of an accident.

I think I am qualified to say this because unlike most drivers, I drive for a living and am on the road anywhere from 200 to 400 miles a day. I personally think at the very least 1/4 of drivers need to have their license taken away.