Traffic rule question

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: Ness
I don't even need to read to tell you that pedestrians (bicycles included) ALWAYS have the right of way.

Regardless of what laws they are breaking, or whether they are crossing a major intersection against oncoming traffic.

No, bicyclists must follow rules of the road.

Excuse me. In the United States, people must follow rules of the road. Their vehicle is about as relevant as their ethnicity. Which is to say, not at all. In my state, legal code states that people have the same rights and duties on the road whether using a bicycle or a motor vehicle. Above our state laws, there is the Uniform Vehicle Code of the United States.

Now about your question, NeoPTLD. I think if you examine Portland's city code, the other person is probably not allowed to drive his bicycle on the sidewalk to start with, assuming you were in a business district (although I realize Portland is a little different in how they do that ). If this were a two-way street and he were operating vehicularly (in the traffic lane), then you would yield to him. If he had been actually a pedestrian (walking or even running with his bike) then again you would yield to him by law. Being on a bicycle on crosswalks and sidewalks, even where legal, does NOT qualify for the privileges of a pedestrian in my state, and probably not in yours either.

That being said, if you see him coming and deliberately put your vehicle in his path anyway, even if you are technically right, then you might want to ask yourself why you chose to do that. Not a good practice to set yourself up for an accident simply because you're technically in the right.

As an editorial remark from a guy who commutes by bicycle summer and winter:

It really is remarkable that people cannot see past the vehicle, to see the person who is their legal equal and who bears the same rights, slower vehicle or not. But no... :roll: instead of "oh look, there's another guy heading home after a hard day at work, just like I am," instead they say "what is that damn bicycle doing in my way?! :| I almost spilled my latte!" At the same time, it's rare to see cyclists actually hold up their end of the deal by driving lawfully and predictably. No wonder our reputation is as bad as it is.

Yes, please do excuse yourself, as the rules of the road do not apply to pedestrians. So what exactly was your effing point?

The rules of the road apply to pedestrians just as they apply to any other class of road users. But if you're implying that the person driving the bicycle is a pedestrian, then you'd better check your state's traffic code.

What exactly are you getting at? I said bicyclists must follow the rules of the road. Maybe not where you're from, but "rules of the road" generally refers to driving, so saying "rules of the road" apply to a bicyclist infers that a bicyclist has to follow the same rules as someone who is driving. You, on the other hand, said "people" must follow the rules of the road, in which I disagree because "people" aren't necessarily driving.

I see your point, and I guess my first post did meander a lot. Basically, I think that the cyclist was probably not operating legally to start with, nor did the cyclist enjoy the privilege of a pedestrian, since that requires actually physically being on foot. If the assumption is correct, it makes the motorist correct on a technicality at the very least.

Bigger picture: if the cyclist would simply use the roads to get where he's going, driving in a vehicular fashion instead of cringing on the sidewalks like some kind of outcast, I think he'd find everything ends up going so much smoother for him.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: Ness
I don't even need to read to tell you that pedestrians (bicycles included) ALWAYS have the right of way.

Regardless of what laws they are breaking, or whether they are crossing a major intersection against oncoming traffic.

No, bicyclists must follow rules of the road.

Excuse me. In the United States, people must follow rules of the road. Their vehicle is about as relevant as their ethnicity. Which is to say, not at all. In my state, legal code states that people have the same rights and duties on the road whether using a bicycle or a motor vehicle. Above our state laws, there is the Uniform Vehicle Code of the United States.

Now about your question, NeoPTLD. I think if you examine Portland's city code, the other person is probably not allowed to drive his bicycle on the sidewalk to start with, assuming you were in a business district (although I realize Portland is a little different in how they do that ). If this were a two-way street and he were operating vehicularly (in the traffic lane), then you would yield to him. If he had been actually a pedestrian (walking or even running with his bike) then again you would yield to him by law. Being on a bicycle on crosswalks and sidewalks, even where legal, does NOT qualify for the privileges of a pedestrian in my state, and probably not in yours either.

That being said, if you see him coming and deliberately put your vehicle in his path anyway, even if you are technically right, then you might want to ask yourself why you chose to do that. Not a good practice to set yourself up for an accident simply because you're technically in the right.

As an editorial remark from a guy who commutes by bicycle summer and winter:

It really is remarkable that people cannot see past the vehicle, to see the person who is their legal equal and who bears the same rights, slower vehicle or not. But no... :roll: instead of "oh look, there's another guy heading home after a hard day at work, just like I am," instead they say "what is that damn bicycle doing in my way?! :| I almost spilled my latte!" At the same time, it's rare to see cyclists actually hold up their end of the deal by driving lawfully and predictably. No wonder our reputation is as bad as it is.

Yes, please do excuse yourself, as the rules of the road do not apply to pedestrians. So what exactly was your effing point?

The rules of the road apply to pedestrians just as they apply to any other class of road users. But if you're implying that the person driving the bicycle is a pedestrian, then you'd better check your state's traffic code.

What exactly are you getting at? I said bicyclists must follow the rules of the road. Maybe not where you're from, but "rules of the road" generally refers to driving, so saying "rules of the road" apply to a bicyclist infers that a bicyclist has to follow the same rules as someone who is driving. You, on the other hand, said "people" must follow the rules of the road, in which I disagree because "people" aren't necessarily driving.

I see your point, and I guess my first post did meander a lot. Basically, I think that the cyclist was probably not operating legally to start with, nor did the cyclist enjoy the privilege of a pedestrian, since that requires actually physically being on foot. If the assumption is correct, it makes the motorist correct on a technicality at the very least.

Bigger picture: if the cyclist would simply use the roads to get where he's going, driving in a vehicular fashion instead of cringing on the sidewalks like some kind of outcast, I think he'd find everything ends up going so much smoother for him.

Well, I've lost any understanding of why you quoted me and proceded to sound like I said something incorrect. Are we not saying the same thing?

 

[mechBgon]

Well, I've lost any understanding of why you quoted me and proceded to sound like I said something incorrect. Are we not saying the same thing?

My main objections are:

1) to start with, you were talking about the rights of cyclists and motorists, and I took the opportunity to get editorial about them being the same thing. It's one of my favorite bike-related things to rant about, because it seems like people often forget that it's the person that has the rights, not the vehicle he's driving. Sorry it sounded like a criticism aimed at you in particular.

2) then you went on about how the rules of the road don't apply to pedestrians, which made me go ~ say wha...? In the first place, this is the USA, and the laws should apply to everyone including pedestrians, at least until you get elected to office :evil: Secondly, there are no pedestrians in the scenario to start with.

Out of curiosity, do you see a lot of "bad" cyclists in your area? Running red lights and stop signs, going the wrong way down 1-ways, stuff they wouldn't get away with in a car? Do the police ever do anything about them? Around here the cyclists really do get away with a lot. I can't recall ever seeing one get pulled over and warned, let alone ticketed.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: Ness
I don't even need to read to tell you that pedestrians (bicycles included) ALWAYS have the right of way.

Regardless of what laws they are breaking, or whether they are crossing a major intersection against oncoming traffic.

Pedestrians DO have the right of way, but Bicycles are not pedestrians.
As Roger said

Originally posted by: Roger
Bicyclists must obey the rules of the road as motor vehicles do.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Well, I've lost any understanding of why you quoted me and proceded to sound like I said something incorrect. Are we not saying the same thing?

My main objections are:

1) to start with, you were talking about the rights of cyclists and motorists, and I took the opportunity to get editorial about them being the same thing. It's one of my favorite bike-related things to rant about, because it seems like people often forget that it's the person that has the rights, not the vehicle he's driving. Sorry it sounded like a criticism aimed at you in particular.

2) then you went on about how the rules of the road don't apply to pedestrians, which made me go ~ say wha...? In the first place, this is the USA, and the laws should apply to everyone including pedestrians, at least until you get elected to office :evil: Secondly, there are no pedestrians in the scenario to start with.

Out of curiosity, do you see a lot of "bad" cyclists in your area? Running red lights and stop signs, going the wrong way down 1-ways, stuff they wouldn't get away with in a car? Do the police ever do anything about them? Around here the cyclists really do get away with a lot. I can't recall ever seeing one get pulled over and warned, let alone ticketed.

I quoted a guy basically saying that bicyclists = pedestrians and responded that bicyclists have to follow "the rules of the road" which refers to driving rules. Pedestrians do not have to follow "the rules of the road" (e.g. they don't have to pass on the left, they don't have to maintain safe following distance, they don't have to go a certain speed or limit themselves to one, yadda yadda yadda), but cyclists do. So what did I say that was incorrect? Or do you truely believe that pedestrians have to step to the edge of the sidewalk and stop walking when an emergency vehical passes with their sirens on and that they have to come to a complete stop when turning right along the sidewalk at an intersection?

 

[Pepsi90919]

your diagram is the fukcing worst

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Well, I've lost any understanding of why you quoted me and proceded to sound like I said something incorrect. Are we not saying the same thing?

My main objections are:

1) to start with, you were talking about the rights of cyclists and motorists, and I took the opportunity to get editorial about them being the same thing. It's one of my favorite bike-related things to rant about, because it seems like people often forget that it's the person that has the rights, not the vehicle he's driving. Sorry it sounded like a criticism aimed at you in particular.

2) then you went on about how the rules of the road don't apply to pedestrians, which made me go ~ say wha...? In the first place, this is the USA, and the laws should apply to everyone including pedestrians, at least until you get elected to office :evil: Secondly, there are no pedestrians in the scenario to start with.

Out of curiosity, do you see a lot of "bad" cyclists in your area? Running red lights and stop signs, going the wrong way down 1-ways, stuff they wouldn't get away with in a car? Do the police ever do anything about them? Around here the cyclists really do get away with a lot. I can't recall ever seeing one get pulled over and warned, let alone ticketed.

I quoted a guy basically saying that bicyclists = pedestrians and responded that bicyclists have to follow "the rules of the road" which refers to driving rules. Pedestrians do not have to follow "the rules of the road" (e.g. they don't have to pass on the left, they don't have to maintain safe following distance, they don't have to go a certain speed or limit themselves to one, yadda yadda yadda), but cyclists do. So what did I say that was incorrect? Or do you truely believe that pedestrians have to step to the edge of the sidewalk and stop walking when an emergency vehical passes with their sirens on and that they have to come to a complete stop when turning right along the sidewalk at an intersection?

Let's argue about it for a while

 

[ThisIsMatt]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Well, I've lost any understanding of why you quoted me and proceded to sound like I said something incorrect. Are we not saying the same thing?

My main objections are:

1) to start with, you were talking about the rights of cyclists and motorists, and I took the opportunity to get editorial about them being the same thing. It's one of my favorite bike-related things to rant about, because it seems like people often forget that it's the person that has the rights, not the vehicle he's driving. Sorry it sounded like a criticism aimed at you in particular.

2) then you went on about how the rules of the road don't apply to pedestrians, which made me go ~ say wha...? In the first place, this is the USA, and the laws should apply to everyone including pedestrians, at least until you get elected to office :evil: Secondly, there are no pedestrians in the scenario to start with.

Out of curiosity, do you see a lot of "bad" cyclists in your area? Running red lights and stop signs, going the wrong way down 1-ways, stuff they wouldn't get away with in a car? Do the police ever do anything about them? Around here the cyclists really do get away with a lot. I can't recall ever seeing one get pulled over and warned, let alone ticketed.

I quoted a guy basically saying that bicyclists = pedestrians and responded that bicyclists have to follow "the rules of the road" which refers to driving rules. Pedestrians do not have to follow "the rules of the road" (e.g. they don't have to pass on the left, they don't have to maintain safe following distance, they don't have to go a certain speed or limit themselves to one, yadda yadda yadda), but cyclists do. So what did I say that was incorrect? Or do you truely believe that pedestrians have to step to the edge of the sidewalk and stop walking when an emergency vehical passes with their sirens on and that they have to come to a complete stop when turning right along the sidewalk at an intersection?

Let's argue about it for a while

Screw that, man, I'm going to sleep!