Cyclist taken out | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Cyclist taken out

Re: Cyclist hit and run

For well over a decade, whenever I see any Corolla or any Volvo OR an older Camry, I pull off the road/into another lane and let them pass. They can't rear end you when they're in front of you.

I do this in the car and on the moto but, admittedly, it's a lot more work keeping up this vigilance on a bicycle even in mountain biking recreation towns like Burke,VT or Moab,UT
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Interesting case. Though he was right to intervene, assault with a vehicle is a bit extreme. All in hind sight, not in the heat of the moment.

Leaving the scene though doesn't paint a good picture.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Riceburner said:
Leaving the scene though doesn't paint a good picture.
Click to expand...

Leaving the scene is one thing....leaving the scene and blowing over the limit is a bit more of a pickle that he got himself into.

Obviously there were enough witnesses to ID the car that the cops were able to get him, has anyone confirmed the story and the way it played out?
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

kwtoxman said:
Your personal valuation of need doesn't really apply or matter. How about you show us where it is written down there that only specific circumstances apply to the permission of allowing cyclists to use the full lane.

There is nothing so far but evidence showing a broad allowance for cyclists to use the entire lane. The obvious lack of restrictions in the text of the law is telling. The signage does not prescribe any restrictions either. The road is a designated cycling trail as well. Further, law enforcement does not apply or communicate any restrictions (see the road rules link) and you have shown no reports or history of cyclists being charged for riding beside each other on this signed road (with permission to use the entire lane). Also, using the entire lane and riding bicycles beside each other makes it easier and safer for vehicles to pass as opposed to long lines of riders.
Click to expand...

From the National Park Service regarding the Natchez Trace roadway (bold added for emphasis):

  • Ride single-file and on the right (with traffic).
  • While bicyclists may use the entire lane when necessary, the Parkway encourages bicyclists to ride as far to the right as is practicable unless
    • it is unsafe to do so,
    • the bicyclist is passing another bicyclist or pedestrian or
    • the bicyclist is preparing for a left-hand turn.
Click to expand...
https://www.nps.gov/natr/planyourvisit/safety-guidelines-fro-bicyclists.htm


The National Park Service's website also points out that it is prohibited to ride bicycles side by side except where authorized by the Superintendent:
https://www.nps.gov/natr/learn/management/code-of-federal-regulations-bicycles.htm
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

I'm curious about whether passing on a double yellow may be allowed on the parkway as some have suggested . Although the picture of the sign posted instructs motorists to change lanes to pass:

safety-sign-med-1024x733.jpg


my experience in Tennessee was that passing on a a double yellow is illegal (even allowing your driver's side wheels to cross over is illegal), as it is considered highly unsafe (perhaps due to the twisty nature of their roads) contrary to here in Ontario.


From this picture on the Park Service's website, it appears that portions of the roadway are designated for passing, with dashed lines.

D438D336-1DD8-B71B-0B9BEA2135423214.jpg


which would suggest to me that passing on a double yellow may not be allowed, and motorists may have to wait for a stretch of road with dashed lines to legally pass. Being a recreational parkway road, I would think that there are long stretches where you just are not allowed to pass.


Interestingly, the speed limit on most of the 714 km parkway is 80kmph (reportedly 64 kmph on one long stretch).
Seems a little quick for a couple cyclists wanting to ride side-by-side and soak up the scenery
 
Last edited:
Re: Cyclist hit and run

I've found that Natchez is even a bigger cycling road than I realized. There are cycling-only campgrounds along it and cycling services and B&B's everywhere.


BusaBob said:
From the National Park Service regarding the Natchez Trace roadway (bold added for emphasis):....
Ride single-file and on the right (with traffic).
While bicyclists may use the entire lane when necessary, the Parkway encourages bicyclists to ride as far to the right as is practicable unless

it is unsafe to do so,
the bicyclist is passing another bicyclist or pedestrian or
the bicyclist is preparing for a left-hand turn.
Click to expand...
That's pretty typical. The Natchez roadway spans three states, so that information is guidance for the entire stretch. And it's only guidance in the end (the subject title in the link is literally "guidelines"). As mentioned before a few times, it's the state traffic laws that are enforced.
For the convenience of the public, the National Park Service has adopted the laws and regulations of the State within whose boundaries a park area or portion of a park area is located to govern traffic and the operation and use of vehicles.
Click to expand...
In Tennessee, where the hit and run occurred, riding (motorcycles) or cycling two abreast is legal. The cyclists involved were not charged with anything.

BusaBob said:
I'm curious about whether passing on a double yellow may be allowed on the parkway as some have suggested... From this picture on the Park Service's website, it appears that portions of the roadway are designated for passing, with dashed lines.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I got my info (posting that it was okay to pass cyclists) from local community feedback. I've read that there is a 15 mile stretch of solid double yellow on the Natchez, and many significant smaller ones, so I deferred to local feedback having not seen anything else. Here's one of several examples, "it is legal to pass on a double yellow a slow moving vehicle or obstacle such as a tractor, bicycle, or pedestrian using caution."

As Robert noted earlier, the traffic sign directly states to change lanes to pass bicycles, not to change lanes when permitted to pass. I too find that important.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cyclist hit and run

kwtoxman said:
I've found that Natchez is even a bigger cycling road than I realized. There are cycling-only campgrounds along it and cycling services and B&B's everywhere.
Click to expand...

I found Americans are not only in to guns and lifted trucks. That road is a good attraction.

Might want to check out Gaspe peninsula. You have motes everywhere, and some parks have bicycle drop in camp spots and chalets. The scenery is great. My favorite place east of the rockies. I'm sure Quebecois provincials are more civilized than your average US university dean.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

daught said:
I found Americans are not only in to guns and lifted trucks. That road is a good attraction.

Might want to check out Gaspe peninsula. You have motes everywhere, and some parks have bicycle drop in camp spots and chalets. The scenery is great. My favorite place east of the rockies. I'm sure Quebecois provincials are more civilized than your average US university dean.
Click to expand...

LOL. I'll check out Gaspe peninsula for sure. Sounds really nice at a quick glance. I mountain bike and hike the Rockies a lot, we have awesome country across Canada.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cyclist hit and run

fastar1 said:
This is the kind of entitled thinking that starts people down the path of road rage against cyclists.

First of all, the roads in general are mostly paid by different vehicle taxes, but that doesn't cover all of it. The roads are subsidized, at least in part.

Secondly, the roads are a public service, and the way public services work is some people pay more, some pay less, but everyone gets equal access to them. No one is a 'guest'! Otherwise the services can't serve the function they are intended to serve. If the road 'belongs' to those who pay, do gaz guzzlers get priority access? Or maybe tractor trailers? Are EVs 'guests' like cyclists? C'mon!

Thid, cycling causes about 1/1000 the wear on roadways that cars cause. Far less than the amount that non-vehicle fees make up for to pay for the roads. By your user-pay thinking, it could be argued that the roads are paved for cyclists and cars are their 'guests'.

Fourth, all that is looking strictly at road infrastructure cost, not any of the surrounding costs of a car-dependent society. Costs like injuries, physical health, pollution, sprawl, economic stratification. Case in point; what was the economic cost of the injury to this cyclist? Even if he had health insurance cover it, did it reimburse his lost wages and productivity? Multiply your guesstimate by how many hundreds of millions a year.

Keep that in mind next time you come across a cyclist in your car, even if it's another dimwitted one who thinks he owns the road. Because despite all the evidence above, the road remains a shared public resource, so you own it as much as he does. You are not a guest just because you drive a wasteful car.
Click to expand...
Answer honestly, if cars became flying like 'back to the future' and could travel over grass, gravel, whatever, do you honestly believe new roads would be paved, or old roads repaired and repaved? There would be no reason for it, so yes, cyclists are guests and should act accordingly. How is it that you think I'm acting like I'm entitled? Why aren't you accusing the cyclist of being entitled? The cyclist physically takes up about 1/10 of the space that a car does, yet he seemed to think he could take up as much room as he wanted rather than needed. I don't know the stats now, but it used to be that 1 in 5 North Americans were in some way employed by the auto industry. Think of all the tax revenues generated from the companies that mine raw materials, to the companies that process the materials, to the manufacturing companies that make the parts, to the assembly plants, to the sales centers, the shipping companies in between each of them and the countless lawyers, insurance companies, finance companies, oil/gas companies that were involved. And all of them paying taxes because of cars. Furthermore, there's a distinct difference between legal and ethical, too many people confuse the two. I can legally drive at 100 in the left lane on any 400 series highway, does that mean I should? Here's a direct quote from a buisness law book:

While the definition of law as enforceable rules has practical value, it does not suggest what is just or moral. We must not assume that so long as we obey the law we are acting morally. As discussed in Chapter 1, legal compliance and ethical behaviour are two different things, and people must decide for themselves what standard they will adhere to. Many choose to live by a personal code of conduct demanding adherence to more stringent rules than those set out in the law, while others disregard even these basic requirements. Some think that moral values have no place in the business world, but in fact the opposite is true. As was pointed out in Chapter 1, there is now an expectation of high ethical standards in business activities, and it is hoped that those who study the law as it relates to business will appreciate and adhere to those higher standards.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Renboy said:
Answer honestly, if cars became flying like 'back to the future' and could travel over grass, gravel, whatever, do you honestly believe new roads would be paved, or old roads repaired and repaved? There would be no reason for it, so yes, cyclists are guests and should act accordingly. How is it that you think I'm acting like I'm entitled? Why aren't you accusing the cyclist of being entitled? The cyclist physically takes up about 1/10 of the space that a car does, yet he seemed to think he could take up as much room as he wanted rather than needed. I don't know the stats now, but it used to be that 1 in 5 North Americans were in some way employed by the auto industry. Think of all the tax revenues generated from the companies that mine raw materials, to the companies that process the materials, to the manufacturing companies that make the parts, to the assembly plants, to the sales centers, the shipping companies in between each of them and the countless lawyers, insurance companies, finance companies, oil/gas companies that were involved. And all of them paying taxes because of cars. Furthermore, there's a distinct difference between legal and ethical, too many people confuse the two. I can legally drive at 100 in the left lane on any 400 series highway, does that mean I should? Here's a direct quote from a buisness law book:

While the definition of law as enforceable rules has practical value, it does not suggest what is just or moral. We must not assume that so long as we obey the law we are acting morally. As discussed in Chapter 1, legal compliance and ethical behaviour are two different things, and people must decide for themselves what standard they will adhere to. Many choose to live by a personal code of conduct demanding adherence to more stringent rules than those set out in the law, while others disregard even these basic requirements. Some think that moral values have no place in the business world, but in fact the opposite is true. As was pointed out in Chapter 1, there is now an expectation of high ethical standards in business activities, and it is hoped that those who study the law as it relates to business will appreciate and adhere to those higher standards.
Click to expand...

If you're going to toss stats at the wall to see if they stick, 90% of cyclists own cars. If they chose to use the road that they're already paying for to ride their bicycle at that particular time instead of their car, it's their right to do so. They're paying for a car's worth of lane, so if they want to use their entitled space, well, suck it up.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Considering something like less than 0.05% of US roads are designated cycling routes that allow full lane use for cyclists without a requirement to pull over to the right for traffic, and people are not just complaining about it but also literally blaming cyclists for following the law and signage, most people will obviously say there are some extremely self-entitled motorists out there. And trying to use size, taxes or auto jobs to justify behaviours doesn't hold water with any actual consideration.

It amazes me that in one of the greatest countries to live in, where all types healthy lifestyles and activities are permitted, encouraged and often structured to the benefit of society, health and safety, as well as where <1% of infrastructure or environment is affected, that some will go out of their way to bitterly complain about it. And over having to do a lane change to pass cyclists of all things.





Size/taxes/jobs below for those that actually consider them- Literally just think for a minute

Size, for example. Say cyclists are two feet wide (my bike is wider than that). Say they ride to the right only two feet from the edge of the road (which at that point may have some road debris). That is now three feet from the edge. Considering TN and most jurisdictions require at least three feet distance to pass that means we're now 6 feet from the edge of the road. Since Natchez lanes are substandard 11 feet wide, unless your car is less than 5 feet wide (my compact car is over notably over 5 feet wide) you will be unable to pass a cyclist without going into the other lane. Simply put, a lane change is needed to safely pass a cyclist on the Natchez. That's why it's the law to change lanes to pass a cyclist on the Natchez; these laws aren't just made up out of thin air. And since a lane change is needed anyway, it's why cyclists are reasonably permitted to use the full lane on Natchez; it doesn't matter where a cyclist is on a lane on the Natchez, to pass them safely a driver needs to change lanes.

Taxes was already answered (no, license/vehicle/fuel taxes do not pay for roads in the US, https://taxfoundation.org/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending/), plus designated routes such as Natchez actually bring additional taxes into the area to help pay for the roads (look at all the cycling support businesses and visitors). Jobs, the number of auto-related jobs in the US some have used was closer to about 1 in 100 and very was generously extrapolated at that. And considering less than 0.05% of all roads in the US permit cyclists to use the full lane without yielding, such permissions aren't going to affect an iota of those jobs.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cyclist hit and run

FullMotoJacket said:
If you're going to toss stats at the wall to see if they stick, 90% of cyclists own cars. If they chose to use the road that they're already paying for to ride their bicycle at that particular time instead of their car, it's their right to do so. They're paying for a car's worth of lane, so if they want to use their entitled space, well, suck it up.
Click to expand...
Nice, touche, hadn't thought of that. So 90% of them have a right to be on the road, doesn't mean they have to take up an entire lane when they only take up 10% of the space. No matter how you look at it, it's illogical and grossly inefficient.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

kwtoxman said:
Considering something like less than 0.05% of US roads are designated cycling routes that allow full lane use for cyclists without a requirement to pull over to the right for traffic, and people are not just complaining about it but also literally blaming cyclists for following the law and signage, most people will obviously say there are some extremely self-entitled motorists out there. And trying to use size, taxes or auto jobs to justify behaviours doesn't hold water with any actual consideration.

It amazes me that in one of the greatest countries to live in, where all types healthy lifestyles and activities are permitted, encouraged and often structured to the benefit of society, health and safety, as well as where <1% of infrastructure or environment is affected, that some will go out of their way to bitterly complain about it. And over having to do a lane change to pass cyclists of all things.





Size/taxes/jobs below for those that actually consider them- Literally just think for a minute

Size, for example. Say cyclists are two feet wide (my bike is wider than that). Say they ride to the right only two feet from the edge of the road (which at that point may have some road debris). That is now three feet from the edge. Considering TN and most jurisdictions require at least three feet distance to pass that means we're now 6 feet from the edge of the road. Since Natchez lanes are substandard 11 feet wide, unless your car is less than 5 feet wide (my compact car is over notably over 5 feet wide) you will be unable to pass a cyclist without going into the other lane. Simply put, a lane change is needed to safely pass a cyclist on the Natchez. That's why it's the law to change lanes to pass a cyclist on the Natchez; these laws aren't just made up out of thin air. And since a lane change is needed anyway, it's why cyclists are reasonably permitted to use the full lane on Natchez; it doesn't matter where a cyclist is on a lane on the Natchez, to pass them safely a driver needs to change lanes.

Taxes was already answered (no, license/vehicle/fuel taxes do not pay for roads in the US, https://taxfoundation.org/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending/), plus designated routes such as Natchez actually bring additional taxes into the area to help pay for the roads (look at all the cycling support businesses and visitors). Jobs, the number of auto-related jobs in the US some have used was closer to about 1 in 100 and very was generously extrapolated at that. And considering less than 0.05% of all roads in the US permit cyclists to use the full lane without yielding, such permissions aren't going to affect an iota of those jobs.
Click to expand...
https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iagauto.htm

Over 6 million Americans employed directly with cars, not including everything else associated with them...1% doesn't hold. Furthermore, I just looked it up and lanes on highways in the US are 12' wide, and transport truck trailers are 8' wide which leaves 4' of space (if hugging the yellow line). You have one wide bike (or butt) at 2', but let's use that as an example. If the cyclist is riding the white line on the far right, and half is to the left of the white line, then they take up a foot of space in the lane, add the 3' safety buffer and you're at 4', now add the 8' wide trailer and you're at 12', the exact width of the lane. Regular roads are minimum 10' wide which means the truck would have to move 2' into oncoming traffic. So unless there's two trucks passing 2 cyclists at the exact same time, there's room without having to slow anyone down. And the lane never starts at the gravel, there is always some amount of asphalt to the right of the white line. So therefore, a transport truck could pass the cyclist legally without having to cross the lines. Given the fact that the average car is about 6' wide, that gives an extra 2' of space. If the cyclist wants to ride, by all means, I have no problem with that. Just save the conversation for the coffee shop when the ride is done. And move over so you don't get hit by something weighing 4000lbs moving 60km/h faster than you are.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Renboy said:
https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iagauto.htm

Over 6 million Americans employed directly with cars, not including everything else associated with them...1% doesn't hold. Furthermore, I just looked it up and lanes on highways in the US are 12' wide, and transport truck trailers are 8' wide which leaves 4' of space (if hugging the yellow line). You have one wide bike (or butt) at 2', but let's use that as an example. If the cyclist is riding the white line on the far right, and half is to the left of the white line, then they take up a foot of space in the lane, add the 3' safety buffer and you're at 4', now add the 8' wide trailer and you're at 12', the exact width of the lane. Regular roads are minimum 10' wide which means the truck would have to move 2' into oncoming traffic. So unless there's two trucks passing 2 cyclists at the exact same time, there's room without having to slow anyone down. And the lane never starts at the gravel, there is always some amount of asphalt to the right of the white line. So therefore, a transport truck could pass the cyclist legally without having to cross the lines. Given the fact that the average car is about 6' wide, that gives an extra 2' of space. If the cyclist wants to ride, by all means, I have no problem with that. Just save the conversation for the coffee shop when the ride is done. And move over so you don't get hit by something weighing 4000lbs moving 60km/h faster than you are.
Click to expand...
Moving the goalposts; I said that it was closer to 1% and that is still accurate (it's not 1 in 10). Six million jobs put its at under 2% of the population or under 4% of the total jobs. And it doesn't matter either... even if it were many many more jobs. Again, less than 0.05% of the roads have these allowances and conditions, and it's pretty obvious they aren't affecting auto jobs in the US.

All your calculations are for naught. In this thread as mentioned, the Natchez parkway is a substandard road with 11 feet wide lanes. And the white line is at the edge of the road. Not all roads have that added space. Reading and looking at thread pictures plainly shows this.

D438D336-1DD8-B71B-0B9BEA2135423214.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Renboy said:
Answer honestly, if cars became flying like 'back to the future' and could travel over grass, gravel, whatever, do you honestly believe new roads would be paved, or old roads repaired and repaved?
Click to expand...

considering we have dedicated bike paths in the parks (with signs saying "please walk on the grass"), yes I can see bike paths maintained on roads. the cost to maintain them would be less than roads meant for motor vehicles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom