http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/bicyclists-call-for-safer-streets-in-little-rock/Content?oid=2581720 Comments On: Bicyclists call for safer streets in Little Rock by David Koon en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Sun, 19 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Sun, 19 May 2013 11:00:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
Hackett: That's exactly why you do that, called "controlling the lane." You want to make another driver pass you in the same manner as they would any other vehicle, by crossing the lane line and making a legal, safe pass. Otherwise, many drivers underestimate the size of their vehicle and will try to squeeze in through teh same lane as the cyclist.
The average lane width here in LR is 10 feet, 12 in some of the newer areas, and 14 feet in a few rare places like Riverfront Drive. A Ford F-150 pickup, commonly encountered, is 8 feet, 9 inches wide, mirror-to-mirror. Add in the 22 inches width of a typical cyclist, and there simply isn't room for both to fit side-by-side in the same lane, not counting the three feet separation required by law.

So, I teach my students to follow the traffic rules, and put yourself in places where other drivers expect to see other traffic. Control your space in that lane until it is safe to yield that control (such as pulling over to the side to let faster folks pass) and, never compromise your safety for the convenience of someone else.

Being behind a cyclist is no different than being behind one of those horse & buggy rigs that you see downtown, or one of the streetcars, or even one of those blue-haired little old church ladies navigating her way home. With typical LR traffic, the 15 to 20 seconds that you might save in the best case before you hit the next red light or stop sign simply isn't worth another person's life.
Posted by Pscyclepath]]> Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:35:21 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Pscyclepath]]> Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:17:58 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by spokes]]> Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:51:57 -0600 Arkansas Times
The difference between 40 and 5 - the speed that Hackett says is too slow - is 35 mph.

So as long as a bicycle stays withing 35 mph of the speed limit then it meets Hacketts law of not impeding traffic.

Revise your 8:29 comment to mean what you say.
Posted by Ron Rizzardi]]> Tue, 25 Dec 2012 01:35:20 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Hackett]]> Mon, 24 Dec 2012 23:29:37 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Ron Rizzardi]]> Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:17:03 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Hackett]]> Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:15:59 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by spokes]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:26:42 -0600 Arkansas Times
Posted by Ron Rizzardi]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:22:24 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Hackett]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:29:07 -0600 Arkansas Times
If I drive slower than the car behind me, by even say 1 mph, I am therefore impeding them and I should then get a ticket?

What if I'm going fast enough to not impeded them but yet I have to exceed the speed limit to do so. Wouldn't I get a ticket as well for speeding?

Seems my responsibility to not impede someone's travel could be a matter of the trailing motorists attitude and perceived urgency.

How much slower am I allowed to travel than the trailing driver. 1, 5, 10 mph slower?
For how long a distance can I be considered to be obstructing them. 10', 100', 1 mi?

As stated earlier, the fact of the matter is bicycles are part of the traffic. The only roads with minimum speed limits are interstate where bicycles are not permitted anyway.

Somone needs to become better educated on what the police consider traffic impedance.
To me deliberately slowing down traffic without due cause - without due cause - may approach an incident of traffic impedance. Unless, you are the one on the bicycle at that moment making the judgment call as to the safe operation of the bicycle then often a trailing motorist just can't make an accurate assessment as to what is going on at that moment.
Posted by Ron Rizzardi]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:27:42 -0600 Arkansas Times
The UN Agenda 21 Bicycle manifesto is straight off the pages of Jonesboro's Debbie Pelley hysteria. Welcome to the club. If AR was as involved with the imagined bicycle only manifesto then I'd think it would not be dead last in all 50 states for bicycle friendly policies and planning. Too, if the feds were so behind the cycling only movement, then why did they reduce by 50% the already miniscul 1% of total Transportation expenditures? That does not sound like a strong Federal government support to me. Again imagined manifesto

Cyclists like myself don't exclusively ride down the center of a lane fo any period of time unless is required for safety. I've already set forth and explained those conditions prior.
Posted by Ron Rizzardi]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:05:30 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Chris Andersun]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:22:54 -0600 Arkansas Times
The above article states for the rider to ride in the center of lane...You're not going to pass anyone riding in the middle of the lane in city traffic.
Posted by Hackett]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:26:31 -0600 Arkansas Times
I cannot pretend to defend those who spend $4,000 on a bicycle, but riding a bike is cheaper than paying for gas. And it is true what Tom says: downtown, riding a bike is just as quick as a driving a car. And easier to park. Welcome to the end of cheap oil. Maybe moving out to the suburbs wasn't such a great idea if you still work downtown.

Bonus stats: In the US, 30,000 people die every year in vehicle collisions at an economic cost of $200 billion. Worldwide, vehicle collisions are the number one killer of children.
Posted by SEMAJ]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2012 00:03:05 -0600 Arkansas Times the extra five seconds it takes to pass a slower cyclist safely in a tight spot instead of trying to bully your way through may save their life and save you the trivial inconvenience of having to tell the police that the cyclist you just killed just pulled out right in front of you and you were such a shitty driver there was nothing you could do.................................
Posted by spokes]]> Sat, 22 Dec 2012 19:31:06 -0600 Arkansas Times Persons on bicycles can proceed with the flow of traffic or receive a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic. What makes their time more important than a motorized driver?
Posted by Hackett]]> Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:50:32 -0600 Arkansas Times
Glad that was pointed out again. For those not accustomed to riding in traffic let's think about why a cyclist would not move over or might take up more of a lane than a motorist might appreciate. I'm talking not about a peleton size group of cyclists, I'm talking about a single cyclist making their way to a destination. (home. Store. Church. public event,...)

For me, its about preserving my options. The law mentions as far right as practicable. Not possible - practicable. Which, in a practical sense, means as far to the right as is safe for the purposes intended. If the right edge of the road is littered with debris or the pavement in poor condition, then that part of the road lane is not usable. So I will adjust the edge of the road to the part that is usable so that I have options when being passed.

The faster I am going the more usable pavement I will leave to the right, the slower I am going the less usable pavement I need to the right - but always leaving a margin to recover on just in case. Options.

If traffic is passing me too closely and or too fast then I will want more pavement to my right - again just in case. Because I know if I'm passed with even less than the lawfully required 3 feet then I want some room to the right to swerve to.

Incidentally, a sidewalk is not for bicycle use. Joints are typically raised; mailboxes, utility poles, trash can be on them; They dip and rise at every drive way; Even at speeds as slow as 10 mph all of these conditions make sidewalk riding an even greater likely hood to crashing. And there are more reasons, but that's another blog. Put simply I'm riding not walking. Hence the name side w a l k.

I have and use a rear view mirror. I have become very good at judging the closure rate of a car behind me as seen in the mirror and can usually 1) determine if I'm seen and 2) can associate the anticipated speed and distance that I'll be passed with.

I know that I'm more readily seen when positioned a reasonable amount in the lane versus up against the edge. In addition, being in the lane a reasonable amount has the secondary effect of encouraging a motorist that might otherwise pass too quickly and closely to instead slow down until it's safe to pass. I can judge this in the mirror by what I see and can actually hear the tire tread spinning more slowly on the street. When I sense all this, then I may feel safer giving up more of any usable street surface to my right and in which will usually do so.

Practically speaking, the amount any traffic has had to slow down before passing me has been maybe a reduction of 10-15 mph for 20 seconds tops. I ride on 55 mph streets in some places. Not because I want to but because it's the only way through. Passing me at 40 mph is much more calming for everyone involved than at 55.
Posted by Ron Rizzardi]]> Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:42:17 -0600 Arkansas Times
The location of this accident was on an avenue originally designed for street cars not automobiles.

A cyclist assumes inherent risks when riding, some in more places than others. A motorist assumes in my mind an elevated level of responsibility by virtue of the extreme damage their car can inflict.

A motorist that see themselves as some elite special class - supreme user of the streets - in their multi ton rolling cage are the real danger, not the few arrogant cyclists that are conjured up to be the whole cycling community at large.

If a motorist has a problem with how a cyclist is using the road, then I recommend a call to the police to hash it out and file a report.

Nonetheless, a person has the freedom to choose how they travel. If one travels by bicycle, then they deserve an infrastructure that assures their safety not detracts from it. As already proven, a cyclist pays a variety of taxes as much as the next private citizen who doesn't cycle. I believe some of those taxes are to go toward improving the infrastructure where it needs it and this particular location needs it.
Posted by Ron Rizzardi]]> Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:41:44 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Bill Hearst]]> Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:43:37 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by 33]]> Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:30:01 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by 33]]> Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:28:22 -0600 Arkansas Times
I'm sorry when anyone dies from any means. I'm sorry for them and for their families.

But when a rider chooses to ride in neighborhoods like the one in which this lady was hit by a car, neighborhoods whose streets were designed, often poorly so, for vehicular traffic, one assumes the attendant risks.

Bicyclists are not a special class and therefore do not need nor deserve any special treatment. Unfortunately for them the attitude of so many of their fellow riders hurt their entire cause. How is it that so many pricks have chosen to ride bicycles?
Posted by HolyGuano]]> Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:40:23 -0600 Arkansas Times Actually, some new laws that make stiffer penalities for careless, reckless and negligent 3 ton vehicle operation would be more helpful.
Posted by Ron Rizzardi]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:12:02 -0600 Arkansas Times If this had been a doctor out runnng who'd been killed you'd never hear the end of it.
Posted by spokes]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:45:23 -0600 Arkansas Times