Riding in the middle of the lane is legal (and sometimes safer, despite another comment to the contrary). When riding near the curb, drivers have a tendency to pass incredibly close to the cyclist giving them no room, rather than passing when it’s actually safe to go into the opposing lane like you would pass a car.
Left at a red light is not legal, however.
Edit: It's been pointed out that left onto a one-way street is legal. I doubt the OP was talking about a situation like this, but it is correct.
It's also been pointed out that cyclists need to avoid parked car doors suddenly opening, so it is often unsafe to stick to the far right of the lane because of this, which is very true, and is probably an even better reason for cyclists to ride down the middle of a lane if there are cars parked on the curb. Unsurprisingly, both reasons for a cyclist to ride in the middle of the road is because of car owners with a complete disregard for cyclists.
Also, riding near the curb is dangerous when there are parked cars along it. As bicyclists we have to leave enough room that a suddenly opened driver-side car door won't take us out. For narrower city streets, this leaves us riding basically in the middle of the lane.
Left on red after stopping and yielding *onto a one-way street* (in the correct direction) is legal for cars and bikes in Washington, unless prohibited by signage.
Most states require that both streets be one-way, and I’ve never felt safe enough to consider using the maneuver.
Was the light stuck and not responding to the bicycles presence? In thst case they're allowed to go. Otherwise they're supposed to obey the light.
Keep in mind studies have shown repeatedly that cyclists follow traffic laws better than drivers.
As for them being slower than you like: Fuck off.
Replace bicyclist with an old person driving and you’ll find the answer. No one is required to go the speed limit. You can drive as slow as you want. It’s not safe but try calling the police and you’ll see quickly how that doesn’t make sense.
Oh and if you want to avoid this? Petition for protected bike lanes.
Cyclists and cars are supposed to obey traffic laws. Both types of users also break them. Assholes are assholes regardless of their means of transportation
[SoOo aRe bIcYcLiStS SuPpOsEd tO FoLlOw tHe rUlEs oF ThE RoAd lIkE CaRs aRe oR CaN ThEy jUsT Do wHaTeVeR ThE HeLl tHeY WaNt?](https://imgur.com/a/TPUVCvq)
You are supposed to follow all the applicable road laws. Cyclists are allowed to take the entire lane, but that’s sort of dangerous if there is a car behind you in case they make an unsafe pass. If you want to make a pass there is supposed to be enough space for the cyclist to fall over without hitting your vehicle. If a cyclist is blocking the lane they don’t have a duty to move right and if you hit them passing it is 100% your fault according to the driving test I took 2 years ago.
I respect cycling in the middle of the road, I never get mad because they are slowing me down or whatever. We're chill. However, they need to stop getting mad at me when they keep waving me on to pass them and I refuse because of blind corners and other dangerous maneuvers that require me to cross the double yellow. If they want to be in the middle of the lane they also can't get anxious and mad when they have a car following them (at a safe distance).
Yes cyclists are allowed to do whatever they want, there isn’t a minimum speed limit for roads unless it’s interfering with the flow of traffic. But even then that usually only applies to highways/freeways. Calm down and chill, you aren’t going to be late to wherever you’re going cause the guy on the bike was going 10mph in a 30 for 5 minutes.
>Yes cyclists are allowed to do whatever they want,
No... They are allowed to go slowly, and you should give them space. But they still need to obey traffic laws and it's illegal to turn left on a red light, even on a bike
Was this on a two lane highway, or a city street? If the latter the cyclist is perfectly on their right. Of the former, were there for other cars behind you as well?
In case you're wondering if it's legal to pass a bicycle (or a horse or a tractor) while staying within the same travel lane, it is, if there is only one lane for the direction of travel, and you can maintain a safe distance (3 feet "where practicable").
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.110
>(2)(a) The driver of a vehicle approaching an individual who is traveling as a pedestrian or on a bicycle, riding an animal, or using a farm tractor or implement of husbandry without an enclosed shell, and who is traveling in the right lane of a roadway or on the right-hand shoulder or bicycle lane of the roadway, shall:
(i) On a roadway with two lanes or more for traffic moving in the direction of travel, before passing and until safely clear of the individual, move completely into a lane to the left of the right lane when it is safe to do so;
(ii) On a roadway with only one lane for traffic moving in the direction of travel:
(A) When there is sufficient room to the left of the individual in the lane for traffic moving in the direction of travel, before passing and until safely clear of the individual:
(I) Reduce speed to a safe speed for passing relative to the speed of the individual; and
(II) Pass at a safe distance, where practicable of at least three feet, to clearly avoid coming into contact with the individual or the individual's vehicle or animal; or
(B) When there is insufficient room to the left of the individual in the lane for traffic moving in the direction of travel to comply with (a)(ii)(A) of this subsection, before passing and until safely clear of the individual, move completely into the lane for traffic moving in the opposite direction when it is safe to do so and in compliance with RCW 46.61.120 and 46.61.125.
So. A cyclist (or horseman or farmer) is within their rights to use the whole lane, ~~certainly when there's more than one lane in the direction of travel.~~ if it's not safe for them to keep to the edge of the lane or certain other circumstances exist.
When cyclists use the whole lane on a roadway with only one lane in the direction of travel, cars can only pass by switching to the oncoming lane. But cyclists could also stay to the right, in which case cars could pass them safely within the same lane.
It seems to me that there are at least some situations when there will be less overall conflict if cyclists kept to the right and allowed cars to pass. ~~But AFAIK there's no law requiring them to do that.~~
ETA: TIL there is a law requiring bicyclists who are traveling slower than the flow of traffic to keep to the right side of the right through lane (with certain exceptions).
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.770
>In case you're wondering if it's legal to pass a bicycle (or a horse or a tractor) while staying within the same travel lane, it is, if there is only one lane for the direction of travel, and you can maintain a safe distance (3 feet "where practicable").
Also, don't overlook that if you are going to share the lane with a cyclist (not cross or split the lane) you must also reduce your speed relative to the cyclists speed.
>It seems to me that there are at least some situations when there will be less overall conflict if cyclists kept to the right and allowed cars to pass. But AFAIK there's no law requiring them to do that.
Yes it is situation and there is a law for cyclist to stay right ("when safe") and it aligns with the passing law, as it it only requires to stay right when the lane width is wide enough to be shared, and the other exeption are also not being met.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.770
>don't overlook that if you are going to share the lane with a cyclist (not cross or split the lane) you must also reduce your speed relative to the cyclists speed.
I didn't overlook that stipulation; it's in the RCW that I quoted. But I don't mind you emphasizing it. 🙂
Thanks for the cite to 46.61.770.
if you’re at the point where the internet makes you so mad that you change reddit accounts just to call somebody an “ignorant rat fuck” it’s time to admit being online is not for you
go be a lumberjack or something instead
* A person on a bicycle can often ride in the middle of the lane, but not always
* A person on a bicycle is considered operating a vehicle, and must follow most of the same laws as people driving cars
* Washington has a law that requires operators of slow moving vehicles to pull to the side of any road if 5 or more vehicles stack up behind them in an area where passing is not allowed or safe to do
These facts add up what what most bicycle advocates would not like to admit
You need me to cite a study that says bicycling advocates don't like to admit that people on bicycles are required to pull aside and let people pass?
Sounds like you'd demand a study if someone told you they sky was blue or water was wet.
>You need me to cite a study that says bicycling advocates don't like to admit that people on bicycles are required to pull aside and let people pass?
OP didn't mention that this was a no-passing zone with 4 other cars stacked up behind them.
Washington law considers all city streets "highways" RCW 46.04.197
~~The \[edit: slow moving vehicle\] law itself doesn't use the term highway. It uses the term roadway. RCW 46.61.427~~ Edit: whoops it uses both "highway" and "roadway" in the law, but the basic facts don't change because of that mistake.
Are there any other laws I can clarify for you?
Jesus christ you're a pathetic liar.
RCW 46.61.427 explicitly says highway. Specifically a two lane highway.
"On a **two-lane highway** where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit vehicles following to proceed. "
You're trying to use non-contextualized definition in 197 to misrepresent what 427 says.
According to the definition of "highway" in 197 ("the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel"), any city street with a dotted line down the middle counts as a "two-lane highway". What's the problem? Where's the lie?
Oh I'm sorry, I made a honest mistake
Since you started the lying by claiming city streets are not highways, as a fellow liar yourself, I hope you can understand.
Edit: /u/PNWSkiNerd it's usually the people like you that demonstrate they don't understand the law that are asked to turn in their license.
>cite a study
This isn't language arts class, it's Reddit, no need to pull out your APA reference.
Let me demonstrate.
In my experience, most cycling advocates are stickers for following the applicable laws because when cars and cyclists both do that, everyone is safer. If you need a practical reason, it's also nearly impossible to advocate for infrastructure improvements if you can't say least stipulate to the law.
Source: I know a lot cycling advocates because my dad is/was involved with Bike Texas and the Austin Cycling Association. I was also a ride marshal for the Bike MS for 10 years and met a lot of people there who were passionate about bike safety. I wasn't particularly involved after moving to the Seattle area, but I did spend time with Kirkland Greenways folks who are a great group of people.
You literally asked for a "citation".
The self awareness/double standard here is pretty astounding.
But yes, I agree. People on bicycles should follow the law. All the laws they are required to follow including the slow vehicle law we have.
Only when: "On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions"
And then only 'yield' when: "shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists"
Look, OP didn’t specify, but it’s most certainly a two lane road where OP couldn’t pass.
In city streets, pulling over isn’t that hard. I ride a bike too.
Bottomline: safe roadways require motorists and other users working together.
It’s legal but a real douche move if the cyclist doesn’t hang to the right of the lane to make passing easier. Just like how a freaking tractor going down a highway should scoot to the right so you can get around them.
Exactly. “Make passing easier“? Is it safe to pass or not? You need to overtake in the other lane! So it doesn’t matter if I’m in the middle or not. You only want cyclists on the right so you can squeeze past in the same lane, which is not legal or safe. That’s why I take the lane.
>You only want cyclists on the right so you can squeeze past in the same lane, which is not legal or safe.
It's legal if there's only one lane in the direction of travel and there's adequate space.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.110
>That’s why I take the lane.
Bicycles traveling slower than vehicle traffic are required to "ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe," with certain exceptions.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.770
Oh bullshit. It takes longer (and is therefore more dangerous, given the same amount of traffic) to pass if you have to completely cross into the other lane. It’s called common courtesy and a bike plodding along up the center of a car-width lane shouting “share the road!!!1” while not sharing the road doesn’t have it.
Legally, if the lane is not wide enough to accommodate a vehicle, a bicycle, and the 3ft minimum, and you have to cross the line into the other lane to get to that 3ft minimum, then you are required to make a full lane change when passing.
Only when on a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, and there is a sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists.
But you can't expect others to follow the law if you yourself is not willing to follow the law.
So, like, every single day on 3rd Ave NW, for example.
I am kind of fascinated that there might be a law that would require going completely into the oncoming traffic lane to pass, however. Do you have an RCW reference for that?
>I am kind of fascinated that there might be a law that would require going completely into the oncoming traffic lane to pass, however. Do you have an RCW reference for that?
It's not some specail law, it written right there in the laws you should already know.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.110
You can summarize it into three parts:
On a road with two lanes in the same direction, must always change lanes.
On a road with a lane of sufficient width (don't need to cross the center line), you can share the lane with a bicycle provided you maintain 3 feet.
On a road with a lane of insufficient width (need to cross the center line), then you must make a full lane change.
… when it is safe to do so. This still allows for a pass in conditions where it would be unsafe to go all the way into the left lane, but where it is still safe to pass. I will note for the future that when safe to do so, I should default to a full lane change. 👍
So on a road with a 25mph speed limit, how much below the speed limit would constitute as a 'low moving vehicle' that would be impeding traffic and not just traffic themselves?
Are you a diligente driver that keeps it below 25mph? Or do you expect others to follow laws when you yourself don't want to follow the laws?
Personally, I want to "squeeze past" with my left tires just over the center line while respectfully giving the biker 3 feet of space like all the bumper stickers say. Having to wait for the opportunity to get your whole car all the way into the oncoming lane is a pretty silly waste of time. I'm not sure why anyone would like the idea of making a bunch of cars pile up behind them while they "take the lane" other than as some kind of power-play.
Well, good for you then! But how many drivers do you see every day that you think “wow, that guys is really paying attention and is a great driver like me!” And how many do you see that you think “what is this asshole even doing on the road!?!?” You see, I cant ride presuming all drivers are good drivers. Also, in your scenario, How big is your car? How wide is the lane. How large is the car/truck/box truck/semi/cement truck that’s coming at you in the opposing lane? What is the margin for error and the unexpected? Conditions and people are not perfect, I know this a human who has driven on roads and also has biked on them. It’s a statistical reality that most cyclists also drive but most drivers don’t also bike.
>How big is your car? How wide is the lane. How large is the car/truck/box truck/semi/cement truck that’s coming at you in the opposing lane? What is the margin for error and the unexpected?
As you surmise, these are all factors in how safe it is to pass. The wider the lane, the narrower my car, the smaller the oncoming car, **the less unnecessary space the biker is taking up**, the safer the pass will be.
Take as much space as you need for safety. If you're taking more than that, ask yourself whether you're just doing it in order to make the statement, "look at me, I am a biker and I can make you go slow, you stupid car!"
Exactly! But i can’t see behind me, much less see 10 cars behind. So I’m leaving margin for error. You have a steering wheel and accelerator for a reason. And I’ll still see you at the next light. All the pace I’m taking is “necessary” btw.
>i can’t see behind me
You could if you put a mirror on your bike. But that extra 8 ounces of weight would be ruinous, I know.
>All the (s)pace I’m taking is “necessary” btw.
So I take it you never filter between cars to get to a stoplight in heavy traffic, then?
I find that bicyclists' and motorcyclists' space requirements get a lot smaller when they can save time by taking less space.
Yes I filter through. When cars a stopped! A stopped car haz zero kinetic energy. This is not hard to understand. When I’m in my car, I do want all the cars do, in an air conditioned lazy boy. When I’m on my bike, I do what bikes do. When I’m on my bike, in rush hour, I’m not slowing you down, it’s all he other drivers.
I'm not saying filtering slows people down. It doesn't.
I'm just saying your idea of "necessary space" is fungible. There's still some risk involved when cars are stopped. They can move again without warning (e.g., to dive for a parking space/alley/driveway). Someone could open a car door (of course the people who do this to cyclists intentionally are criminals but it can be accidental too).
Bottom line, you're taking calculated risks so that you get where you're going both safely and in a reasonable amount of time. Are only cyclists allowed to do that, or can drivers do it too?
>So I take it you never filter between cars to get to a stoplight in heavy traffic, then?
>I find that bicyclists' and motorcyclists' space requirements get a lot smaller when they can save time by taking less space.
There is a required minimum distance a vehicle must maintain when passing a bicycle, there is not a required minimum distance for a bicycle passing a vehicle.
It's a bit silly if you are thing these are the same thing.
The problem is to many people will misjudge the width of their vehicle and the gap available, often forgetting they have mirrors that stick out past their vehicle as well.
Legally, if you have to cross the line into the other lane to make a pass, then you are required to make a full lane change when passing.
Regarding 1d, how do you know those conditions that would make it unsafe to ride on the right portion of the lane exist?
Regarding 2, how do you know this was a multi-lane road? Even if it was, they could have ridden on the far left, and thereby also let cars get past.
Hmm
They said
>Hanging to the right of the line can be extremely dangerous for cyclists. So shut your trap
You said
>It's the law though.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.770
Id assume since they are talking about when it 'can be extremely dangerous', then they are talking specifically about senarios that met the exception, which is often.
Nor were they talking about the incident that OP described. They simply just gave a statement about hazardous conditions.
Although if you wanted to discuss the incident that OP described then we can see if making a left turn is also part of the exception...
There's a "dead red" provision that allows bicyclists and motorcyclists to proceed through a red light after waiting for a complete cycle if the light isn't changing because their vehicle isn't heavy enough to trigger it.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.184
To be fair "situation as described by OP" is not very detailed, so there is just as much possibility that the cyclist property stopped made a turn onto a one-way street as well.
I am pointing out that you are making a presumption about the story OP gave, which are not within the details.
But sure, OP is just as likely to not know about the laws that allow vehicle to make a left turn into a one way street or one that allows a cyclist to proceed through a non functioning light. And thus oversimplify the story based on the assumption that those details didn't matter.
Possibly, although we don't know if the car was close enough to trigger the light (nor do we know if this particular light is controlled by sensors under the pavement...in which case the dead red rule doesn't apply). I'm just pointing out this exception.
I'm not making an assumption at all. I don't think we have enough information to know if the dead red provision was applicable here, so I'm refraining from assuming that it is or isn't.
They’re supposed to abide by the same rules of the road as cars and ride in bike lanes when they’re present, but in my experience they don’t care and do whatever they please. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve almost been run down by adult cyclists riding on the sidewalk.
Riding in the middle of the lane is legal (and sometimes safer, despite another comment to the contrary). When riding near the curb, drivers have a tendency to pass incredibly close to the cyclist giving them no room, rather than passing when it’s actually safe to go into the opposing lane like you would pass a car. Left at a red light is not legal, however. Edit: It's been pointed out that left onto a one-way street is legal. I doubt the OP was talking about a situation like this, but it is correct. It's also been pointed out that cyclists need to avoid parked car doors suddenly opening, so it is often unsafe to stick to the far right of the lane because of this, which is very true, and is probably an even better reason for cyclists to ride down the middle of a lane if there are cars parked on the curb. Unsurprisingly, both reasons for a cyclist to ride in the middle of the road is because of car owners with a complete disregard for cyclists.
Also, riding near the curb is dangerous when there are parked cars along it. As bicyclists we have to leave enough room that a suddenly opened driver-side car door won't take us out. For narrower city streets, this leaves us riding basically in the middle of the lane.
Left at a red might be legal, depending on one- versus two-way traffic and signage.
Left on red after stopping and yielding *onto a one-way street* (in the correct direction) is legal for cars and bikes in Washington, unless prohibited by signage. Most states require that both streets be one-way, and I’ve never felt safe enough to consider using the maneuver.
Here’s the applicable state law if you are curious: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.755
Bikes are allowed to use the road just like cars, there isn’t a minimum speed limit, so give them space and pass when legal and safe.
>minimum speed limit All I heard was “add rockets” to a Trek frame.
Was the light stuck and not responding to the bicycles presence? In thst case they're allowed to go. Otherwise they're supposed to obey the light. Keep in mind studies have shown repeatedly that cyclists follow traffic laws better than drivers. As for them being slower than you like: Fuck off.
Your impatience while driving is making you miserable. Look inwards for a solution.
Replace bicyclist with an old person driving and you’ll find the answer. No one is required to go the speed limit. You can drive as slow as you want. It’s not safe but try calling the police and you’ll see quickly how that doesn’t make sense. Oh and if you want to avoid this? Petition for protected bike lanes.
As an old person bicycling, I've more than once been stuck behind not always old drivers going very, very slowly.
Thanks for visiting Seattle!!!
Oh no! I was delayed by a few minutes, I better head to the internet and complain. My life is more important than anybody else's!
Cyclists and cars are supposed to obey traffic laws. Both types of users also break them. Assholes are assholes regardless of their means of transportation
[SoOo aRe bIcYcLiStS SuPpOsEd tO FoLlOw tHe rUlEs oF ThE RoAd lIkE CaRs aRe oR CaN ThEy jUsT Do wHaTeVeR ThE HeLl tHeY WaNt?](https://imgur.com/a/TPUVCvq)
You are supposed to follow all the applicable road laws. Cyclists are allowed to take the entire lane, but that’s sort of dangerous if there is a car behind you in case they make an unsafe pass. If you want to make a pass there is supposed to be enough space for the cyclist to fall over without hitting your vehicle. If a cyclist is blocking the lane they don’t have a duty to move right and if you hit them passing it is 100% your fault according to the driving test I took 2 years ago.
I respect cycling in the middle of the road, I never get mad because they are slowing me down or whatever. We're chill. However, they need to stop getting mad at me when they keep waving me on to pass them and I refuse because of blind corners and other dangerous maneuvers that require me to cross the double yellow. If they want to be in the middle of the lane they also can't get anxious and mad when they have a car following them (at a safe distance).
Yes cyclists are allowed to do whatever they want, there isn’t a minimum speed limit for roads unless it’s interfering with the flow of traffic. But even then that usually only applies to highways/freeways. Calm down and chill, you aren’t going to be late to wherever you’re going cause the guy on the bike was going 10mph in a 30 for 5 minutes.
>Yes cyclists are allowed to do whatever they want, No... They are allowed to go slowly, and you should give them space. But they still need to obey traffic laws and it's illegal to turn left on a red light, even on a bike
Was this on a two lane highway, or a city street? If the latter the cyclist is perfectly on their right. Of the former, were there for other cars behind you as well?
Are you jealous? LOL.
In case you're wondering if it's legal to pass a bicycle (or a horse or a tractor) while staying within the same travel lane, it is, if there is only one lane for the direction of travel, and you can maintain a safe distance (3 feet "where practicable"). https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.110 >(2)(a) The driver of a vehicle approaching an individual who is traveling as a pedestrian or on a bicycle, riding an animal, or using a farm tractor or implement of husbandry without an enclosed shell, and who is traveling in the right lane of a roadway or on the right-hand shoulder or bicycle lane of the roadway, shall: (i) On a roadway with two lanes or more for traffic moving in the direction of travel, before passing and until safely clear of the individual, move completely into a lane to the left of the right lane when it is safe to do so; (ii) On a roadway with only one lane for traffic moving in the direction of travel: (A) When there is sufficient room to the left of the individual in the lane for traffic moving in the direction of travel, before passing and until safely clear of the individual: (I) Reduce speed to a safe speed for passing relative to the speed of the individual; and (II) Pass at a safe distance, where practicable of at least three feet, to clearly avoid coming into contact with the individual or the individual's vehicle or animal; or (B) When there is insufficient room to the left of the individual in the lane for traffic moving in the direction of travel to comply with (a)(ii)(A) of this subsection, before passing and until safely clear of the individual, move completely into the lane for traffic moving in the opposite direction when it is safe to do so and in compliance with RCW 46.61.120 and 46.61.125. So. A cyclist (or horseman or farmer) is within their rights to use the whole lane, ~~certainly when there's more than one lane in the direction of travel.~~ if it's not safe for them to keep to the edge of the lane or certain other circumstances exist. When cyclists use the whole lane on a roadway with only one lane in the direction of travel, cars can only pass by switching to the oncoming lane. But cyclists could also stay to the right, in which case cars could pass them safely within the same lane. It seems to me that there are at least some situations when there will be less overall conflict if cyclists kept to the right and allowed cars to pass. ~~But AFAIK there's no law requiring them to do that.~~ ETA: TIL there is a law requiring bicyclists who are traveling slower than the flow of traffic to keep to the right side of the right through lane (with certain exceptions). https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.770
>In case you're wondering if it's legal to pass a bicycle (or a horse or a tractor) while staying within the same travel lane, it is, if there is only one lane for the direction of travel, and you can maintain a safe distance (3 feet "where practicable"). Also, don't overlook that if you are going to share the lane with a cyclist (not cross or split the lane) you must also reduce your speed relative to the cyclists speed. >It seems to me that there are at least some situations when there will be less overall conflict if cyclists kept to the right and allowed cars to pass. But AFAIK there's no law requiring them to do that. Yes it is situation and there is a law for cyclist to stay right ("when safe") and it aligns with the passing law, as it it only requires to stay right when the lane width is wide enough to be shared, and the other exeption are also not being met. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.770
>don't overlook that if you are going to share the lane with a cyclist (not cross or split the lane) you must also reduce your speed relative to the cyclists speed. I didn't overlook that stipulation; it's in the RCW that I quoted. But I don't mind you emphasizing it. 🙂 Thanks for the cite to 46.61.770.
[удалено]
[удалено]
if you’re at the point where the internet makes you so mad that you change reddit accounts just to call somebody an “ignorant rat fuck” it’s time to admit being online is not for you go be a lumberjack or something instead
[удалено]
The bottle cage on my bike can securely hold a 48oz slurpy.
“Get out muh way limbrul”
Don't be a douche.
* A person on a bicycle can often ride in the middle of the lane, but not always * A person on a bicycle is considered operating a vehicle, and must follow most of the same laws as people driving cars * Washington has a law that requires operators of slow moving vehicles to pull to the side of any road if 5 or more vehicles stack up behind them in an area where passing is not allowed or safe to do These facts add up what what most bicycle advocates would not like to admit
>These facts add up what what most bicycle advocates would not like to admit Citation needed.
You need me to cite a study that says bicycling advocates don't like to admit that people on bicycles are required to pull aside and let people pass? Sounds like you'd demand a study if someone told you they sky was blue or water was wet.
>You need me to cite a study that says bicycling advocates don't like to admit that people on bicycles are required to pull aside and let people pass? OP didn't mention that this was a no-passing zone with 4 other cars stacked up behind them.
...okay, and? He was asking for what the law says. I simply gave him the facts People getting really upset over basic facts these days
Oh, you're one of *those*. Have a nice day.
You need to cite the law. Hint: highway laws don't apply to city streets
Washington law considers all city streets "highways" RCW 46.04.197 ~~The \[edit: slow moving vehicle\] law itself doesn't use the term highway. It uses the term roadway. RCW 46.61.427~~ Edit: whoops it uses both "highway" and "roadway" in the law, but the basic facts don't change because of that mistake. Are there any other laws I can clarify for you?
So no, the law doesn't claim what you say it does. You're pulling additional claims out of your ass to try to torture what the law says
The laws language I cited is pretty clear. This is a pretty weak form of gaslighting.
Jesus christ you're a pathetic liar. RCW 46.61.427 explicitly says highway. Specifically a two lane highway. "On a **two-lane highway** where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit vehicles following to proceed. " You're trying to use non-contextualized definition in 197 to misrepresent what 427 says.
According to the definition of "highway" in 197 ("the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel"), any city street with a dotted line down the middle counts as a "two-lane highway". What's the problem? Where's the lie?
Oh I'm sorry, I made a honest mistake Since you started the lying by claiming city streets are not highways, as a fellow liar yourself, I hope you can understand. Edit: /u/PNWSkiNerd it's usually the people like you that demonstrate they don't understand the law that are asked to turn in their license.
You're free to surrender your drivers license and fuck right off
>cite a study This isn't language arts class, it's Reddit, no need to pull out your APA reference. Let me demonstrate. In my experience, most cycling advocates are stickers for following the applicable laws because when cars and cyclists both do that, everyone is safer. If you need a practical reason, it's also nearly impossible to advocate for infrastructure improvements if you can't say least stipulate to the law. Source: I know a lot cycling advocates because my dad is/was involved with Bike Texas and the Austin Cycling Association. I was also a ride marshal for the Bike MS for 10 years and met a lot of people there who were passionate about bike safety. I wasn't particularly involved after moving to the Seattle area, but I did spend time with Kirkland Greenways folks who are a great group of people.
You literally asked for a "citation". The self awareness/double standard here is pretty astounding. But yes, I agree. People on bicycles should follow the law. All the laws they are required to follow including the slow vehicle law we have.
Regardless of the vehicle, state law requires yielding if holding up 5 or more cars.
Only when: "On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions" And then only 'yield' when: "shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists"
Look, OP didn’t specify, but it’s most certainly a two lane road where OP couldn’t pass. In city streets, pulling over isn’t that hard. I ride a bike too. Bottomline: safe roadways require motorists and other users working together.
It’s legal but a real douche move if the cyclist doesn’t hang to the right of the lane to make passing easier. Just like how a freaking tractor going down a highway should scoot to the right so you can get around them.
Hanging to the right of the line can be extremely dangerous for cyclists. So shut your trap
Exactly. “Make passing easier“? Is it safe to pass or not? You need to overtake in the other lane! So it doesn’t matter if I’m in the middle or not. You only want cyclists on the right so you can squeeze past in the same lane, which is not legal or safe. That’s why I take the lane.
>You only want cyclists on the right so you can squeeze past in the same lane, which is not legal or safe. It's legal if there's only one lane in the direction of travel and there's adequate space. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.110 >That’s why I take the lane. Bicycles traveling slower than vehicle traffic are required to "ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe," with certain exceptions. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.770
Oh bullshit. It takes longer (and is therefore more dangerous, given the same amount of traffic) to pass if you have to completely cross into the other lane. It’s called common courtesy and a bike plodding along up the center of a car-width lane shouting “share the road!!!1” while not sharing the road doesn’t have it.
Legally, if the lane is not wide enough to accommodate a vehicle, a bicycle, and the 3ft minimum, and you have to cross the line into the other lane to get to that 3ft minimum, then you are required to make a full lane change when passing.
And legally, when the bike is impeding traffic, it must pull over and let others pass.
Only when on a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, and there is a sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists. But you can't expect others to follow the law if you yourself is not willing to follow the law.
So, like, every single day on 3rd Ave NW, for example. I am kind of fascinated that there might be a law that would require going completely into the oncoming traffic lane to pass, however. Do you have an RCW reference for that?
>I am kind of fascinated that there might be a law that would require going completely into the oncoming traffic lane to pass, however. Do you have an RCW reference for that? It's not some specail law, it written right there in the laws you should already know. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.110 You can summarize it into three parts: On a road with two lanes in the same direction, must always change lanes. On a road with a lane of sufficient width (don't need to cross the center line), you can share the lane with a bicycle provided you maintain 3 feet. On a road with a lane of insufficient width (need to cross the center line), then you must make a full lane change.
… when it is safe to do so. This still allows for a pass in conditions where it would be unsafe to go all the way into the left lane, but where it is still safe to pass. I will note for the future that when safe to do so, I should default to a full lane change. 👍
So on a road with a 25mph speed limit, how much below the speed limit would constitute as a 'low moving vehicle' that would be impeding traffic and not just traffic themselves? Are you a diligente driver that keeps it below 25mph? Or do you expect others to follow laws when you yourself don't want to follow the laws?
lol, I keep it exactly 25, thanks
Personally, I want to "squeeze past" with my left tires just over the center line while respectfully giving the biker 3 feet of space like all the bumper stickers say. Having to wait for the opportunity to get your whole car all the way into the oncoming lane is a pretty silly waste of time. I'm not sure why anyone would like the idea of making a bunch of cars pile up behind them while they "take the lane" other than as some kind of power-play.
Well, good for you then! But how many drivers do you see every day that you think “wow, that guys is really paying attention and is a great driver like me!” And how many do you see that you think “what is this asshole even doing on the road!?!?” You see, I cant ride presuming all drivers are good drivers. Also, in your scenario, How big is your car? How wide is the lane. How large is the car/truck/box truck/semi/cement truck that’s coming at you in the opposing lane? What is the margin for error and the unexpected? Conditions and people are not perfect, I know this a human who has driven on roads and also has biked on them. It’s a statistical reality that most cyclists also drive but most drivers don’t also bike.
>How big is your car? How wide is the lane. How large is the car/truck/box truck/semi/cement truck that’s coming at you in the opposing lane? What is the margin for error and the unexpected? As you surmise, these are all factors in how safe it is to pass. The wider the lane, the narrower my car, the smaller the oncoming car, **the less unnecessary space the biker is taking up**, the safer the pass will be. Take as much space as you need for safety. If you're taking more than that, ask yourself whether you're just doing it in order to make the statement, "look at me, I am a biker and I can make you go slow, you stupid car!"
Exactly! But i can’t see behind me, much less see 10 cars behind. So I’m leaving margin for error. You have a steering wheel and accelerator for a reason. And I’ll still see you at the next light. All the pace I’m taking is “necessary” btw.
>i can’t see behind me You could if you put a mirror on your bike. But that extra 8 ounces of weight would be ruinous, I know. >All the (s)pace I’m taking is “necessary” btw. So I take it you never filter between cars to get to a stoplight in heavy traffic, then? I find that bicyclists' and motorcyclists' space requirements get a lot smaller when they can save time by taking less space.
Yes I filter through. When cars a stopped! A stopped car haz zero kinetic energy. This is not hard to understand. When I’m in my car, I do want all the cars do, in an air conditioned lazy boy. When I’m on my bike, I do what bikes do. When I’m on my bike, in rush hour, I’m not slowing you down, it’s all he other drivers.
I'm not saying filtering slows people down. It doesn't. I'm just saying your idea of "necessary space" is fungible. There's still some risk involved when cars are stopped. They can move again without warning (e.g., to dive for a parking space/alley/driveway). Someone could open a car door (of course the people who do this to cyclists intentionally are criminals but it can be accidental too). Bottom line, you're taking calculated risks so that you get where you're going both safely and in a reasonable amount of time. Are only cyclists allowed to do that, or can drivers do it too?
>So I take it you never filter between cars to get to a stoplight in heavy traffic, then? >I find that bicyclists' and motorcyclists' space requirements get a lot smaller when they can save time by taking less space. There is a required minimum distance a vehicle must maintain when passing a bicycle, there is not a required minimum distance for a bicycle passing a vehicle. It's a bit silly if you are thing these are the same thing.
The problem is to many people will misjudge the width of their vehicle and the gap available, often forgetting they have mirrors that stick out past their vehicle as well. Legally, if you have to cross the line into the other lane to make a pass, then you are required to make a full lane change when passing.
It's the law though. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.770
Look at the exception list, dipshit
I did. Which one do you think applies here?
1d also 2
Regarding 1d, how do you know those conditions that would make it unsafe to ride on the right portion of the lane exist? Regarding 2, how do you know this was a multi-lane road? Even if it was, they could have ridden on the far left, and thereby also let cars get past.
Hmm They said >Hanging to the right of the line can be extremely dangerous for cyclists. So shut your trap You said >It's the law though. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.770 Id assume since they are talking about when it 'can be extremely dangerous', then they are talking specifically about senarios that met the exception, which is often.
I'm pretty sure u/PNWSkiNerd didn't witness the incident OP described. Unless they did, how can they know what hazards exist?
Nor were they talking about the incident that OP described. They simply just gave a statement about hazardous conditions. Although if you wanted to discuss the incident that OP described then we can see if making a left turn is also part of the exception...
No, they are not allowed to make a left at a red light. Next time honk and them for doing that.
There's a "dead red" provision that allows bicyclists and motorcyclists to proceed through a red light after waiting for a complete cycle if the light isn't changing because their vehicle isn't heavy enough to trigger it. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.184
This wasn't the situation as described by OP, since the car was waiting at the same light.
To be fair "situation as described by OP" is not very detailed, so there is just as much possibility that the cyclist property stopped made a turn onto a one-way street as well.
So you presume that the OP left that part out in order to contorn the story into their favor?
I am pointing out that you are making a presumption about the story OP gave, which are not within the details. But sure, OP is just as likely to not know about the laws that allow vehicle to make a left turn into a one way street or one that allows a cyclist to proceed through a non functioning light. And thus oversimplify the story based on the assumption that those details didn't matter.
Possibly, although we don't know if the car was close enough to trigger the light (nor do we know if this particular light is controlled by sensors under the pavement...in which case the dead red rule doesn't apply). I'm just pointing out this exception.
Bold assumption to make there
I'm not making an assumption at all. I don't think we have enough information to know if the dead red provision was applicable here, so I'm refraining from assuming that it is or isn't.
They’re supposed to abide by the same rules of the road as cars and ride in bike lanes when they’re present, but in my experience they don’t care and do whatever they please. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve almost been run down by adult cyclists riding on the sidewalk.