On Jul 15, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
A bicycle legally owns the entire lane they are riding in (in many areas where I've ridden)
Hmm. In most places I've driven bicyclists are required to share a lane, and are *not* entitled to an entire lane by law. It strikes me that it would really hold up traffic if they were entitled to an entire lane, since passing is not generally allowed on city streets. Cars would end up stuck behind a bicycle going 10-15 mph, unable to legally get by. And unlike cyclists, drivers are not always given a free pass by the police for breaking traffic laws.
I agree that cars should give bicycles as much space as practical, though, and I often give them an entire lane if traffic allows, and will hang back if there's not enough space to pass safely.
That said, if you'd rolled forward another foot, then you'd have entered a crosswalk without stopping at the stop line that is generally placed *before* the crosswalk, which means you'd have rolled the stop sign -- also a violation. just sayin' it.
Actually, I *had* stopped before the crosswalk. I was beginning to roll forward again so I could see cross traffic around the hedges when the bicyclist suddenly appeared in front of me.
If I can get through an intersection and onto clear open road where I'm visible and in control of my situation then I will do it, even if it means running a red light. that doesn't mean I blow through a light without looking or without awareness of motorists, but it does mean that you as a motorist may be frustrated by having to wait for a red light while I roll through it.
Pro-cyclist groups like Critical Mass seem to feel that cyclists have the right to block traffic that has a green light so other cyclists can run a red. This sticks in my craw. If they want to be treated with the same respect as other motorists they shouldn't be able to decide the law doesn't apply to them. Just sayin' it.