I was riding along 4th street out towards Mogul yesterday when a trucker in his semi hauling what looked like gravel pulled around me, stopped on the side of the road, and flagged me down while climbing out of his cab. I braced myself for some sort of ugly confrontation. The driver proceeded to give me a lecture about how he almost hit a couple of cyclists when he was going the other direction when transporting another load of gravel because the cyclists refused to ride on the right side of the white line. He then started telling me what the law was in terms of bicycles sharing the road. He had been a cop in California 30 years before so he apparently felt he knew the law. Remarkably, the conversation didn't get too ugly. I tried to remain composed and pointed out he needed to be more aware of the NRS on bicycles. Most notably these two points quoted below:
1 - Drivers of motor vehicles cannot "intentionally interfere with the movement of a person lawfully riding a bicycle; or overtake and pass a person riding a bicycle unless he can do so safely" without endangering the cyclist.
2 - Cyclists should under most circumstances "ride as far to the right side of the roadway as practicable"
Here's the rub of course. The trucker basically admitted that he did not pass the other cyclists safely...and...from his perspective the cyclists were not riding as far to the right as "practicable." But if you've ridden in that area on a bike you know that the "shoulder" area does not allow for cyclists to stay on the right side of the white line at all times. Nevermind that the shoulder is typically full of gravel and debris and is generally not that safe of a surface to ride on.
So this is a warning to cyclists heading out that way. It appears that there were dozens of similar trucks (same company with big yellow trucks) working on some project in that area. I pointed out that the road they were driving on is possibly the most popular connection for road riders in the Reno area to the trucker. I thanked him for being a "careful" driver with so many cyclists on the road and kept riding. Hopefully he'll be that much more aware of safety considerations and cyclists in the future.
Note: This photo is not THE trucker mentioned but is the truck/company that is working on the project.
8 comments:
NRS 484.145 “Roadway” defined. “Roadway” means that portion of a highway which is improved and ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, exclusive of the shoulder.
(Added to NRS by 1973, 448)
The area to the right of the line is not part of the roadway, therefor we are not required to ride on it.
-M
Thank you for this clarification! Wish I had remembered that when I was "chatting" with the driver.
vehicles on a public roadway are not permitted to impede and/or cause unsafe conditions for other vehicles on the roadway. I know the stretch of road you are talking about and venture to say you cannot travel at a safe speed in the roadway itself at a consistent rate. You may not be "required" to stay on the right shoulder but in a hi-speed area safety dictates you should.
To anonymous: It seems to me that this too is ambiguous. It's true that a bicyclist could possibly "impede" another faster vehicle. But since a bicycle is considered a vehicle by law, isn't it also true that a car/truck coming up behind and attempting to pass a bicycle and not allowing enough space for a cyclist to safely ride is actually causing "unsafe conditions"? Cars/Trucks can't just squeeze cyclists just because they feel they have more right to the lane. They don't! They must slow down and wait for safe conditions to pass.
All this being said, a good measure of politeness and common sense goes a long way when riding/driving in real life circumstances on the road.
Emphasis definitely on common sense. When riding a bike, you can have all the rights in the world on your side. But, if you tangle with a larger vehicle, you might just end up dead right!
All this debate would be rendered moot if we as a community were willing to pay for the significant amenity of ped/cycle rights-of-way. i.e. non-motorized corridors throughout the region.
Polls have shown that people would do more riding/commuting if facilities including safe routes existed.
It's not like bikers really want to be riding around cars anyway.
-M
I have mixed feelings about these non-motorized corridors. They have their place and I do love the Tahoe/Pyramid project. But being on a path with ped access can be quite dangerous as well.
I can't remember where I read it (probably something John Forrester said) but I remember someone asking a cycling advocate why we don't build more paths for cyclists that make it convenient to ride bikes to any destination in a city and the advocate's response was:
"We already have them. They are called roads!"
I guess I fear that the more bicycles are removed/separated from other vehicular traffic the more likely it will be that someday bicycles will not even be allowed on roads because there's "a path we can use and share with peds, roller bladers, etc."
Plus it perpetuates the idea that bikes are recreational TOYS and not vehicles which is an attitude I abhor.
Sidenote: On that stretch of path between Mogul and Verdi I was recently followed by a motorcycle. Isn't there signage that says no motorized vehicles?
That is a good point. We don't want to marginalize bikes. In my dream city the non motorized roads would be more prominent than the motorized roads and cars would be marginalized.
At the same time, you can't ride a bike on 395 or 80 and those are the fastest most efficient ways to cross town. So it stands to reason that similar cross-town routes should exist for bikes.
I's also like to see dedicated bus lanes with integrated bike lanes...
Fewer cars and more bikes means safer conditions for cyclists and less traffic when you do have to drive.
Thanks for the discussion!
-M
Post a Comment