refthimos wrote:
Yeeper wrote:
In post #26 OP says bike lane/shoulder. So he acknowledges that it may not have been a dedicated "bike" lane. His premise still stands.
First, that was post #26. The original post simply said "bike lane" in order to make the point that some asshole rider had a perfectly good bike lane to use but instead arrogantly chose not to use it. There is no bike lane there. That is a fact. And the distinction between a road shoulder and a bike lane is one that is explicitly made in the California Vehicle Code. That is also a fact.
The OP also left out the fact that PCH is two lanes in both directions at that stretch of the road. That's a fact. This fact is important because its omission implies that the cyclist was brazenly occupying the sole lane available to other vehicles (which BTW he is entitled to under California law). But he was not doing so. That is a fact.
The OP also omitted that this incident occurred on a steep downhill. Another fact. Reading his initial post, you get the impression that the cyclist was just meandering down PCH in the middle of the road for no reason. But most experienced cyclists will take the lane when descending over 40mph, because hitting a rut, rock or glass at that speed is much more dangerous than doing so at 20mph.
I agree with you 100% that the rest is a matter of he said/he said and I did my best to present it as such. But the facts that we do know, in my opinion, support the cyclist's right to take the lane in this circumstance. And whether or not this was the case is the premise of the original post.
You're making assumptions and adding emotions to his posts. Sometimes the curtains are really just blue instead of representing depression.
I'm not trying to get into a technical debate over when things were said. Duffy has been transparent through the whole thread and never tried to change his story or call names. He referenced entitled "assholes" as a stereotype that most motorists DO in fact apply to cyclists. As far as I see it, Duffy's OP was straightforward and non-biased and its very clear his intent was to draw some attention to particularly dangerous behavior.
By stating "the right lane" and that he "changed lanes" I think most of us understand it was a two lane road. You made assumptions based on his word choices for the highways, just as the contextual clues of his wording painted a pretty clear picture for a double lane road in his driving direction.
I don't think we care that it was a hill at all. The whole debate is over the cyclists choices in riding manner as it pertains to safety. If it was straight and flat the same arguments apply. If he had other means, then he should be riding in a manner that doesn't endanger himself or create a bad situation for others (cyclists or vehicles). He had a choice as to how fast he wanted to ride and he had a choice as to where to ride. He chose the middle of a 55mph vehicle lane.
In fact, what if there was NO shoulder or bike lane? Where is it written that debris/potholes/dead animals/rocks/broken glass/etc can't exist on the main road as well? Bottom line: no cyclist can ever ever ever be 100% certain of the road ahead. So the SAFE thing to do, is not put yourself in a position that you can't handle. If you can't defensively swerve at 43mph then you shouldn't be riding 43mph whether it's the right lane, shoulder, middle of the night or 12 noon. THAT is what we are arguing, that the cyclist made poor choices that weren't safe and reinforced a stereotype most of us would like to see squashed so we can share the road with less fear. The circumstances of the hill just exacerbated it.
OP made his intentions clear from the get go: awareness and quite less colorfully than he usually does.
