[SDCBC] Pet peeve: cyclists have "no choice" but to be unsafe/crazy

[Serge Issakov]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:16 PM, John Forester <forester at johnforester.com>
wrote:

>
> >
> Putting the onus, both legally and socially, on the cyclist to prove
> that he was riding in a proper lateral position, when such is not
> required of motorists, has always been one of my criticisms of bike
> lanes, and of sidepaths, where such are applicable. The bicycle
> advocates who advocate bike lanes and bike paths don't seem to mind this
> problem. Maybe they feel the same as the motorists do?


I think the pro-bike lane argument with respect to this point goes something
like this:

*While it is true that the cyclist has the legal onus to justify being
outside of the bike lane, if a car-bike crash occurs while a cyclist is
riding in the bike lane, the legal onus is on the motorist.  Since
bicyclists spend most of their time near the curb, this is a beneficial
trade off.*

To a cyclist who spends most of his or her miles within the space commonly
demarcated by a bike lane stripe -- a few feet from the curb -- this
argument can understandably be quite compelling.

But to someone who spends more as much of his time as is reasonable possibly
out in the traffic lane and far from the curb because he has learned that
the greatest threat to cyclists comes not from behind, but from ahead in the
form of crossing movements at intersections, including mid block
intersections with alleys, driveways and parking lot entrances, and for
which near-the-curb positioning makes him less conspicuous, hinders his
vantage, and reduces his safety buffer space, this argument is of course
moot.

Serge


-- 
NOTE: Any opinions expressed above are mine and not necessarily shared by
any organization in which I am involved.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080220/6696c03f/attachment.html