Posted by:
Molly Misanthrope
(
)
Date: November 09, 2011 10:28AM
I stereotype just as much as everyone else. For what it's worth, I hate living here and plan to move elsewhere as soon as I feasibly can.
You said, "Now, perhaps the real crux of the matter is why the Church is making these guys ride their bikes on the side of a road that may be potentially dangerous. Surely their divine inspiration would let them know that these mishies deserve a car at the very least."
Share the road much? It's people like you that make me afraid to ride my bicycle in areas that I should feel perfectly safe to ride my bicycle. Single-purpose-use and bicycle lanes are nice and helpful, but cyclists have just as much right to access the roads as motorists.
Here's some review for you:
http://transport.tamu.edu/bicycles/statelaw.aspxNotably:
"# A person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.
However there are exceptions to this law. Under the following conditions the law allows bicyclists to take the full lane of travel when:
1. The person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction.
2. The person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway.
3. When there are unsafe conditions on the roadway, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, or surface hazards that prevents the person from safely riding next to the curb or edge of the roadway.
4. The lane is of substandard width (less than 14 feet in width and not having a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane) making if unsafe for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side."
This means if conditions are unsafe, the cyclist can take up the full lane. It's the motorist who is in the wrong for forcing a cyclist off the road in unsafe conditions.