State contractor exploring plan to add more tolls to Indiana, including 465.

[Ingomike]

Keep AND BEAR ARMS. I sure as hell do have a right to carry one, and your feelings don’t supersede my rights. Where’s the constitutional right for a bike? Page 1 of the driving manual “driving is a privilege, not a right”.

Im not saying bikes can’t be on the roadway, I’m saying bikes need to give way to vehicles that are faster. Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it illegal for a car to drive under a certain speed for safety reasons? Why aren’t bikes the same?

You are correct, one is a natural right and one the result of a law so in the end the user has the "right". Some towns have had no bike ordinances and they have been overturned.

There appears to be a law about blocking roads:

"No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.”

This would apply to a truck strike snarling traffic on 465 by going 5 mph for example.

However since bicycles are a part of the laws then their normal speed would not be in violation of the statute.

“A person driving at less than the normal speed of traffic shall drive in the right-hand lane available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.”

This is not interpreted by the courts to mean mere inches from the edge of the road. Also rough or uneven pavement may make practicable the left hand tire track or even the left lane.


https://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/10/indiana-speed-limits-laws-and-fines/

M

 

[Hatin Since 87]

We’ve been off topic a while now so I’ll say this and let it go.....

People who run bikes off the road are *******s.

Bicyclists who break the law because it’s an inconvenience are *******s.

Bicyclists who ride in the busiest roads at the busiest times and don’t let motorist pass are *******s.

That is all.

 

[mensajess]

I totally get it now. A guy on a motorcycle just passed me, while doing a wheelie with no helmet. Now that was soooooo stupid and illegal I clipped the next guy I saw on a motorcycle with my mirror, cause they all break the laws all the time and don't deserve common decency or belong on the road.
I don't know how to do purple text.

 

[dusty88]

So, just in this thread:

Bicyclist: I can do what I want, inconvenience others, reduce road safety by causing back ups, etc. because it's legal.

I don't think it's "do it because I can". I see it more like the road is built for many types of vehicles and I'll be reasonably courteous to everyone. That doesn't extend to me being asked to not use the road at all because it may inconvenience someone for a few minutes (actually I think it's usually a few seconds).

And hey you know what? Cars inconvenience me on my commute every time I drive. If all those other cars weren't there it would save me sometimes 30 minutes per day. All I actually expect the slower drivers to do is move to the right when they can. I don't expect them to stay home.

Also bicyclist: I don't have to stop at stop signs because it's inconvenient and reduces my safety, although I'm legally required to.

I think we understand we can get a ticket like anyone else. It's just debatable whether it's a good law or not.

I gave up cycling on public roads when I was riding from Freshman parking to campus at U of L and got smoked in an intersection by a guy who ran a stop sign. Share the road, my rights, etc. etc. don't matter diddly when you're airborne but he's just got a dent in his hood.

yes, life is about risks and rewards

Keep AND BEAR ARMS. I sure as hell do have a right to carry one, and your feelings don’t supersede my rights. Where’s the constitutional right for a bike? Page 1 of the driving manual “driving is a privilege, not a right”.

Im not saying bikes can’t be on the roadway, I’m saying bikes need to give way to vehicles that are faster. Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it illegal for a car to drive under a certain speed for safety reasons? Why aren’t bikes the same?

Nonmotorized vehicles are prohibited on some roads, such as interstates.... at least last time I actually read one of those signs. I'm willing to "give way" of course when it's safe to do so. It's not safe to hop off my bike when someone is on my tail.

"It's the law!!!" when convenient. "Laws suck, who cares about laws?" when it's convenient.

Many of us (esp gun owners) are willing to have a rational conversation about the difference between legal, moral, and practical.

Some laws coincide with my morals (like theft and murder)

Some laws don't. I think I should be able to legally carry a gun in a school. But I don't, because if for some reason I get caught I have to pay the penalty.

I don't morally have a problem with someone who breaks a traffic law and isn't doing harm to others. Going 90 on a wide open, low traffic interstate on a clear day in a quality built car? Meh, I'm not mad at you but you are risking a ticket.
Conversely, speed in a residential area or drive to close to a cyclist or a pedestrian, the fact you are "breaking a law" is irrelevant compared to the risk you put others at.

As far as the debate over whether or not cyclists should be on the road (ie the law allows it) I think we are going to need a much closer examination of each person's taxes, their overall utilization of public infrastructure, and then maybe we can decide whether one person or one vehicle has earned their share of the roadways. Oh and let's not forget to weigh the importance of where they are going because some folks here seem to be angry at others for taking up some of their precious time in a way they don't see as useful.

 

[dusty88]

We’ve been off topic a while now so I’ll say this and let it go.....

People who run bikes off the road are *******s.

Bicyclists who break the law because it’s an inconvenience are *******s.

Bicyclists who ride in the busiest roads at the busiest times and don’t let motorist pass are *******s.

That is all.

Seriously, do you see the different standards you are applying here?

The driver you mention didn't just "break a law". He put someone else's life at risk. He risked taking away someone's spouse, parent, best friend just because he was annoyed. He's not an a**hole. He's a violent criminal.

Bicyclists who "break the law" ? well maybe depending if it directly impinged on anyone else

Bicyclists on busy roads? Nope, sorry. I don't like busy roads anyway. If I'm there it's because that is the best way to get where I am going. And because I have a real job I don't always get to do this (travel and/or exercise) at the non-busy times. And sometimes I'm on a busy road precisely because the back roads have a loose dog.

Can we agree people who let their dogs run out on the road are a**holes?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Many of us (esp gun owners) are willing to have a rational conversation about the difference between legal, moral, and practical.

Then don't hang your hat on "it's legal". Is it practical to take out a lane of travel on a busy road like Allisonville Rd to cater to the literally zero people I've ever seen use it? It is moral to purposefully intermingle vehicles at radically different speeds when the slower has much less protection from crashes? No. It's largely virtue signaling and marketing. "World class city" and "most bikeable places for hipsters to live" nonsense that slow traffic and hamper commuters even when they aren't utilized.

It's just debatable whether it's a good law or not.

Like letting "vehicles" that go less than half the posted speed limit "share the road?" Absolutely. It's more dangerous to everybody involved. Some roads and cities are designed for safe pedestrian and pedacyclist traffic. Most in Indiana are not, it's just wedged in. Putting a bicycle lane on Allisonville Rd or Madison Ave is stupid, unless your goal is to create fatalities. Creating a bicycles-in-mind "road" along, say the Monon railroad right-of-way, is not.

 

[dusty88]

Then don't hang your hat on "it's legal". Is it practical to take out a lane of travel on a busy road like Allisonville Rd to cater to the literally zero people I've ever seen use it? It is moral to purposefully intermingle vehicles at radically different speeds when the slower has much less protection from crashes? No. It's largely virtue signaling and marketing. "World class city" and "most bikeable places for hipsters to live" nonsense that slow traffic and hamper commuters even when they aren't utilized.

I largely agree with your assessment there. Spending a boatload of money to make a bike lane where it's still not useful doesn't help anyone. I'm talking about people angry with the cyclist for being there. When I've used an uncomfortably busy road it's usually because I had an unusual circumstance like dropping my car off for repair and cycling back to work. But a few people literally need their bike for transportation. Whatever their reason for being there, it's not that hard to avoid hitting someone who is already in the lane moving forward. It's not like they jump out at you.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Seriously, do you see the different standards you are applying here?

The driver you mention didn't just "break a law". He put someone else's life at risk. He risked taking away someone's spouse, parent, best friend just because he was annoyed. He's not an a**hole. He's a violent criminal.

Bicyclists who "break the law" ? well maybe depending if it directly impinged on anyone else

Bicyclists on busy roads? Nope, sorry. I don't like busy roads anyway. If I'm there it's because that is the best way to get where I am going. And because I have a real job I don't always get to do this (travel and/or exercise) at the non-busy times. And sometimes I'm on a busy road precisely because the back roads have a loose dog.

Can we agree people who let their dogs run out on the road are a**holes?

I didnt say say it was ok, not did I condone those actions. I said they’re *******s. As for for the “depending if it directly impinged on someone else”... makes no difference to me. It’s illegal. The gun laws you keep making reference to are different. There’s a phrase in the constitutional right to bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

As as I said earlier, as a motorcyclist, it’s much safer for us to lane split. I don’t, because it’s illegal. It’s a victimless “crime” if you will, but illegal none the less. You can’t throw a moral argument in the conversation then discuss breaking the law, to most, breaking the law is immoral.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I largely agree with your assessment there. Spending a boatload of money to make a bike lane where it's still not useful doesn't help anyone. I'm talking about people angry with the cyclist for being there. When I've used an uncomfortably busy road it's usually because I had an unusual circumstance like dropping my car off for repair and cycling back to work. But a few people literally need their bike for transportation. Whatever their reason for being there, it's not that hard to avoid hitting someone who is already in the lane moving forward. It's not like they jump out at you.

First off, I'm going to apologize. I am sick and cranky and came on too strong in this thread. I honestly am not even that invested in this topic and shouldn't have pounded at you and others like I did. My fault, and I do apologize.

Actually, I'm going to leave it at that. I might have more to say when I can brain better.

 

[Ingomike]

I don't think it's "do it because I can". I see it more like the road is built for many types of vehicles and I'll be reasonably courteous to everyone. That doesn't extend to me being asked to not use the road at all because it may inconvenience someone for a few minutes (actually I think it's usually a few seconds).

And hey you know what? Cars inconvenience me on my commute every time I drive. If all those other cars weren't there it would save me sometimes 30 minutes per day. All I actually expect the slower drivers to do is move to the right when they can. I don't expect them to stay home.

I think we understand we can get a ticket like anyone else. It's just debatable whether it's a good law or not.



yes, life is about risks and rewards




Nonmotorized vehicles are prohibited on some roads, such as interstates.... at least last time I actually read one of those signs. I'm willing to "give way" of course when it's safe to do so. It's not safe to hop off my bike when someone is on my tail.




Many of us (esp gun owners) are willing to have a rational conversation about the difference between legal, moral, and practical.

Some laws coincide with my morals (like theft and murder)

Some laws don't. I think I should be able to legally carry a gun in a school. But I don't, because if for some reason I get caught I have to pay the penalty.

I don't morally have a problem with someone who breaks a traffic law and isn't doing harm to others. Going 90 on a wide open, low traffic interstate on a clear day in a quality built car? Meh, I'm not mad at you but you are risking a ticket.
Conversely, speed in a residential area or drive to close to a cyclist or a pedestrian, the fact you are "breaking a law" is irrelevant compared to the risk you put others at.

As far as the debate over whether or not cyclists should be on the road (ie the law allows it) I think we are going to need a much closer examination of each person's taxes, their overall utilization of public infrastructure, and then maybe we can decide whether one person or one vehicle has earned their share of the roadways. Oh and let's not forget to weigh the importance of where they are going because some folks here seem to be angry at others for taking up some of their precious time in a way they don't see as useful.

There are good points in this post and I'd like to add this to the thinking. Bicycle laws, like many gun laws from the Wild West into the 60's, are outdated, as Guns became something bad guys had, thus NFA and gun control were inacted. After cars became common the bicycle became, the way some posters still think, a child's toy, to be ridden out of productive societies way. We now, thankfully, have the NRA advocating positions barely thought of 75 years ago and we all support the effort. So to have bicycle laws been locked into a time warp, thousands of riders in our area do many things beyond "play" or exercise. Many commute to work, run errands, even get groceries, cigars, and bourbon. They have earned your respect and just because the laws have not caught up in our area yet, they will.

There is no reason a rider with a load of groceries should not be allowed to time out or roll stop crossing a 4 way when no cars are present.
FYI, bikes are allowed to run red lights after stopping if they are sensor controlled.

M

 

[dusty88]

You can’t throw a moral argument in the conversation then discuss breaking the law, to most, breaking the law is immoral.

I will strongly disagree with you there (my bold). In fact, it's our responsibility as citizens to call out bad law and sometimes break it. While there may be no great moral compass in choosing to float a stop sign while no one is looking, it also did not harm anyone.

But I absolutely think we should NEVER knee-jerk the idea that breaking the law is immoral. I won't use this thread to go into the obvious immoral laws that include heinous actions. But I will submit that it is immoral to prosecute your fellow citizens for crimes that have no other moral violation besides "breaking the law".

 

[dusty88]

First off, I'm going to apologize. I am sick and cranky and came on too strong in this thread. I honestly am not even that invested in this topic and shouldn't have pounded at you and others like I did. My fault, and I do apologize.

Actually, I'm going to leave it at that. I might have more to say when I can brain better.

Sorry you aren't feeling well

And when you come back maybe you or someone else here can tell me what it takes to get someone prosecuted for a vehicular violation caught on video.

Now, in general, I really don't want the government being able to prosecute people on everything someone can catch on tape. I'm just wondering exactly where the line is.

I've had fellow cyclists wearing GoPros catch a video of someone nearly running them off the road (definitely violating the law on passing a bicycle). The police have told them that they can't do anything if they weren't there. (and again, I'm not anxious to see a ticket written for everyone. I'm concerned about the truly dangerous ones though)

When things go so badly that a cyclist gets killed, then the video is published on the news and the driver is prosecuted. Is this where the line is? Or would action be taken if you "bumped" the bike but the cyclist wasn't seriously hurt? What about the times where the car runs someone off the road and the cyclist is lying unconscious in the ditch (happened to a friend of mine)? Is it because these become different crimes than just a moving violation?

I would like to think it's the truly aggressive, intentionally offensive driver that can be charged accordingly. I know the rest of us make mistakes and hopefully learn from them when we realize how close we got to a bike, a motorcycle, a kid, etc.
The guy that tried to run me off the road was laying on the horn while he was doing it, even though he had loads of room on the other side. I would like to see someone like that prosecuted. That's using a vehicle as a weapon, not making a mistake.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Sorry you aren't feeling well

And when you come back maybe you or someone else here can tell me what it takes to get someone prosecuted for a vehicular violation caught on video.

Now, in general, I really don't want the government being able to prosecute people on everything someone can catch on tape. I'm just wondering exactly where the line is.

I've had fellow cyclists wearing GoPros catch a video of someone nearly running them off the road (definitely violating the law on passing a bicycle). The police have told them that they can't do anything if they weren't there. (and again, I'm not anxious to see a ticket written for everyone. I'm concerned about the truly dangerous ones though)

When things go so badly that a cyclist gets killed, then the video is published on the news and the driver is prosecuted. Is this where the line is? Or would action be taken if you "bumped" the bike but the cyclist wasn't seriously hurt? What about the times where the car runs someone off the road and the cyclist is lying unconscious in the ditch (happened to a friend of mine)? Is it because these become different crimes than just a moving violation?

I would like to think it's the truly aggressive, intentionally offensive driver that can be charged accordingly. I know the rest of us make mistakes and hopefully learn from them when we realize how close we got to a bike, a motorcycle, a kid, etc.
The guy that tried to run me off the road was laying on the horn while he was doing it, even though he had loads of room on the other side. I would like to see someone like that prosecuted. That's using a vehicle as a weapon, not making a mistake.

There's essentially three levels of traffic enforcement.

Civil infractions: This is the standard "traffic ticket" and only the slowest of jurisdictions is going to be willing to donate resources to sending on traffic tickets based on video. How do I prove who the driver is? How do I prove actual speed, etc? How do I prove the time and date? Too much hassle for a civil violation.

Misdemeanors: The vast majority of misdemeanors must be witnessed by the officer for an outright arrest to take place. Hit and run is the only traffic related one with a misdemeanor exception rule, meaning an outright can be made without actually seeing it happen. Misdemeanors without that exemption can only be dealt with by referral to a prosecutor and an arrest warrant. Most places aren't going to dedicate the time and resources to a misdemeanor traffic violation where there's no actual harm.

Felonies: Felonies do not have to be witnessed to make an arrest, just the probable cause standard. Felonies always get more resources because they are felonies. A hit and run that causes minor property damage isn't going to be given the same priority as a hit and run that killed someone, and of course there's a lot of steps in between.

 

[dusty88]

There's essentially three levels of traffic enforcement.

Civil infractions: This is the standard "traffic ticket" and only the slowest of jurisdictions is going to be willing to donate resources to sending on traffic tickets based on video. How do I prove who the driver is? How do I prove actual speed, etc? How do I prove the time and date? Too much hassle for a civil violation.

Misdemeanors: The vast majority of misdemeanors must be witnessed by the officer for an outright arrest to take place. Hit and run is the only traffic related one with a misdemeanor exception rule, meaning an outright can be made without actually seeing it happen. Misdemeanors without that exemption can only be dealt with by referral to a prosecutor and an arrest warrant. Most places aren't going to dedicate the time and resources to a misdemeanor traffic violation where there's no actual harm.

Felonies: Felonies do not have to be witnessed to make an arrest, just the probable cause standard. Felonies always get more resources because they are felonies. A hit and run that causes minor property damage isn't going to be given the same priority as a hit and run that killed someone, and of course there's a lot of steps in between.

Thank you for the explanation