I never understand that why I see them taking up a lane on Pilgrim and they have a beautiful bike path to use. 40 mph road and I get a ticket if I smack one with my truck...

They are not in traffic. They ARE traffic. They pay taxes. Most of them have insurance. The path you call a bike path is a Multi-use path and has walkers, young children, dogs etc on them - these groups are safer when cyclist going 15-20 miles an hour ride on the roads.

Do you realize that not too many paths actually lead to where I need to go?! Example: Grocery stores, restaurants, department stores, shoot, even a gas station to get a drink!

Nice try at diverting the blame from people who are operating dangerous heavy machinery in an illegal and irresponsible manner.

Bicyclists have a right to use the road. Bicyclists have always been in the road. It's high time you got used to it.

Doug: We were sold the idea of spending a miilions to make the area safe for bikes. The path is multi use. That doesn't mean the bikes should have the right to go anywhere they want, ignore the rules of the road, and cause havok for traffic. If there is a path that can be used off the main road then they should be forced to use it. At the very least, the motor vehicle operator should be exempt from damages. After all, we already payed for you to have a safe place to ride.

Craig, I have been driving motor vehicles for 32 years. I have never experienced havoc in traffic from bicycles. I have never had difficulty getting around a bicycle safely.

Maybe it's because I paid attention in driver's education class. Why didn't you?

@Doug: so you are making the case that it's safer when the bicycles use the road because if they use the path they have to navigate slower moving foot traffic? But it's OK for slower moving bikes to be in fast moving traffic? So basically the bicyclists need should trump all other foot and vehicle traffic? Thanks for making our point. We see bicyclists with this attitude on the streets every day blowing through stop signs and red lights and weaving through slow traffic. I'm a cyclist, I am invincible and I should be able to do whatever I want when I am pedaling around.

Apparently some people's reading comprehension is as poor as their bike riding skills. If there is a path- use it.
If you do not see the danger of 20 pounds of lighweight aluminum vs. 3000 pounds of steel, I can not make you see the havok created by your bike riding in heavy traffic.
Remember you had this brain damage before your next crash.

Craig, I've driven half a million miles in cars, trucks and SUV's in the last 32 years, driving all over the country. I have never experienced this havoc that you claim to experience. Learn how to drive. Every single instance of havoc that I have seen on the roads was caused by bad motorists.

There are no paths that let me get to and from work. I also typically ride at about 20mph on level ground which is far too fast to share with pedestrians who move in random directions with no warning or looking out for bicycles on these paths. Even if there was a path, most of these paths have plenty of pedestrians on them. On the rare occasions that I ride around pedestrians I generally slow down to 5mph in order to avoid a collision. I need to get to work in a reasonable amount of time. 5mph is too slow for me to get to work in a reasonable amount of time.

Bicycles move like any other slow vehicle. You pass them like you would any other slow vehicle. Learn how to drive and let go of your childish delusions of entitlement. They are not supported by the law. Bicyclist's right to use the road is supported by the law.

Bill: Remember that entitlement mentality when someone has to change your diaper because you chose to avoid a bike path so you could get to work in time and not slow down for pedestrians. If that isn't the definition of oxymoron--wow!
Find an adult to read to you what I wrote above in a manner that you can comprehend.
You may want to consider buying a long term care policy also.

@Craig: You're the one with delusions of entitlement. You're the one who is being childish.

The chances of me being hit by a car are very low because I have real safety training which I strictly adhere to. I also know the statistics. I'm actually very safe on the road. Your ignorant delusions notwithstanding.

Just a few observations of bike riders and some of the habits...and this is just from what I saw ans may not be what every bike rider does, some do follow the "Rules of the Road".

1. Not stopping at "STOP" signs or at "STOP LIGHTS".
2. Not yielding the right of way to vehicles that stop before the bicyclist stops, or for vehicles that are traveling straight.
3. Not using the Hand Signals for turns and stops.
4. Not getting into the left lane to make a left turn on 4 lane roads.
5. Not looking for traffic when making turns or riding through intersections when they disregard the stop light or stop sign.
6. pulling in front of a car when riding around parked cars without checking behind them.
7. Riding when it's dark out without lights and reflectors on their bike.

Roads are dangerous, and we all have a right to be on them, but when you fail to follow the rules of the road when riding you put yourself into harms way. who do you think the winner will be, the 3,000 lb -30 ton vehicle or the 100-300+ lb bicyclist? and some vehicles and drivers are not as agile as a bicyclist on a bike when driving or trying to avoid an accident.

There are rules a driver driving a motorized vehicle has to follow, and there are rules a bicyclist riding a bike has to follow, and some are the same, Follow the rules and you will have a safer ride, and make driving less stressful for those that choose or need to drive a vehicle.

What I observe from motorists every day and in every city and most towns that I've driven in in the last 32 years:

1. Speeding. People who obey the speed limit are in the minority in most places except when there's gridlock.
2. Not signalling. Most people don't signal consistently.
3. Rolling stop signs. Motorists who come to a complete stop at stop signs when there is no cross traffic are a small minority.
4. Rolling right on red. Red means stop. Most don't unless there is cross traffic.
5. Not checking to their right for pedestrians when making a right turn. I see this all the time.
6. Pushing yellow well past red. If you enter the intersection after the light turns red, then you ran a red light. I see it pretty much every day.

I see a lot of other violations but not necessarily every time I'm on the road. Let's not pretend that bicyclists are any worse about obeying the law than motorists.

Furthermore, when a bicyclist does something wrong, they are usually the only one who suffers. Motorists hurt a lot of other people every single day.

I WILL. If I can have a personal BIKE LANE. Treat me like a regular vehicle, and I will gladly pay the insurance, license plate, etc.
That also includes having a PARKING SPACE where I can lock up at.

Only if drivers are taxed with their usage. Right now motorists account for over 99% of traffic on the road, yet all studies show that usage taxes- gas tax, vehicle taxes and such- only pay for 1/3rd of road building and maintenance fees. When motorists pay their share, we can talk. Actually, since local, state and federal taxes other than usage taxes pay for 2/3rds of road building and maintenance, cyclists are paying way more than their share!

Bicyclists already pay plenty for the roads. Registration fees and fuel taxes aren't nearly enough to cover the costs of the roads. Everyone who pays any general fund tax pays for the roads.

Meanwhile bicyclists take up less space and put effectively no stress on the roads, unlike motorists.

You can't buy liability insurance for bicycles. Insurance companies don't offer it because it doesn't make economic sense. Unlike motorists, bicyclists rarely injure someone other than themselves and they also tend to do very little property damage even when they do crash into things.

You're just making excuses because you can't accept the fact that bicyclists already have the right to use the road. You would know that if you had bothered to pay attention in driver's education.

Liability insurance doesn't pay anything for the roads.

Exactly how much damage does a 40 pound bike to a roadway Alfred?

BTW -- isn't Batman missing his butler?

Keith I was speaking in terms of what a bike weighing 40 pounds along with a 200 pound driver could do if it collided with a pedistrian, a parked car, a tree. Momentum doubles when velocity doubles, in other words force = mass x (velocity / time) = (mass x velocity) / time = momentum / time. These numbnuts on bikes don't realize the damage they can do to other folks and themselves as they sail through red lights, stop signs, down sidewalks, basically being idiots on bikes. They are uninsured missles, who pays for the damage they cause? Who pays for the medical bills of the injuried parties since none of them have liability insurance?

I think bicyclists should be taxes proportionally to other vehicles. That is, by weight and speed (which are the main factors in a vehicle's danger to others and wear-and-tear on the roads). Unfortunately, it'd be a money-loser for the state, since it would cost far more to administer than it would bring in. That's not the kind of economic policy we need.

That my dear, goes BOTH ways.

Indeed it does and we have a law against inattentive driving that allows police to ticket when they observe someone being distracted by their phone or anything else in their car and one, specifically, for texting.

As someone who bikes frequently I also know that I'd better keep my wits about me because I'm never going to come out the victor in a collision with a motorized vehicle, regardless of what the driver may or may not be doing.

I see many out there who don't. "Pelotons" riding 2-3 abreast on Lake Drive in Fox Point. Jerks going full barrel down Oakland from either direction towards Edgewood. Morons biking in dimly lit areas at night, running stop signs, turning in front of cars with no lights or reflective gear.

A few years back I had a dust up with one idiot racing west on Silver Spring as fast as he could near Fitzies, no more than 2 feet away from car doors. He almost got taken out when an elderly woman opened her door and then had the nerve to cuss her out for it. I got in his face and in the midst of shouting back and forth he announces he teaches bicycle safety lessons at some local shop.

Arrogant cowboys who think they can ride in that fashion and expect the rest of the world to look out for their well being deserve no respect and no sympathy when they finally meet the metal.

If you're going so fast around a blind curve that you can't slow down to avoid hitting a bicyclist then you are violating the basic speed law and your license should be revoked. What if there was a disabled car around that blind curve?

@bill-stop it...you are showing the arrogance of cyclists that the rest of us abhor. You should not be cycling out on a state highway where the traffic is moving at 55-65MPH w/o a large shoulder as a buffer zone for you. You are violating all laws of common sense. Two lane state highways are dangerous enough as a motorist. They are kill zones for a cyclist.

235301: You're only showing your ignorance. Worse, you are the arrogant one because you're pretending to know what you're talking about even though you clearly haven't studied the subject. We do just fine in the roads.

@billsd...you only have to slow down when going around the blind curve IF there is a posted reduced speed limit for it. If a slower speed limit is not posted then the speed limit is that of the highway, and I have seen a few blind curves with no reduced speed limit posted.

What if there is a disabled vehicle around that blind corner? Are you just going to slam into it?

You're clearly an impatient irresponsible driver who thinks that every millisecond is precious and far more important than making sure that you're driving safely.

billsd, I was just talking about regulations concerning blind curves. As for what a driver does, that is up to the driver, not every driver will slow down, and not every driver will be so inept as to not use their eyes, look and observe what is in front of them as they navigate the blind curve and take the appropriate action should something be there that they need to avoid, after all we are talking about a "BLIND CURVE", and you can't see entirely around a "BLIND CURVE", hence why it is called a "BLIND CURVE". Some of us "DRIVERS" follow the laws, are NOT STUPID and have "COMMON SENSE".

Also billsd, I learned in drivers ed. to turn my head, move my eyes and be observant to as much as possible of what is around while driving so as to avoid accidents or create a dangerous situation, yet I see very few bicyclists do the same...they keep their head down and eyes looking straight ahead, never looking behind or around them, then cuss out drivers that are forced to dodge them as the bicyclist turns in front of the car or rolls through the STOP light/sign without providing any signal as to what the bicyclist is doing.

You might want to take a look at what the law actually says:

346.57(2) Reasonable and prudent limit. No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. The speed of a vehicle shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and using due care.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/frame/statutes/statutes/346/IX/57

If you are going so fast that you can't stop within the distance that you can see, then you are breaking the law.

It's hard to fix stupid.

Case in point: riding in the middle of the lane is not dangerous. Only people who haven't studied bicycle safety think that it is dangerous. Motorists don't run into bicyclists riding in the middle of the lane for the same reason that they don't run into buses or semis or other slow traffic. They see it and they deal with it.

Not to defend bicyclists who run lights or stop signs but when I see them do it, I usually see them make sure it's clear first. That doesn't make it OK but it also doesn't make it physically dangerous either.

If motorists were actually required to obey the rules of the road and the penalties for violating the law and hurting people were harsh enough, they would eventually learn. We are far too lenient with people who operate dangerous heavy machinery in an illegal and irresponsible way.

The law you claim to know so much about says to ride as close to the right edge as possible...

Clearly you have never read it. Try reading it now. Nowhere does it say that bicyclists have to ride as close to the right edge as possible.

346.80  Riding bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device on roadway.
(1) In this section, "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(2) 
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb of the unobstructed traveled roadway, including operators who are riding 2 or more abreast where permitted under sub. (3), except:
1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn or U-turn at an intersection or a left turn into a private road or driveway.
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid unsafe conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to ride along the right-hand edge or curb.

(a) Any person operating a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb of the unobstructed traveled roadway,

But hey- when you read a stop sign, you think it means look and slow down. Stopping is optional.
Stupid is as stupid does.

Even your edited quote does not contain the word "possible".

Do you think that the word "practicable" is a synonym for the word "possible"? It isn't.

Maybe your problem is basic English literacy. In the context of the law, the word practicable includes the concepts of reasonable and safe. The word possible does not. Bicyclists are not required to keep further right than is safe.

As always, all anti-cyclists act like the exceptions in the law are irrelevant. 346.80(2)(a)3 makes it clear that bicyclists don't have to keep far right in a substandard width lane. 346.80(1) defines a substandard width lane as " a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

What part of that do you not understand?

I obey all of the rules of the road, including stopping at stop signs. I even signal, consistently. Do you?

Practicable and possible....now we are going to split hairs?
You don't have to be a member of MENSA to know the intent of the law. Do everyone a favor and go out and ride to your hearts desire in the dark. All you have done for your cause is make it more difficult to get respect for those who are out there peddling their ass on the street.
Blowhards like you do everything in their power to make matters worse. Find a dark and poorly lit road, wear all black and have at it.

The difference between possible and practicable isn't even close to splitting hairs. They have totally different meanings. "Practicable" means "safely, prudently, and reasonably".

Every cycling safety organization teaches cyclists to never ride as close as "possible" because it GREATLY increases the chances of collision with an automobile. Basically, if the usable lane (This means just the lane, not the shoulder or gutter, and excludes the door zone of parked cars or areas that have debris.) is greater than 14' wide, and it is only a two lane road, then cyclists should ride about 2-3' from the right hand side of the usable lane to allow automobiles to pass at a safe speed. The situations in which cyclists should ride this distance from the right are actually pretty few and far between.

The fact that you believe that was splitting hairs just shows how limited you literacy is and how little you understand both the law and safety. I'm guessing that you didn't go very far in school.

The fact is that the difference between those two words is vitally important. Many things are possible but are not safe or reasonable. Under your interpretation, bicyclists have to ride far right even when it is dangerous for them to do so. You're saying that the law requires bicyclists to ride dangerously rather than safely. Do you really think that that's what legislators intended?

In fact, this law closely resembles the model from the Universal Vehicle Code, which is not surprising since most states base their road laws at least partially on the UVC. You'll find similar wording in most state's far right rules for bicycles. The exceptions are important because they are about safety. Bicyclists have the right to travel safely. The right to travel safely trumps the privilege of travelling quickly every time.

What is so difficult about moving over to pass a bicyclist safely? Why are you so obsessive-compulsive about driving in the slow lane?

BillDSD: Earlier in the thread you posted that it was more safe to ride in the middle of the lane of traffic. I give a rats ass where you ride, I just pointed out that according to the law: you should be closer to the curb than the centerline.
You turned it into an English lesson, when clearly you have your head up your ass. Don't claim to be an expert if you prove yourself wrong in the process.
Maybe it is the lack of a bicycle seat, or you are wearing the wrong undergarments. You clearly have a burr under your seat. "I have driven a half million miles"...maybe you are just lucky, but you might be on borrowed time.
With your attitude, someone may run you over for more reasons than your stupidity.

You clearly don't understand words in English.

The law clearly does not require bicyclists to keep far right when it is unsafe for them to do so, such when riding next to parallel parked cars or when the lane is too narrow to allow for safe passing distances with both the bicycle and a car in the lane.

You can't possibly have gone far in school. In addition to not grasping basic English, you also don't have the slightest concept of logic. You only have your prejudice and anger and delusions of entitlement.

OK Bill. You must be a poor lonely old man, do your kids hate you too?
I think your perfect education has been destroyed by your brain working in tandem with your bowels; they both are processing the same thing.
Ride the yellow line for all I care, it is bright people like you that make me carry umbrella policies.

You haven't studied bicycle safety so you don't understand it. I rarely have close calls and I never have unintentional close calls. Drivers ALWAYS see me. I make sure that they do. Drivers always know what I am about to do before I do it. That's because I signal and I move in the same way as any other vehicle normally would. My risk in the road is extremely low.

Susan just keep in mind the stupid drivers are steering 3000 to 5000lbs worth of car or truck. It would be best if you keep your bicycle on the side of the road were it belongs. doing 30mph in a 50mph speed zone isn't exactly safe.

Pete, keeping to the far right is often far more dangerous than riding in the middle of the lane. Riding to the far right tends to invite close passes. Riding in the middle of the lane tends to result in full lane changes to pass, leaving lots of passing space, which is much safer.

How do you manage to not hit slow moving motor vehicles?

@ Alfred and others "They are uninsured missles, who pays for the damage they cause? Who pays for the medical bills of the injuried parties since none of them have liability insurance?" None really? Most bikers I know
are also responsible home owners and motorist who pay taxes, insurance and fuel taxes. After numerous very close and mostly unnecessary close calls by motorist, I got hit last year by a guy with iced over windows and driving on the wrong side of a curve. Is that my fault? I had on a orange jacket and was driving defensively. Still landed on his hood and rolled off. What if HE didn't have insurance? Some motorist drive with out it and are 6000 # missile. It could been a 5 year old walking to school. He'd been dead. I fortunately suffered minor injuries, do to (mostly) God's grace and my cycling/driving skills.

The fact that you pay a fuel tax and a registration fee is not evidence that you are paying the entire cost of the roads. That's merely an illogical assumption that you made in order to pretend that you have more right to use the road. The fact is that you don't pay enough with fuel taxes and registration fees to cover the costs of the roads. Bicyclists pay for the roads when they pay general fund taxes, which everybody does.

Your delusions about safety only show that you have never studied safety.

Ignorance is not as good as knowledge. You need to do your homework. Start by taking a driver's education class again because it's clear that you don't know the rules of the road and don't know how to drive properly.

Trails can't get me to and from work. I have to use the roads to commute. I am well trained in bicycle safety and highly experienced. I do my homework. Anti-intellectuals like you never do.

There are very limited trails, however bicycles do have the same rights and responsibilities on the road. Read them some time. Yes there are irresponsible bicyclist. Your attitude seems to be get out of my way or I'll hit you because I disagree with the law and common sense. Would you hit one if they were in your way, right or wrong?

Your multi-ton motor vehicle takes up a lot more space than a bicycle and does a lot more damage to the roads than a bicycle. The fact is that your motor vehicle costs a lot more to support in the road than a bicycle does and the difference in cost is actually more than the extra that you pay. In other words, I'm subsidizing you. Unfortunately your ignorance and your childish delusions about your ownership of the road make it impossible for you to see that.

I don't run stop signs or red lights. I don't hog the road. I use what is necessary for my safety, which sometimes means taking up the whole lane due to the lane being too narrow for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side within the lane. I obey all of the rules of the road. Unlike you, I actually know them.

Tailgating is illegal. How about you try obeying the rules of the road and stop acting like a violent psychotic bully?

You have seen them stop. You just don't remember it because you weren't paying attention. Every post you make is clueless and ignorant.

Bill, knock it off. I actually live in this area and I don't need you here getting people all jacked up so that the next time they see me out on the road they're seeing red. Your expectations are completely unrealistic.

Bob: Bicyclists have a right to use the road. They always have. It's not the fault of bicyclists that you didn't bother to learn the rules of the road. Grow up.

Bill, you're the perfect example of why people don't respect bicyclists and you're doing more harm than good for a person like myself who bikes and lives in this area. Keep your crusade back in wherever it is you live where you can deal with the people you piss off on your own terms at your own risk. I've been biking this area, both urban and rural, off road and on for over 30 years and I can tell you that anyone who actually embraces your attitude while wheeling is a fool. Spend less time flipping people off and screaming your lungs out to no avail, lay back and enjoy the ride. Don't make me pay for your boneheaded, arrogant attitude.

Enough.

Bicyclists have a right to use the road. It's the law. Get over it. Moving over to pass a bicyclist is one of the easiest things to do in driving. The ONLY reason people get angry over it is because they did not pay attention in driver's education and do not know the rules of the road and cling to the childish delusion that they shouldn't have to.

I ride as safely as anyone possibly can. I have the training and I've done the reading and I have decades of experience. I really don't put much stock in the opinions of people who haven't done their homework.

Bill: Because YOU are the "expert" bike rider, and YOU have driven 1/2 million miles in a car, and YOU have "studied" riding (scoffs), maybe you would like to explain why you made the comment about riding in the center of the lane? Explain why this is more safe, 'It forces cars to change lanes and allow you ample room'?
Being an expert, you must know the law allows you 6 feet from the edge of the right lane? Or does that law only apply to less skilled bike riders, and make experts like you exempt?
Why is it that motorists should give you 3'-6' while overtaking you, yet in heavy traffic bikes ride between cars at a red light where there is less room?

Bill has only commented on bike riding for the past 12 months. No comments about anything but riding a bike. He is obviously an expert on this subject matter as nothing else seems to have his interest.
Next time you have to change lanes for a guy in spandex shorts, think about poor old Bill- and hit the windshield washer as you go by!

If you want to understand bicycle safety then you should do take a class from the League of American Bicyclists or read any of the top safety books like Bicycling Street Smarts or Effective Cycling or Cyclecraft.

In a nutshell, it's safer to ride in the middle of the lane because drivers change lanes to pass. They really do. I have been doing this for years when I am in a lane which is too narrow for safe side by side sharing. It's permitted by the law because it is safer. You can scoff at me for having studied bicycle safety. I'm sure that you think that it's obvious. It isn't. If you just guess at it then you are unlikely to get it right.

Here's the law about keeping far right. Notice 346.80(2)(a)3:

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/346/XII/80

The law permits bicyclists not keep far right in narrow lanes because it is dangerous. That exception is the result of work by bicycle safety experts decades ago. Try doing your homework for a change.

Bill why aren't there drivers licenses for bike drivers who ride on the streets? There is no regulation of bikers, do you support that bikers have a license similiar to what the DMV gives to us evil car drivers?

Bill I can think of at least one instance where if I'd followed your advice I'd be dead right now. I would have been hit head on by a drunk driver crossing the center line on a rural two-lane highway.

Laws are great and they're nice they're there but a law isn't going to protect me from a car moving at 50MPH on a rural two lane road - even one coming from the other direction, as noted above. It isn't going to protect me from a driver whose attention is taken away from the road, even if for just a second. Nobody drives perfectly, just as nobody rides a bike perfectly.

As I said, I've been riding for over 30 years and, ironically, the only incident I've had on a bike that lead to a collision was with another biker who insisted in drafting me even when I tried to flag him around me. Ultimately he hit my bike, he went down and his Lemond sustained some triple digit damage. And in typical hotshot, arrogant fashion he started cursing at me for slowing down.

Tell you what, you ride your way and I'll ride mine. Hopefully we'll both survive.

I reject the notion of "evil car drivers". I own a car. I drive. Maybe you missed that. It's not all or nothing. That's your main problem. You see this as "us vs. them". It's all us. The roads are a shared resource and we all have a right to use it. You have arbitrarily decided that bicyclists are less and should be treated differently.

Bicyclists are not licensed because they almost never kill people and they rarely seriously hurt anyone. Motorists kill an average of about 90 people a day in the U.S. and seriously injure another 5500. Multi-ton vehicles are far more dangerous to the public so they have to have more regulation.

You just want to punish bicyclists because you can't stand the thought of moving over to pass a bicycle. How is it difficult to pass a bicycle?

Bob, you're saying that you would have been hit if you'd been in the middle of the lane but not on the far right? I don't know about that.

I have had a similar situation but I was in a bike lane, and this road was cut into the side of a hill so to the right of the bike lane was a steep incline with 100 foot plus fall. Fortunately the wrong way driver got out of the bike lane before I had to choose the fall.

Situations like that are extremely unusual. Close passes when keep far right, on the other hand, are quite common. I have a few friends who have been side swiped when riding far right in narrow lanes and I had many close calls back in the days before I took the time to study from the experts. The League of American Bicyclists is the nation's largest and oldest bicycle safety organization. They actually do know what they are talking about.

Actually many drivers, like yourself it seems, do that very thing. Cars run red lighst , speed tailgate , don't use the signals etc all the time. Some even drive drunk. Imagine that. Bikers don't ALWAYS run red lights and more than cars always come to a complete stop themselves.

billdsd
4:23 pm on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Bob, you're saying that you would have been hit if you'd been in the middle of the lane but not on the far right? I don't know about that.

*************

Well you weren't there so you can be forgiven for not knowing about it. Based on the results, I'll take my knowledge of a particular area and kinds of drivers I might expect to encounter over your steadfast insistence that the laws in place to protect the biker are the best bet regardless of where one bikes.

I'll also note that, despite your crusading here, what you've actually achieved in terms of "educating" those who inherently find bikers annoying is to reinforce their feelings. If your intent is to vent, fine, you've accomplished that. If your intent was to get people who feel the way those folks do to stop and think and look at the laws and formulate a better opinion of not only bikers, but how to drive when they're present, it looks to me like you failed miserably. Which isn't surprising considering the tone you've taken here.

If you think you're helping bikers like myself and making it safer for folks like me out on the road, you're not.

Only motor vehicle drivers are required to buy insurance and become licensed because only MV drivers kill around 40,000 people each year in this country (Mostly other MV users.). Other road users are NOT required to do this because the chances of them hurting other people or damaging other property is very very small.

It's unfortunate that bicycle safety is not taught in the public schools. Bicyclists with training don't ride close to parked cars for this exact reason. Too many drivers break the law and open their door into traffic without making sure that it's clear.

I recommend a class from your local League of American Bicyclists certified instructor. You can find a directory of classes/instructors on their web site. I also recommend books like Bicycling Street Smarts (free online) and Effective Cycling.

This was July 4, 1981 and I was 1/2 my age. It was enough of an experience that I have only ridden a bicycle once since then and that was in our driveway.

Sorry about that. This is why cyclists are not required to ride as far to the right as "possible". It's relatively dangerous (Although still statistically pretty safe compared to being, say, a pedestrian.).

If you want respect, you need to go learn the rules of the road and the principles of bicycle and road safety before pontificating on them. It's clear that you don't understand them.

You clearly think that you own the road. You don't. Moving over to pass a bicyclist safely is easy. Why are you so angry about it?

I often wish i had a paintball gun for the many drivers who feel that have to pass me 6-12' from my elbow rather than waiting 3 seconds for the on coming car to pass. rural slow roads mind you. Countless times. Bright jersey on etc.

I am already a licensed driver. I aced the written test and almost aced the road test. Most adult bicyclists are also licensed drivers.

Like I said, I know the rules. I've studied them in great detail. You obviously haven't.

Licensing for bicyclists hasn't been done because bicyclists don't have the body counts to justify the the overhead. You only want it because you have an irrational hatred for bicyclists. All other pretenses are excuses to try to cover that.

Out of curiosity Bill, what state do you live in?

Why? Did you not read any of the Wisconsin bicycle law links I posted? The rules of the road are online and Wisconsin's bicycle laws are similar to most other states. I know because I read them.

Please don't try to pretend that your roads are different than everywhere else. I've driven all over the country, including in Wisconsin. There's nothing special there. The problem is that people like you think that you have a special status over bicyclists even though the law does not recognize that delusion. Grow up and learn to share like an adult. It's easy. It amazes me how people get so worked up over such a trivial inconvenience.

Bill I do not ride bikes, why would I want to read the info? I asked what State you were from because I wonder if you are the same Bill Davidson who builds bikes by hand? That would be pertinant to this discussion. Other statements you have not responded to either. But you post a link as if you had to check the laws of our State. I used to ride 50 miles a day and when there was a bike lane- I used it. That was the main issue I had with bikers, we spend money for their safety and they thumb their noses at it. Most people do not remember their score for a driving permit- unless you are stuck in the past.

I am not the one that builds bikes. It's a common name.

It's not hard to remember when you aced the driver's test. It's kind of a one time deal and a big deal for a 16 year old.

A lot of bike lanes are in bad shape because cities tend to not maintain them. I have many times seen old roads get surface repairs in the traffic lanes while damage to the bike lanes goes ignored. I know of many bike lanes that have been used by utility companies as their favorite spot to dig and the patches they make after they are done tend to be horrible. I also see a lot of debris in bike lanes; much of it swept there by cars. I know places where bicyclists refer to the bike lane as "the broken glass lane". These things are hazards. Bicyclists are allowed to avoid hazards. There are also many bike lanes that don't meet minimum width standards which makes them dangerous and puts bicyclists at risk for being side swiped. I know of many bike lanes that force bicyclists to ride in the door zone next to parked cars where they are at risk of colliding with a door.

What is so difficult about moving over to pass a bicyclist safely? That's the thing that I don't get. I have never had difficulty doing it while operating any motor vehicle but I have also never been under the impression that I had more right to use the road than they did. That's the problem with anti-cyclists. You think that the road is just for you. It isn't.

The Department of Motor Vehicles needs to regulate biking more, all bikers who want to ride with cars must be licensed and all bikes must be registered with licenses, and property liability insurance. If you dopes want to play with the big boys, learn the rules of the road, that means stopping at all stop signs.

Let's require license for pedestrians too then, since they are about 7 times more likely to be hit by cars than cyclists.

The same hand signal should apply then when you blow through stop signs, blast past pedestrians in cross walks, clog up a whole road by riding tandem instead of keeping right, and going against traffic.

You might want to look up the word "tandem" in the dictionary. I don't think it means what you think it means. You probably meant side by side. Tandem is one behind the other.

Bicyclists don't always have to keep far right. You might want study the rules of the road for the first time.

Wisconsin Statute 346.80(2)(a) Any person operating a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic
at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as
close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb of the unobstructed
traveled roadway.

(3)(a) Persons riding bicycles or electric personal assistive mobility
devices upon a roadway may ride 2 abreast if such operation does not
impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

Point of note, if you are going to be critical of others for not knowing the statutes, you best know how solid the ground beneath you actually is. And while I can't say that vehicle drivers always shower themselves in glory, you have demonstrated nicely that often the problem is that bicycle riders don't know the state statutes under which they are operating.

Terry, you might want to try actually reading the statute.

346.80  Riding bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device on roadway.
(1) In this section, "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(2) 
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb of the unobstructed traveled roadway, including operators who are riding 2 or more abreast where permitted under sub. (3), except:
1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn or U-turn at an intersection or a left turn into a private road or driveway.
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid unsafe conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to ride along the right-hand edge or curb.

Why is it that you anti-cyclists ALWAYS edit out the exceptions? Do you think that the exceptions don't matter or are you intentionally trying to mislead everyone?

Bill you might want to put a seat on your bike, the sharp pipe is damaging your brain.

First, some was edited simply for space. Statues are boring and don't make good blog reading. The other reason is that as you correctly pointed out, they are EXCEPTIONS to the general rule. The rule is, and remains despite your best attempt, that bicycles are required to keep right, and only allowed to ride abreast (there, a correct word for you) when it doesn't obstruct vehicle traffic.

First rule of effective debate is that you argue the rule, not the exceptions. Anything else is just smokescreen.

And simply pointing out that Bicyclist's share responsibility in creating this problem does not make me anti bicycle.

Terry, tandem is the exact opposite of side by side. You fail to grasp what the statute you posted means it would seem. "Practicable" does not mean "possible". There is a very good reason it is worded that way.

Terry, hazardous conditions due to riding on the right hand side are extremely common. Lanes that are wide enough for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side within the lane are actually unusual. Parallel parking is common in many places and riding close to parallel parked cars is also hazardous.

Bicyclists are never required to ride far right when it is dangerous to do so.

LOL... OK, first off enough with the tandem. Anyone reading my post understood what I meant even if I didn't choose the correct word. Typing late at night sometimes does that.

Secondly, staying as far to the right as practical means just that. Absent unusual circumstance, the bicycle should be riding to the right. You are not as a bicycle allowed to impede faster traffic if it is practical for you to keep right. You can be cited for this as a violation by the police.

I know it is a popular misconception by bicycle operators that they are automatically entitled to the entire lane. This is not correct. The legal burden, if this becomes an issue in either traffic or civil court is on them to show that there is something that makes it impracticable, i.e. no shoulder, rough edges, parked vehicles.

Terry - It's "Practicable" not "practical". It has a specific meaning and is used a lot in legal-speak for that reason. "Practicable" does not mean "practical". They have very different meanings.

You are patently incorrect about lane usage. On the vast majority (But not all) lanes, bikes are not required (And encouraged NOT to, by cycling safety organizations) to ride to the right. This is, plainly, because most (But not all) lanes are less than 14' wide, which is what the MUTCD considers a width that is safe for autos and bikes to share. This is the same in every state in the US. The only exception is if there is a mandatory use law for bike lanes and the bike lane is safe to ride in at the time.

The legal burden, in all cases if not on the defendant. If the police officer takes photos of the area, and has proof, then the cyclist would be judged guilty. 14' wide usable lanes, cyclists are required to ride within a few feet of the edge of the roadway. They are NEVER required (Or even encouraged) to ride within a foot or a few inches of the roadway as this is unsafe (It only allows them to avoid debris by moving to the left, into the traffic sharing their lane.).

Outstanding Goodgulf... We are wandering into my backyard.

In the court process, the prosecution first has to meet its burden of proof that a violation has been committed. The standard of proof that traffic court (a civil court) requires is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", but instead its a "preponderance of the evidence." In layman's terms that means that there is more evidence than not that a violation occurred. In most courts, the Officers testimony by itself is enough to meet that burden.

That leaves it to the defendant to present a defense showing that the officers testimony was incorrect or flawed and that there were circumstances that didn't allow the cyclist to follow the requirement to keep right.

We can quibble all we want about practical, possible, and practicable, but in the end of the day, it the cyclist is wandering out in the center of the traffic lane, or grouped up in packs, and it causes a accident or ticket, they will be liable for it unless they can show cause.

Cause = The usable lane was not at least 14' wide. Pretty easy to prove with a measuring tape and a camera. Done deal.

Yet most are wide enough. Again, you are arguing exceptions rather than the rule. Furthermore, the 14 foot rule isn't a automatic defense. If the lane is 12 feet, but you are 10 feet from the right, it still isn't going to rise to an affirmative defense. Judges are allowed to apply a reasonable person standard, and a reasonable person would not consider that as an attempt to comply with the statute.

The judge is also allowed to consider the intent of the statute itself. Clearly the intent of this was to keep bicycles operating to the right, and allow for the continued smooth flow of traffic.

This is especially true in civil court situations were the burden of proof is lesser.

Cyclists with training don't "wander out" into the middle of the lane. They check that it's clear, they signal and they move over. Then they maintain a consistent line in the lane. Overtaking motorists see them in the middle of the lane from hundreds of feet back and they either change lanes or they slow down if they can't change lanes for some reason. The key here is visibility and predictability.

When the lane is narrow and a bicyclist keeps to the far right, motorists have a tendency to try to stay in the lane and they pass too close. I've had a couple of friends hit this way. Fortunately, they both made full recoveries.

If you haven't studied bicycle safety then you don't understand it. It is not obvious.

Back when I used to ride far right in 12' lanes I had a lot of dangerously close passes. That's all I need to convince me that it's dangerous.

If I ever get a ticket for not keeping far right in a narrow lane, I'll show up to court with a small army of safety experts that I know as well as documentation supporting the 14 foot width standard.

The 14' rule is already supported by case law in every state I've examined. It's really not a big deal. Furthermore, a "substandard width lane" is already defined in the MUTCD as 14'. Every state uses this as the basis for their vehicle codes.

Also, riding away from the far right is encouraged because it makes cyclists less likely to be hit. You seem to be ignoring this. This is common vehicular cycling technique specifically because it's safer.

The good news, even the (relatively) dangerous riding style of being all the way to the right is extremely safe statistically.

Lol... Well that's great that trained cyclists don't wander that far out into the traffic lane. If you had to put a number on it, what percentage of cyclists on the road are trained cyclists. 5%? Maybe?

I've been a certified bicycle safety instructor since 1996. I've cancelled classes for lack of interest. Unless it's a captive audience such as a school, it's hard to get the interest necessary.

And in regards to the court case, give it your best shot. If you win great, but again that's the exception not the rule. Believe what you want, but I've been in these court cases and seen how the law is applied.

Besides there is a good chance I might be one of those experts called in, and I could use the money.

The real irony here in this is that I agree with the premise that started this. If the accident is the vehicle's fault, then the driver should be held appropriately responsible. Within reason of course, not every accident is negligent, and sometimes accidents are just that.

I believe though this should work both ways. When the accident is the cyclists fault, we shouldn't be afraid to call them on it and hold them responsible.

They are traffic.

@Goodgulf....they are not traffic...they are inconsiderate morons in spandex who think they belong on the road!

346.02(4)(a) Subject to the special provisions applicable to bicycles, every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway or shoulder of a highway is granted all the rights and is subject to all the duties which this chapter grants or applies to the operator of a vehicle, except those provisions which by their express terms apply only to motor vehicles or which by their very nature would have no application to bicycles.

According to the law, bicyclists do belong on the road. It's too bad you didn't bother to pay attention in driver's education class and didn't bother to learn the rules of the road.

That's a lie.

It is impossible to reason with these biking zealots, my suggest to all of you is to buy a good grill guard and up the limits on your umbrella policy. These bikers think they are above the law, and when they run the next stop sign and collide with a car it will be your fault, and they will sue you, so up your insurance. They are nuts, but hey they think they are saving the planet and they will live to 150 years old!

I haven't seen anything resembling "reason" from you yet. All I have seen from you is ignorant delusions and lies.

I'm not twisting the law at all. Did you actually bother to read the law? It says what it says. It doesn't say what you want it to say.

Ignorance is not as good as knowledge.

billsd...more belittling and berating?

How childish...

You have presented zero evidence that I am twisting the law.

You don't even know the law.

billsd, Quit acting like a child...

You are taking everyone's comment as a personal attack.

Again...some of us are NOT as STUPID as you think we are.

This article is about a bill for stiffer punishments for hitting a bicyclist, but when you can't avoid an accident the liability should be placed on the shoulders of the person that caused it regardless of it being bicyclist or motor vehicle operator. Also as the bill leaves out, bicyclists should have to register their bicycle, and bicyclists should have to have a bicyclist permit (license), and be subjected to the rules of the road.

bilsd, For your information, I do know the law, and have seen you comments on laws tacking on you opinion of what you think is meant by them.

"billdsd
11:50 pm on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
You might want to look up the word "tandem" in the dictionary. I don't think it means what you think it means. You probably meant side by side. Tandem is one behind the other.

Bicyclists don't always have to keep far right. You might want study the rules of the road for the first time."

No...bicyclists don't have to move to the far right, but when preventing a faster moving vehicle...say a vehicle traveling at speed limit of 45 while the bicyclists are doing 20, then the bicyclists should form a single file line and allow the vehicle to pass, if they don't they are causing an unsafe situation, slowing down traffic, and slowing down faster moving traffic is ILLEGAL.

Resident, it's becoming patently clear that Bill is more concerned about being "right" than he is about the safety of cyclists as a whole.

One doesn't go, outnumbered, to a gun fight with a knife, taunt ones opponents and then expect them to utilize their weapons in a manner that makes sure one is not injured. Effectively, that's what Bill's doing here and what he's essentially advocating as a plan for assuring safe cycling.

Bill, you win. You're right. Now go back to the land of fruits and nuts and leave us here in the middle territory to sort out our situation here on our own. So far all you've done is effectively paint a target on the back of folks like myself in this area.

Mostly what I've seen Bill do is point out the actual law. Registering bikes has been tried by many cities and dropped by most because it costs far too much to administer. You can look this stuff up via Google.

Bob, I'm more concerned about safety than you can imagine. That's why some years ago I started studying bicycle safety from real bicycle safety experts. It's why I started reading bicycle safety studies. It's why I became involved with bicycle safety groups and forums.

Take a League of American Bicyclists safety class and read a few good safety books like Effective Cycling or Bicycling Street Smarts. Then ride a few thousand miles in traffic using the techniques. Then you can claim to know something about bicycle safety.

Right now you're just making it up on your own. You apparently think it's all obvious. You probably think that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth too.

Bill, you talk safety while taking an adversarial position as it relates to automobile drivers. Not a good combination in my book. If you carry that over to the way you ride (and I've got no reason to suspect you don't), then you're lucky you still have the ability to ride.

As I said before, I've got over 30 years and thousands of miles on the road. Urban, rural, on and off road. I've encountered good drivers and bad. If I adopted your attitude and assumed I was safe because I adhered to the recommendations you make (whether they be legal or otherwise), I'd be dead - literally.

You serve no purpose here beyond pissing off the very folks I may cross paths with on the road while biking. If that's your idea of promoting safety, then stick to antagonizing those in your own geographical area. You have nothing to offer of a positive nature here.

There's a lot more to it than the stuff I've said here. You have to take the class or read the books to understand it.

Bill, get serious here. We're talking about riding a bike in various types of traffic. It's not rocket science. Most of it is common sense. If you ride stupid, you get hurt. For the newb, aside from learning how to handle what they're riding, the bulk of it could be handled in less than an hour. Stop making it out to be something so specialized and complicated that you need years of study to understand it. Stop pretending someone like myself and numerous others out there, who've ridden for years in all types of traffic and weather and who've managed to survive don't know what we're doing. We do and most of us are not stupid enough to intentionally antagonize the folks we might run into out on the roads and further tarnish an image that's already tarnished enough thanks to arrogant hot shots who don't follow the rules of the road and ride like they own it.

It doesn't take years. It takes hours. It's not super complicated but it's also not obvious.

This was from a 2009 report from the Federal Highway Administration:

"Alcohol Involvement
Over one-fourth (28%) of the pedalcyclists killed in 2009 had a blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) of .01 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher, and nearly onefourth
(24%) had a BAC of .08 g/dL or higher. Alcohol-involvement—either for
the driver or the pedalcyclists—was reported in more than 40 percent of the traffic
crashes that resulted in pedalcyclist fatalities in 2009. In 33 percent of the crashes,
either the driver or the pedalcyclist was reported to have a BAC) of .08 g/dL or
higher. Lower alcohol levels (BAC .01 to .07 g/dL) were reported in an additional
6 percent of crashes."

Link? I can't find that list online.

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

Its a bike advocacy web site...

I remember that one. Kifer's link is out of date. This is the original, from 1996

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/96104/

Those are the top 10 that are likely to be fatal but still only about 1/5th of all collisions between bicycles and cars in the study. I'm not too keen on any collision, especially with cars, as most of them involve at least somewhat serious injury.

As for the ones listed there that are bicyclist fault, I don't do any of those things. That's because I have safety training. My training covers a lot more than those things. The training teaches bicyclists how to make sure that they are seen by drivers and always move in a predictable way and how to stay out of dangerous situations. It also teaches things that mitigate some types of bad motorist behavior. For example, it's illegal to open a door into traffic without making sure it's clear first. I don't trust motorists to obey that one and I maintain at least 5 feet from parallel parked cars at all times. Dooring collisions are common in major cities and are usually not fatal but sometimes they are. They almost always involve broken bones and other serious injuries. When they are fatal, it's usually because the bicyclist is knocked down by the door in front of a passing motorist. No thanks. I'll keep my distance and be safe.

I have more recent stuff, but its mostly hard copy publications at my office, and most in law enforcement will tell you that it matches their personal experience investigating these as well.

*Shrug*

Whatever you decide to do is up to you. In the end, if there is an accident, you will be the one getting hurt, not the vehicle driver. Hopefully not, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Just don't whine about it, if the investigating officer ends up issuing you a citation before the ambulance takes you to the hospital.

Again, my training and my adherence to what I learned makes it very unlikely for me to have a collision in the first place. You haven't had the training so it's really not possible for you to understand how well it works.

The only people whining here are the anti-cyclists.

Outstanding. Then you are one of the responsible operators.

Although the comment about the training is a bit arrogant. Just last week I recall a story about a law enforcement range officer shooting themselves in the hand while cleaning their gun. Expertise does not automatically dictate behavior.

I have been a certified bicycle safety instructor since 1996. My first line in every class is "Being safe on your bike is your responsibility, no one else". The last line I always give is "The rules of the road are not optional for you, when a car hits a bike, you lose".

I have trained police officers and departments in investigation and enforcement, and in the fast majority of serious bicycle accidents I have consulted for, it's been the cyclist at fault.

Yes their are irresponsible vehicle operators out there... and those accidents can be brutal. But in my opinion and experience, there are far more irresponsible cyclists. When a car hits a bicycle, its not usually the vehicle driver that goes to the hospital and thus its absolutely vital that they know the rules of the road and how to operate safely.

I find it a little hard to believe that you're an LCI. I suppose it's possible. A friend of mine who is one of the leading safety advocates in my state complains about how many LCI's he runs into who don't really understand the keep right rule and you certainly don't seem to. I guess it is possible to be an LCI and not know the rules.

Maybe you need to retake the LCI training or maybe switch to Cycling Savvy.

Actually, we probably are going to have to disagree then, as its more my view that your perspective is the one that's off.

Perhaps its because my background is in the legal area that I have a broader perspective.

*shrug*

For someone who's background is in the legal area, you seem pretty confused about basic legal language.

And that's the difference there. The legal language is only part of the equation. There is also how it is applied in the courts and that is where practical experience kicks in. Movies and television have done no favors as to how this actually works. Technicality arguments rarely work.

I'm telling you, you can go into court and try to make the claim that the road is 13.5 feet instead of 14, and that's why it was legal for your wolfpack to be out in the center clogging the lane. It isn't going to fly. The judge will apply both the reasonable person doctrine and the intent of the legislation, and likely find a violation unless you can show cause why you were out that far.

The intent of that statute is clear, bicycles belong as far to the right as is safely possible.

But believe what you want.

A few quotes from the Wisconson Department Of Transportation Website page of safe cycling:

"Ride at least three feet from the curb or parked vehicles or debris in curb area and in a straight line. Don't swerve in and out around parked vehicles." (Note the "at least".)

"Narrow lanes
Ride in the center of the lane.
Keep at least three feet between yourself and passing or parked traffic." (Again, narrow lanes are defined at a federal level and each state has adopted the standard, that is less than 14 feet.)

"Wide lanes
Ride just to the right of the actual traffic line, not alongside the curb.
Keep at least three feet between yourself and the curb or from parked vehicles. Motorists should be passing you with at least 3 feet of clearance."

More to come...

"Take the lane
You will fare better with other road users if you function like a legal vehicle operator, which you are.
Right turning motorists can be a problem, but taking the lane or more of the right portion of the wide curb lane can prevent this. Take an adult bicycling course to learn skills and develop confidence in traffic.
Left turning motorists are the cause of most adult bicyclists’ crashes. Motorists claim not to see the cyclist who is traveling in a straight path in the opposite direction."

"Lane positioning can be especially important in approaching a downhill intersection. Moving to the center makes you more visible to intersecting and left turning motorists in opposing lanes.
Going downhill, your speed is likely to be closer to traffic speeds or posted speed limits. Hugging the curb when there are visual barriers increases your chance to be struck by a bigger vehicle, or of hitting a pedestrian or sidewalk riding bicyclist.
Take the lane, be seen and see other traffic better if you are close to traffic speeds"

More to come...

"Motorist reminders
Bicycles are vehicles. They belong on the road.
Cyclists need room to get around potholes, sewer grates and other obstructions.
Leave at least three feet when passing bicycles, more room at higher speeds.
Change lanes to pass any bicycle traveling in a narrow lane.
Train yourself to scan for fast moving (it's hard to tell speed) bicycles and motorcycles in the opposing lane to you when turning left, and scan sidewalks and crosswalks for pedestrians and bicyclists using the sidewalk and crosswalk as a pedestrian. Always scan to your right side sidewalk before you leave a stop light or stop sign. And to the left and right side sidewalks when on a one-way street."

The same basic principals are in play in every state in the US, Europe, Canada, and Japan. This is not news, or complex, it's basic road-riding safety and public right-of-way stuff folks.

It's because they either don't know that they are required to, or because they rationalize doing it. However, this doesn't seem to be just cyclists. Most motorists roll stop signs and speed, pedestrians tend to j-walk, etc. I think we all do this sort of thing because:
A. We don't think we'll get caught.
B. We rationalize it away (It's only 5 MPH over the speed limit, everyone's doing it, etc.)

Goodgrief, you can't roll a stop in front of a cop in a car. Bikes do it everyday.

Cars roll stops in front of cops all the time. I have yet to see one get pulled over. But, of course, cops tend to be more focused on preventing cars from doing dangerous thing then bikes. Just like they are more concerned with pistols being shot off in neighbourhoods than BB guns. This makes perfect sense.