Uphill Cyclist Has Right of Way

[StopMeansStop]

I doubt that hills have any basis for right-of-way, but even if it DID, the yield sign trumps that right of way.

[DismalScientist]

Oh goodie…

I can ignore all traffic signs up the Rosslyn hill. I did not realize that those new traffic signals could not only be ignored, but self-righteously ignored. Now I don’t have to stop on the W&OD all the way from Shirlington to Gallows Road.

[brendan]

@StopMeansStop 3907 wrote:

I doubt that hills have any basis for right-of-way, but even if it DID, the yield sign trumps that right of way.

Concur.

I was actually thinking about something similar yesterday in the context of good trail manners (not right of way, though), while riding the W&OD. Given a simulated situation where two cyclists are heading towards each other on a narrow path on a sharp incline and will pass each other near a narrow or other kind of obstruction that might lead to a dangerous closeness (to each other, an object or another trail user) unless one of them adjusts their velocity: which should be expected to slow their velocity more?

If I were either cyclist, I know that I’d be reluctant to give up the speed, but it seems to me that in terms of lost work (or even balance), it would make more sense for the downhill rider to be kind and apply their brakes, since the uphill rider is presumably riding harder and more likely to lose control if they have to slow/stop hard.

[GreyBear]

The W&OD is two lanes, clearly marked with a center line, no? Then the person who would have to go into the other lane would clearly be the one with the responsibility to yield.

[baiskeli]

He was right – the uphill rule is a corollary of the general rule that self-absorbed arrogant jerks always have the right-of-way.

[DismalScientist]

Brendan: I think it depends on the slope of the incline. If it were significant, I would argue, using the sailboat/motorboat analogy, that whoever has more control over their speed should yield, which in this case would be the uphill rider. On the other hand, if the slope is less significant and speed control is no issue, I would think the downhill rider should yield because he/she gain recover speed more quickly. Or maybe the right-of-way should go to the most lycra.

[brendan]

@GreyBear 3910 wrote:

The W&OD is two lanes, clearly marked with a center line, no? Then the person who would have to go into the other lane would clearly be the one with the responsibility to yield.

Point taken. But it’s not always so simple, especially at a pinchpoint / narrow. I guess both should yield then.

On the topic of cyclist-on-cyclist conflict, I’m smarting a bit after being yelled at by another cyclist, in Italian (which made it somewhat funny), for stopping at a stop sign on Tuesday night in East Potomac Park / Hains Point. Though, it is the de facto Velodrome for DC…

Brendan

[napes]

Funny. A German once yelled at me in Germany because I didn’t give the bicycle rider going uphill his fair share of space on the narrow path (in his opinion). I don’t recall that it was particularly dangerous and we certainly didn’t collide, but anyway, in Germany if there is no room to safely pass, the downhill rider/driver is generally expected (but curiously not mandated) to give the slower moving uphill rider/driver more consideration. “Auf Bergstrecken, auch solchen, die eine Begegnung wegen der geringen Fahrbahnbreite nicht erlauben, darf der Berganfahrende vom Bergabfahrenden weitestgehende Rücksichtnahme erwarten. . .”

This is the topic of some discussion in German bike threads, which generally say exactly the reverse, that it’s so much easier for the slower moving bike to pull to the side, that that is their general preferred practice for mountain bikes.

http://www.mtb-news.de/forum/showthread.php?t=398727

So anyway, clear as mud.

§10 StVO, Ausweichen

(1) Der Lenker eines Fahrzeuges hat einem entgegenkommenden Fahrzeug rechtzeitig und ausreichend nach rechts auszuweichen. Einem entgegenkommenden Schienenfahrzeug ist jedoch, wenn der Abstand zwischen ihm und dem Fahrbahnrand ein Ausweichen nach rechts nicht zulässt, unter Bedachtnahme auf den Gegenverkehr nach links auszuweichen.

(2) Kann nicht oder nicht ausreichend ausgewichen werden, so sind die einander begegnenden Fahrzeuge anzuhalten. In einem solchen Fall muss jenes Fahrzeug zurückgefahren werden, mit dem dies wegen seiner Art und wegen der örtlichen Verhältnisse leichter möglich ist.

Ausreichend ist eine Ausweichbewegung, wenn der Begegnende seine Fahrt ohne Gefährdung oder vermeidbare Behinderung fortsetzen kann kann – OGH 21. 10. 1971, ZVR 1972/7.

Auf Bergstrecken, auch solchen, die eine Begegnung wegen der geringen Fahrbahnbreite nicht erlauben, darf der Berganfahrende vom Bergabfahrenden weitestgehende Rücksichtnahme erwarten, doch besteht keine allgemeine Pflicht des Bergabfahrenden, dem Berganfahrenden den Weg freizugeben – OGH 3. 7. 1979, ZVR 1980/124.

[OneEighth]

Bei den armen Deutschen scheint aber auch alles geregelt zu sein. Gluecklicherweise gefaellt’s Ihnen so.

[Joe Chapline]

I’ve often observed this in drivers — they MAKE UP rules, and are offended when others don’t obey them (or even know about them). The German thing is a coincidence because the Autobahn also comes up when drivers are explaining why everyone except them should stay in the right lane on the highway.

[OneEighth]

Slower traffic should stay to the right whether in a car, on a bicycle, or on foot. Staying to the right is a simple, common sense solution that allows for more efficient use of the road, path, or sidewalk. Not only that, it is also a matter of common courtesy.
And, yes, faster traffic needs to display common sense and common courtesy, too.

[Joe Chapline]

@OneEighth 3924 wrote:

Slower traffic should stay to the right whether in a car, on a bicycle, or on foot. Staying to the right is a simple, common sense solution that allows for more efficient use of the road, path, or sidewalk. Not only that, it is also a matter of common courtesy.
And, yes, faster traffic needs to display common sense and common courtesy, too.

I’m in favor of both sense and courtesy, common or uncommon. But the reality on a trail, road, or sidewalk, is that other people are using it, and we’re going to be in each others’ way. Everyone is “faster traffic” and everyone is “slower traffic.” (Except for two people in any given sample.)

[Mark Blacknell]

My guess is that this was an MTB’er doing a poor job of translating trail rules to the street. (And he wouldn’t be the first one.)

Slower traffic should stay to the right whether in a car, on a bicycle, or on foot.

Given the reaction I witnessed by some of the folks during Bike DC, this isn’t exactly common courtesy. In fact, some got downright indignant that someone would expect them not to dawdle along at 6mph on the left.

[DismalScientist]

On a related, but non-bike subject, I was taught in driver’s ed, that one was to flash ones lights to indicate that you wanted to pass and, in particular, do so when in the left lane to “remind” the person in front of you when they have completed their pass. Around here, people take great offense at this as well as any suggestion that they maintain lane discipline. How and why did this occur?

[consularrider]

I particularly take offence to having brights flashed at me by someone zooming up on my butt at considerably over the speed limit. Just one more instance of agressive driving be translated into the norm.

[Author]

Posts