Anybody have an unwanted front wheel?

← Back to Forums


RickyTickyTac
Participant
#

So, last week on my way home from class I got into a little tangle with an automobile turning across my lane. Don’t worry, I’m fine, but my front wheel got pretty messed up. I’ve tried to bend it back and true it, but it was a fruitless effort, the thing is just too messed up. Anybody have an extra 700c front wheel they can part with on the cheap? It doesn’t have to be fancy, my last one was actually pretty darn cheap. I just want to get my bike back on the road again. I prefer a rim drilled for a schrader valve, but won’t be picky if I find one with a presta.

Thanks!!!


Tabby
Participant
#

glad you’re ok. did they stop for you? if they were at fault for cutting you off it would be ideal if they/their insurance would replace your wheel. I know that things don’t generally work out that smoothly, but I’m hoping if cyclists keep pushing the insurance, police, legislators, etc eventually we’ll see things get better.


StuInMcCandless
Participant
#

If I was an insurance company, I would love to settle a claim for less than a couple hundred bucks and then jack up the rates on the at-fault driver. Talk about a fast ROI!


RickyTickyTac
Participant
#

Well, technically, by law, it was the drivers fault. I don’t find him at fault due to the situation though. I was riding in the bike lane on Liberty ave through Bloomfield in heavy traffic, passing the cars to my left. At the intersection of Mathilda and Liberty, a car going the same direction as me stopped to wave a car going the opposite direction to turn left through the intersection, directly through my path. There was so much traffic that neither of us saw the other until the second we hit. I don’t fault the driver who hit me, but I do fault the driver who waved him through for not making sure nobody was coming up the right lane when she waved on the other car.

The driver who hit me was really good about it. he immediately stopped and got out of his car, made sure I was alright, and willingly offered his insurance information. He also admitted it was his fault without me even asking. I let it all go though, because I am completely ok and in the circumstances I know he had no way of knowing. My wheel is messed up, but then again I did buy it for 5 bucks from goodwill.


Lyle
Participant
#

Someone could make an argument that you were also at fault for passing on the right. I’m glad you’re okay and all, but passing moving traffic on the right is a bad idea (and yes, I do it sometimes, telling myself the whole time that I should know better. I think Ian caught me…) In fact, my one serious car/bike incident was on account of my rushing and overtaking a car on the right.


Jane
Member
#

I think there may be a bit of confusion as to what exactly those sharrow symbols mean on the Bloomfield stretch of Liberty Ave. They are so far to the right of the traffic lane that it leaves room for bicyclists to travel while cars pass on the left or for cars to travel on the left while bicyclists pass on the right. There are NO lines which designate this area as its own lane, however it is used as one.

Is it a lane or not? Who should be at fault when accidents like this occur? Shared responsibility?–After all, they are “sharrows”. Is there an issue with passing on the right rather than the left in this situation? Maybe there is already a thread somewhere that discusses this.. if not, I want to know what people think.


Lyle
Participant
#

Excellent point, skipdip. Under the law, it is not a lane. In fact, even if it was a bike lane, it’s not clear that it would be treated the same as a “traffic lane”. I don’t know of any case law about this in PA, and even in Oregon where the laws give special status to bike lanes, there have been cases that went against reason… The guy to ask about this is Mionske, though.

But the law is not my primary concern. My primary concern is preventing cyclists from being injured or killed. So I try to teach people how to be safe regardless of what markings are on the pavement.

Next question: why are sharrows usually placed in the door zone, instead of where experienced cyclists know is the “best practice”? Whose interests does that serve, the cyclists, or the motorists?

And, on-topic, I do have a front wheel, it’s presta, and not a particularly wide rim, built up from a NOS rim and a lightly-used old hub, laced but tightened or trued. I can swap it for the bent wheel and some karma. PM me with a phone number if you’re interested.


RickyTickyTac
Participant
#

True, the argument could be made that I was passing on the right and that’s bad. But, then again traffic was stopped. Here is a little excerpt from the PA bicycle laws:

[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.

Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended route.]

So slower vehicles stay to the right, except when passing. OK, so I guess I was wrong in passing on the right-hand side. But then there is this little chunk that comes right after that one:

Comment: Taken together, 3505 (c) and 3301 (b) state that slower vehicles should keep to the right, which is the normal expectation of all road users, while permitting bicyclists to make movements consistent with their intended route.

The “permitting bicyclists to make movements consistent with their intended route” part sounds like they are trying to say “If traffic’s jammed, let the bikes go by on the right”

That might be a little bit of a stretch.

One other thing: I thought that was an actual bike lane through Bloomfield. It used to have a line dividing it, which faded over time and wasn’t painted again whenever the sharrows were re-painted. Am I wrong about this?


Steven
Participant
#

I think “permitting bicyclists to make movements consistent with their intended route” merely means you don’t stick in the right hand lane if it’s right-turn-only but you’re not turning right, etc. Lane assignments override the rule about sticking to the right. The “comment” part is just trying to restate the preceding rules.

But….

3304. Overtaking vehicle on the right

(a) General rule.-The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under one of the following conditions:

1. When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn, except that such movement shall not be made by driving off the berm or shoulder of the highway.

2. Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaken vehicle, except that such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway.

(b) Limitation.-No passing movement under this section shall be made unless the movement can be made in safety.

I think this says you can legally pass on the right in the situation given, since there’s room for both bikes and cars. (It doesn’t say there has to be room for two cars side by side, or anything about lanes here.)

But you can only do so safely. Does this mean it’s legal only as long as you don’t get hit?

Legal or not, it’s relatively risky, especially at intersections.


Lyle
Participant
#

Thanks Steven, that’s the section I was thinking of. I think that’s exactly what (b) means. (I also suspect that 3304(b) makes lane-splitting legal, though I haven’t had the chance to try it out on a judge :S)

I do get cheesed off by all the cars travelling at less than the normal and usual speed on Fifth and Forbes who are not keeping as close to the right as practicable.


ieverhart
Participant
#

I haven’t had the chance to try it out on a judge

A quick Westlaw search on 75 Pa.C.S. § 3304 suggests that nobody has had such an opportunity–there are zero cases since 1940 where a cyclist was the defendant in a case citing § 3304.

← Back to Forums

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Click here to login.

Supported by