Originally Posted by
Bekologist
MORE flawed logic on your part, Ian.
Failing to operate a vehicle under the rules of the road can unequivocally create conditions of reckless endangerment to other road users.
a rider taking the lane does not necessarily keep everyone safer, there are plenty of conditions this isn't true, like a 14 foot wide outside lane, where sharing is safe, legal, and the norm, and riding obtusely in the lane could create hazardous conditions for other road users under certain traffic and environmental conditions.
riders can be convicted of reckless riding. Reports in this forum (like Ian's) appear to confirm the presence of inchoate lane positioning on the part of cyclists convinced lane control is the only road use standard they ride under.
A VERY small minority of cyclists position themselves bluntly, failing to adhere to the spirit and letter of the laws governing use of public roads. It's likely they will never be cited or convicted. Rider censure for reckless riding is nearly non-existant.
Much equivocation in the above posting, which I know is deliberate on Bek's part but is probably no more on Ian's part than failure to recognize the need to be specific when dealing with Bek. Bek presents what seems to be an unanswerable argument when he writes: "Failing to operate a vehicle under the rules of the road can unequivocally create conditions of reckless endangerment to other road users." Who in the normal world would disagree with that argument? However, what Bek is really writing harks back to the Chip Seal case, in which Chip Seal was convicted of using the outside lane of a four-lane highway, convicted with the argument that his use of that lane constituted reckless endangerment to other road users. True, that constituted violation of one of the laws for cyclists that do not apply to other drivers of vehicles. On the other hand, when Ian replied that using a lane does not violate rules, he was referring to the basic traffic laws, the rules of the road that apply to all drivers of vehicles.
As you all can read, Bek supports and advocates the view of the motoring establishment that cyclists ought to be bound by the cyclist-discriminatory laws that apply to cyclists alone, whereas many of us believe, and advocate, that cyclists ought to be bound only by the laws that apply equally, without discrimination, to all drivers of vehicles.