Originally Posted by Daily Commute
But both cars and bicyclists have issues separate from those of pedestrians. So that argument is not as obvious as you think.
So you object to the type of categorization. I noticed you have neatly sidestepped the question of how this works in practice. Is you objection based purely on political correctness grounds?
No, because vehicular traffic should be grouped with other vehicular traffic. Cyclists have to follow the rules of the road that cars do (red lights, stop signs, lane changes) while pedestrians have a nearly entirely separate system. I know this is a little different in Oregon, where "bicycle advocates" cheered a law that non-cyclists can use to bar bicycles from any road with a white stripe.
As many have pointed out, the bicycle is a hybrid, our environment is neither strictly vehicular or pedestrian. Both peds and cyclists are human powered; using this fact as a basis for grouping, I can find no harm. And again, there is the practicality issue. If this works, then your objection is purely based in political correctness.
I have been there, but not ridden there. "Us" means cyclists.
Since not all cyclists are in Oregon and affected by our laws and bike lanes implimentations, then you "we" could only mean "Oregon cyclists." This is tied into the implicit assumption that "bike lanes" equates "laws required to use them" and it is a red herring. Not all states have this law, and the ones that do, they only affect those cyclists who are blocking traffic in similar manner to a slow car with too many cars backed up behind. Even then,
in practice, the fact that there is this law does not lead to your "cyclist discrimination" that you keep worrying about. But what am I saying, you've never seen how this law affects things in practice. All your concerns, are again, purely theoretical and merely about political correctness.
Your laws bar cyclists from using the roadway (except for a narrow striped strip) unless cops, judges and juries of non-cyclists agree that the reason for leaving the narrow striped area is good enough. Other than banning cyclists from the road altogether, how much worse can it get?
So what you are saying, is that by
your rating system, Oregon has the worse bike laws. Hardly an objective source. I suppose that we will, again, simply have to agree to disagree. As for "...how much worse can it get?," hearing some of the stories coming from NYC and from the South and California, I'd guess that if you had any experience riding here, you'd find it gets much, much worse.
Now, you've tried over and over to make a negative example out of Oregon, what is the state of Ohio bicycling advocacy? Do you even have an effective cycling (not Forester's trademarked term) advocacy group in Ohio? Or are you simply envious that Oregon can make it work, despite not conforming to the politically correct vehicular cycling line?