Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin
Then this statement is fallacious:
"The vehicular rules of the road have evolved over a hundred years to effectively handle all kinds of mixes in types of vehicular traffic."
Then this discussion is meaningless, since it is based upon a false premise (that all drivers generally follow the rules).
What did you mean by "Plus, the laws in CA no longer clearly state that marginally slower traffic is required to keep to the right lanes"?
Take it up with Ratliff and those who applauded his gambit in post #28.
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
If cycling is (say) 50% of the traffic volume (without some sort of speed segregation), then all traffic either slows to bicycling speeds or faster traffic resorts to illegal maneuvers to maintain speeds above 15mph. Space on an asphault road is limited. This is exactly what happens in Asia, where bicyclist concentration is still high.
VC is how one bicycles in the limit as the number of bicyclists approach a dilute concentration. Raise the percentage enough, and free and unrestricted travel for everyone is reduced to a common denominator.
How do you know what I wish to do? I've never stated this; it seems you are putting words in my mouth. A straw man is easier to beat up, for sure.
[/quote]
For the "some sort of speed segregation" to work, the laws, whether it's "slower traffic keeps right", or "bicycle traffic stays in bike lanes", mandating the segregation have to be generally followed.
He did not state this explicitly, but it's implied. That's why examples from Asia or elsewhere of drivers not obeying the rules are irrelevant to this discussion.