CHP Officer: "Cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars"
01-03-06, 04:24 PM
#26
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DCCommuter
If you read the applicable section of the code:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
what is interesting is that it is written in a way that easily allows a casual reader to believe that it means exactly the opposite of what it means -- that cyclists do need to stay out of the way of cars. In that way it is similar to many states; I believe the "as close as practicable" language comes from the model uniform traffic code. My suspicion is that it was written that way to get legislators to vote for something that was the opposite of what they were really voting for!
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
what is interesting is that it is written in a way that easily allows a casual reader to believe that it means exactly the opposite of what it means -- that cyclists do need to stay out of the way of cars. In that way it is similar to many states; I believe the "as close as practicable" language comes from the model uniform traffic code. My suspicion is that it was written that way to get legislators to vote for something that was the opposite of what they were really voting for!
Originally Posted by John Forester
Serge has asked me to comment on those traffic laws that discriminate against cyclists and my efforts regarding them.
Near the end of 1973 I discovered that a California government committee named the California Statewide Bicycle Committee was meeting to prepare revisions to the traffic laws regarding the operation of bicycles. I was interested because I had recently been convicted for continuing to ride on the roadway, instead of the sidewalk, in Palo Alto. This CSBC committee had a secret agenda, and, while the fact of its first meeting appeared as a very small paragraph in the newspapers, it had no cyclist members and there had been, apparently, no real attempt to inform the cycling community. I attended the second meeting of the CSBC, and, by convincing them that I was a lawful cyclist because obeying traffic law was best for cyclists, I was admitted as the only cyclist member. Notice, although I hadn't yet worked out the snappiest phrasing, even at that time I believed, as did my cycling colleagues, that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." We were appalled at the typical unlawful and unskilled behavior of Americans on bicycles, and hoped to aid the situation. In that regard I, and the cycling community in general, were deluded; nay, deliberately misled.
This deceitful start became typical of the bikeway program throughout the nation (and in the other nations in which it took hold, also). Bikeway programs have been founded on mendacious deceit from the very beginning and continue to be so supported, because there is no scientific or engineering support for bikeways.
As I wrote above, the committee had a secret agenda which was never told to me as the only cyclist member; I had to discover it myself, and it took months of service on that committee, which met about once a month, to do so. As I say, I had hopes of improving the behavior of American cyclists. On the contrary, the secret aim of the committee was to impose on all cyclists the unlawful and unskillful behavior of the majority, by means of both discriminatory laws and discriminatory bikeways. The traffic-law revision was the second act, not the first. The first act, which was never told to me, was the completion of bikeway planning by the traffic group at UCLA under contract from California government. The object of the traffic-law revision was to add to California traffic law the mandatory bike-lane law and the mandatory side-path law, as the means of enforcing the bikeway designs, about which I was kept ignorant. By digging around, I discovered the bikeway planning document: State of California, Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, Bikeway Planning Criteria and Guidelines, April 1972. The bikeway designs were largely sidepaths, largely taken from Dutch practice, and horribly dangerous. Indeed, cycling less than five miles on Palo Alto's versions of sidepaths had involved me in far too many imminent collision situations that required superb understanding of traffic and superb bike handling to avoid, and finally in one in which I escaped death or serious injury only by luck, not skill.
I raised as much Hell as I could among California's cyclists. We managed to prevent enactment of a mandatory-sidepath-law; the situations that that created were so obviously dangerous. However, before I discovered the committee's secret aim, I argued against both the mandatory-side-of-the-road law and a proposed mandatory-bike-lane law, on the grounds that both contradicted safe and proper vehicular operation and therefore discriminated against cyclists for the convenience of motorists. The committee, of course, weren't about to aid cyclists by recommending that California have neither of these laws. The tactic that they adopted to prevent judges from finding against these laws on the basis of the contradictions was to insert exceptions into these laws to cover whatever contradictions I argued about. That's how the exceptions got into the laws, as an effort to preserve the discriminatory laws from judicial review. Once I saw what was occurring, I gave up mentioning more contradictions to proper vehicular operation, and because the committee had no understanding of proper cycling it never introduced other exceptions. Many years later, some of the exceptions that I had refrained from mentioning got inserted into these laws.
Some hold that the exceptions have rendered these two discriminatory laws difficult to prosecute. There's some truth in that, but defending oneself, either in a criminal prosecution for disobeying the law or as part of a civil suit in which disobeying the law is claimed to be negligence, requires legal talent that costs money. But, mostly, these two discriminatory laws are effectively used as threats against the large part of the population that doesn't understand cycling issues, and as incentive for active discrimination against cyclists by that portion of the motoring population that despises cyclists.
I repeat my statement from above. Bikeway promotion, and the laws that go with it, right from the beginning and right from the very top of power, have been advocated and excused by skillful mendacity and persuasive propaganda that is based on the prejudices of motorists and preys on the fears and hopes of those who do not understand cycling issues. The prejudice by motorists that bicycle traffic is best out of their way is obvious. The fears are of the safe way of cycling, in the vehicular manner, stimulated by excessive fear of same-direction motor traffic. The hope is that bikeway production significantly reduces motoring. Admission that bikeways are the means of implementing motorists' prejudice is politically unacceptable, both to the motorists and to the bicycle promoters. The fear of vehicular cycling and refusal to recognize that that skill is always necessary condemns those who use it for their own goals. The hope that bikeway production significantly reduces motoring has never materialized and never will.
Consider this quotation from the nation's highest document excusing this bikeway program. The author, Andy Clarke, the nation's foremost bikeway promoter, describes the choice as one between "separating bicyclists from motor vehicles vs. integrating them into the traffic flow and training them to ride in a vehicular style." ("Bicycle Safety-Related Research Synthesis", Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-RD-94-062, April 1995) Consider the mendacity of this statement. Clarke is persuading the reader, without doing so explicitly, that bikeways enable cyclists to operate safely without traffic-cycling skills. That has been the implied, but never explicitly admitted, lie upon which bikeway promotion is founded.
Now do you start to understand why the nation's program for bicycle transportation is an immoral blot upon engineering ethics?
Near the end of 1973 I discovered that a California government committee named the California Statewide Bicycle Committee was meeting to prepare revisions to the traffic laws regarding the operation of bicycles. I was interested because I had recently been convicted for continuing to ride on the roadway, instead of the sidewalk, in Palo Alto. This CSBC committee had a secret agenda, and, while the fact of its first meeting appeared as a very small paragraph in the newspapers, it had no cyclist members and there had been, apparently, no real attempt to inform the cycling community. I attended the second meeting of the CSBC, and, by convincing them that I was a lawful cyclist because obeying traffic law was best for cyclists, I was admitted as the only cyclist member. Notice, although I hadn't yet worked out the snappiest phrasing, even at that time I believed, as did my cycling colleagues, that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." We were appalled at the typical unlawful and unskilled behavior of Americans on bicycles, and hoped to aid the situation. In that regard I, and the cycling community in general, were deluded; nay, deliberately misled.
This deceitful start became typical of the bikeway program throughout the nation (and in the other nations in which it took hold, also). Bikeway programs have been founded on mendacious deceit from the very beginning and continue to be so supported, because there is no scientific or engineering support for bikeways.
As I wrote above, the committee had a secret agenda which was never told to me as the only cyclist member; I had to discover it myself, and it took months of service on that committee, which met about once a month, to do so. As I say, I had hopes of improving the behavior of American cyclists. On the contrary, the secret aim of the committee was to impose on all cyclists the unlawful and unskillful behavior of the majority, by means of both discriminatory laws and discriminatory bikeways. The traffic-law revision was the second act, not the first. The first act, which was never told to me, was the completion of bikeway planning by the traffic group at UCLA under contract from California government. The object of the traffic-law revision was to add to California traffic law the mandatory bike-lane law and the mandatory side-path law, as the means of enforcing the bikeway designs, about which I was kept ignorant. By digging around, I discovered the bikeway planning document: State of California, Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, Bikeway Planning Criteria and Guidelines, April 1972. The bikeway designs were largely sidepaths, largely taken from Dutch practice, and horribly dangerous. Indeed, cycling less than five miles on Palo Alto's versions of sidepaths had involved me in far too many imminent collision situations that required superb understanding of traffic and superb bike handling to avoid, and finally in one in which I escaped death or serious injury only by luck, not skill.
I raised as much Hell as I could among California's cyclists. We managed to prevent enactment of a mandatory-sidepath-law; the situations that that created were so obviously dangerous. However, before I discovered the committee's secret aim, I argued against both the mandatory-side-of-the-road law and a proposed mandatory-bike-lane law, on the grounds that both contradicted safe and proper vehicular operation and therefore discriminated against cyclists for the convenience of motorists. The committee, of course, weren't about to aid cyclists by recommending that California have neither of these laws. The tactic that they adopted to prevent judges from finding against these laws on the basis of the contradictions was to insert exceptions into these laws to cover whatever contradictions I argued about. That's how the exceptions got into the laws, as an effort to preserve the discriminatory laws from judicial review. Once I saw what was occurring, I gave up mentioning more contradictions to proper vehicular operation, and because the committee had no understanding of proper cycling it never introduced other exceptions. Many years later, some of the exceptions that I had refrained from mentioning got inserted into these laws.
Some hold that the exceptions have rendered these two discriminatory laws difficult to prosecute. There's some truth in that, but defending oneself, either in a criminal prosecution for disobeying the law or as part of a civil suit in which disobeying the law is claimed to be negligence, requires legal talent that costs money. But, mostly, these two discriminatory laws are effectively used as threats against the large part of the population that doesn't understand cycling issues, and as incentive for active discrimination against cyclists by that portion of the motoring population that despises cyclists.
I repeat my statement from above. Bikeway promotion, and the laws that go with it, right from the beginning and right from the very top of power, have been advocated and excused by skillful mendacity and persuasive propaganda that is based on the prejudices of motorists and preys on the fears and hopes of those who do not understand cycling issues. The prejudice by motorists that bicycle traffic is best out of their way is obvious. The fears are of the safe way of cycling, in the vehicular manner, stimulated by excessive fear of same-direction motor traffic. The hope is that bikeway production significantly reduces motoring. Admission that bikeways are the means of implementing motorists' prejudice is politically unacceptable, both to the motorists and to the bicycle promoters. The fear of vehicular cycling and refusal to recognize that that skill is always necessary condemns those who use it for their own goals. The hope that bikeway production significantly reduces motoring has never materialized and never will.
Consider this quotation from the nation's highest document excusing this bikeway program. The author, Andy Clarke, the nation's foremost bikeway promoter, describes the choice as one between "separating bicyclists from motor vehicles vs. integrating them into the traffic flow and training them to ride in a vehicular style." ("Bicycle Safety-Related Research Synthesis", Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-RD-94-062, April 1995) Consider the mendacity of this statement. Clarke is persuading the reader, without doing so explicitly, that bikeways enable cyclists to operate safely without traffic-cycling skills. That has been the implied, but never explicitly admitted, lie upon which bikeway promotion is founded.
Now do you start to understand why the nation's program for bicycle transportation is an immoral blot upon engineering ethics?
01-03-06, 04:27 PM
#27
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
The problem is that the scenerio you first present does not exist...
Whether bike only places exist is irrelevant to my point, which addresses segregated onstreet facilities (bike lanes) on "shared" roadways.
01-03-06, 04:34 PM
#28
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Gene,
Whether bike only places exist is irrelevant to my point, which addresses segregated onstreet facilities (bike lanes) on "shared" roadways.
Whether bike only places exist is irrelevant to my point, which addresses segregated onstreet facilities (bike lanes) on "shared" roadways.
Cyclists are always the "second class citizen" in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of the other users of whatever space they are using. Strange situation, eh?
01-03-06, 04:38 PM
#29
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by linux_author
- show me the pictures of this incident or another web site detailing the incident...
- provide links to pertinent CA motor vehicle law...
- what was the officer's name and/or badge number?
- was this incident reported in any local papers? were any reporters contacted?
- otherwise, i'm not inclined to believe that this incident is true, especially considering that we're talking about CA...
Ohio maybe, but not Calif....
:-)
- provide links to pertinent CA motor vehicle law...
- what was the officer's name and/or badge number?
- was this incident reported in any local papers? were any reporters contacted?
- otherwise, i'm not inclined to believe that this incident is true, especially considering that we're talking about CA...
Ohio maybe, but not Calif....
:-)
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
Discussion of the incident on the LA County Bicycle Coalition list:
https://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacbc/
Start with message 5556.
I doubt this was covered by any newspapers.
01-03-06, 04:44 PM
#30
370H-SSV-0773H
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Penniless Park, Fla.
Posts: 2,750
Bikes: Merlin Fortius, Specialized Crossroads & Rockhopper, Serotta Fierte, Pedal Force RS2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Link to the law in question:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
Discussion of the incident on the LA County Bicycle Coalition list:
https://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacbc/
Start with message 5556.
I doubt this was covered by any newspapers.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
Discussion of the incident on the LA County Bicycle Coalition list:
https://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacbc/
Start with message 5556.
I doubt this was covered by any newspapers.
2. found the pertinent discussion thread and this post:
https://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacbc/message/5585
- looks like a complaint will be forthcoming!
- tks!
01-03-06, 04:57 PM
#31
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by linux_author
1. tks for link to law... looks like group rides are in no danger and that bicyclists have the road in CA
2. found the pertinent discussion thread and this post:
https://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacbc/message/5585
- looks like a complaint will be forthcoming!
- tks!
2. found the pertinent discussion thread and this post:
https://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacbc/message/5585
- looks like a complaint will be forthcoming!
- tks!
"One of the most frustrating bits of feedback I keep hearing from law
enforcement agencies and those that ignorantly support their anti-bicycle
attitude on this matter is "we are just trying to keep you safe"."
It sure seems to me that anytime cyclists are traveling in number, they are far more visible then solo cyclists... Safety in numbers, so to speak.
So the officers are way off the mark here!
01-03-06, 05:08 PM
#32
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My understanding is that they've been using the "we are just trying to keep you safe" red herring argument since the first time they tried to get us out of their way.
The embarrassingly tragic thing is how many cyclists, and even cycling advocates, buy that red herring argument hook, line and sinker (e.g., we need bike lanes to make cycling safer!).
The embarrassingly tragic thing is how many cyclists, and even cycling advocates, buy that red herring argument hook, line and sinker (e.g., we need bike lanes to make cycling safer!).
01-03-06, 06:42 PM
#33
Senior Member
"It's for your own safety". Yuppers, that seems to be the official policy of the CHP. We heard that from Officer Holland out of the Sierraville area when he was threatening not to renew the permits next year for the MS150 out of Graeagle.
Of course, following their line of reasoning, I expect them to be demanding that all law abiding citizens start wearing bullet proof vests.
Remember, the CHP beat down the attempt at changing the law so that bike lanes had to be out of the door zone. Their motorcycles cops should have to ride in those bike lanes when there are no cyclists in them.
Of course, following their line of reasoning, I expect them to be demanding that all law abiding citizens start wearing bullet proof vests.
Remember, the CHP beat down the attempt at changing the law so that bike lanes had to be out of the door zone. Their motorcycles cops should have to ride in those bike lanes when there are no cyclists in them.
01-03-06, 06:54 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Watching all of you on O.B.I.T.
Posts: 2,023
Bikes: Bridgestone RB-1. Nicely restored
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
6 Posts
... The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars"...
I'll explain that: Memorial Drive runs along the charles river, in Cambridge MA. It's a busy road, built pre-WWII. It has two lanes in each direction. The lanes are only about nine feet in width. Shoulders are either very narrow, or non-existant. Sidewalks along Memorial Drive were marked as "bicycle routes" in the early 70's, as a nod to the ecology movement, and the 70's bike boom. (observe the rusted, never-used bike racks here and there.) Over the years, those sidewalk/bike routes have fallen into dis-repair, with enormous potholes, pockmarks, and severe tree root damage. In some areas, the sidewalk/bike routes have simply caved-in altogether, with repairs taking months to even get scheduled. Memorial Drive is not a divided express highway. Bicycling on this road is legal, under state law. But, the Massachusetts state police will pull over and ticket cyclists they see riding on Memorial Drive, as well as several other similar state roads. This is very common during rush hour. There have been a few arrests.
Here is a informative link to part of the lab reform website regarding this.
Here is a quote from the article
"State Police Lieutenant Robert Ryan said patronizingly: "What we're saying is, `You have a legal right, but do you have a moral right?'"
HelmetHead, that cycling club needs to talk to a lawyer. Something smells bad. It doesn't seem to me that this cycling group was creating any kind of problem.
Off topic question: Is Mulholland Highway the same as Mulholland Drive? I have not been to L.A. for more than twenty years.
01-03-06, 07:02 PM
#35
Bent_Rider
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SF Bay area
Posts: 1,248
Bikes: Bacchetta Aero, BikeE, Bruce Gordon Rock n Road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
To Helmet Head.
Here's how attempts to increase safety on PCH in the Malibu area have played out. Must have bike lanes to "keep cyclists away from 50mph traffic" In fact the whole debate about the deaths of two cyclists forced out of the shoulder (not a bike lane) by construction has been about improving safety by removing the obstructions to the shoulder so cyclists would not have to mix with traffic.
Cops were also going on a ticket writting spree on side by side cyclists.
See:https://www.malibutimes.com/articles/...news/news2.txt
Not any discussion about the cyclist inherent right to the road.
Here's how attempts to increase safety on PCH in the Malibu area have played out. Must have bike lanes to "keep cyclists away from 50mph traffic" In fact the whole debate about the deaths of two cyclists forced out of the shoulder (not a bike lane) by construction has been about improving safety by removing the obstructions to the shoulder so cyclists would not have to mix with traffic.
Cops were also going on a ticket writting spree on side by side cyclists.
See:https://www.malibutimes.com/articles/...news/news2.txt
Not any discussion about the cyclist inherent right to the road.
01-03-06, 07:17 PM
#36
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Moving aside to facilitate easier passing by faster traffic when it is safe and reasonable to do so is very different from feeling/thinking that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars. Understanding the difference is key to being able to navigate in traffic effectively.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
01-03-06, 07:20 PM
#37
Bent_Rider
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SF Bay area
Posts: 1,248
Bikes: Bacchetta Aero, BikeE, Bruce Gordon Rock n Road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Horsepucky...every vehicle operating on the roadways has an obligation to yield to faster traffic if safe to do so. You failed to mention the traffic conditions in your little story. It seems you only presented the part of the story that would elicit your desired emotional response. Care to paint the rest of the picture for us?
01-03-06, 07:21 PM
#38
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by linux_author
- show me the pictures of this incident or another web site detailing the incident...
- provide links to pertinent CA motor vehicle law...
- what was the officer's name and/or badge number?
- was this incident reported in any local papers? were any reporters contacted?
- otherwise, i'm not inclined to believe that this incident is true, especially considering that we're talking about CA...
Ohio maybe, but not Calif....
:-)
- provide links to pertinent CA motor vehicle law...
- what was the officer's name and/or badge number?
- was this incident reported in any local papers? were any reporters contacted?
- otherwise, i'm not inclined to believe that this incident is true, especially considering that we're talking about CA...
Ohio maybe, but not Calif....
:-)
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
01-03-06, 07:33 PM
#39
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
My understanding is that they've been using the "we are just trying to keep you safe" red herring argument since the first time they tried to get us out of their way.
The embarrassingly tragic thing is how many cyclists, and even cycling advocates, buy that red herring argument hook, line and sinker (e.g., we need bike lanes to make cycling safer!).
The embarrassingly tragic thing is how many cyclists, and even cycling advocates, buy that red herring argument hook, line and sinker (e.g., we need bike lanes to make cycling safer!).
I know what you are thinking...yes, ask any American and they are all for traffic safety...but what they are for and what they practice on the street are two different things. The majority don't want to be bothered by things like speed limits, traffic control devices, cameras, safety belts, emission controls, sharing the road with slow moving vehicles, etc.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
01-03-06, 07:36 PM
#40
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by scarry
The key to your statment is "when safe to do so". Who gets to decide when it is safe to allow following traffic to pass. The cyclist gets to decide. And in the meantime, the faster traffic has to wait until it is safe to pass.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
01-03-06, 07:40 PM
#41
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Moving aside to facilitate easier passing by faster traffic when it is safe and reasonable to do so is very different from feeling/thinking that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars. Understanding the difference is key to being able to navigate in traffic effectively.
every vehicle operating on the roadways has an obligation to yield to faster traffic if safe to do so.
You failed to mention the traffic conditions in your little story. It seems you only presented the part of the story that would elicit your desired emotional response. Care to paint the rest of the picture for us?
01-03-06, 07:43 PM
#42
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
You gotta look past the black helocopters and into reality. The statement "we are just trying to keep you safe" isn't some conspiracy against cyclists, it's an admission that LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN'T KEEP THE ROADWAYS SAFE. That is the root issue, the roadways are getting more dangerous for everyone and correcting the situation is beyond the control of law enforcement and government, which if you think about it, makes sense because laws designed for traffic safety do not enjoy widespread public support. Unpopular laws are unenforceable by less than draconian measures.
I know what you are thinking...yes, ask any American and they are all for traffic safety...but what they are for and what they practice on the street are two different things. The majority don't want to be bothered by things like speed limits, traffic control devices, cameras, safety belts, emission controls, sharing the road with slow moving vehicles, etc.
I know what you are thinking...yes, ask any American and they are all for traffic safety...but what they are for and what they practice on the street are two different things. The majority don't want to be bothered by things like speed limits, traffic control devices, cameras, safety belts, emission controls, sharing the road with slow moving vehicles, etc.
01-03-06, 07:55 PM
#43
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Agreed, but in this little story, the rider not only didn't comply when commanded to pull over, he merged left to pass another cyclist. Like I said earlier, I don't think we are getting the full story here, we're getting the parts that will get an emotional rise out of us. I want to see the whole picture before I jump on this troop train.
More importantly, in the discussion about why they were pulled over in the first place, with regard to what 21202 says, if the officer really said, "I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars", do you find that outrageous, or not?
01-03-06, 08:06 PM
#44
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
...if the officer really said, "I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars", do you find that outrageous, or not?
01-03-06, 08:21 PM
#45
Señior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 13,749
Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
The cop is full of sh*t. He's not interpreting the "spirit of the law", he's trying to enforce his own personal opinion.
In general you would think that the "spirit of the law" would have at least SOME resemblance to the "letter of the law" - so why does this guy claim that the two are complete opposites?
I wonder if he thinks that cars should pull off to make way for semis? Semis for heavy haulers?
In general you would think that the "spirit of the law" would have at least SOME resemblance to the "letter of the law" - so why does this guy claim that the two are complete opposites?
I wonder if he thinks that cars should pull off to make way for semis? Semis for heavy haulers?
01-03-06, 08:30 PM
#46
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by ItsJustMe
The cop is full of sh*t. He's not interpreting the "spirit of the law", he's trying to enforce his own personal opinion.
In general you would think that the "spirit of the law" would have at least SOME resemblance to the "letter of the law" - so why does this guy claim that the two are complete opposites?
I wonder if he thinks that cars should pull off to make way for semis? Semis for heavy haulers?
In general you would think that the "spirit of the law" would have at least SOME resemblance to the "letter of the law" - so why does this guy claim that the two are complete opposites?
I wonder if he thinks that cars should pull off to make way for semis? Semis for heavy haulers?
01-03-06, 11:06 PM
#47
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ItsJustMe
The cop is full of sh*t. He's not interpreting the "spirit of the law", he's trying to enforce his own personal opinion.
In general you would think that the "spirit of the law" would have at least SOME resemblance to the "letter of the law" - so why does this guy claim that the two are complete opposites?
In general you would think that the "spirit of the law" would have at least SOME resemblance to the "letter of the law" - so why does this guy claim that the two are complete opposites?
Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
Unfortunately, this is all most people know about it.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
Really, the officer is right about the spirit of the law, for the above version was the original intent. The only reason all the exceptions were added is because John Forester argued that the law would be revoked when challenged in court because it would violate cyclists rights, and he started citing various examples. For each example, they added an exception... the rest is history.
01-03-06, 11:13 PM
#48
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Good point... last time I checked, JUDGES were the ones tasked with "interpreting the laws."
But everyone interprets laws. We must, in order to understand them. How do you obey and enforce laws that you have not even interpreted?
01-03-06, 11:16 PM
#49
52-week commuter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,929
Bikes: Redline Conquest, Cannonday, Specialized, RANS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Unfortunately, they are not complete opposites. After all, if you culled out all the exceptions, 21202 would simply say:
Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
Unfortunately, this is all most people know about it.
Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
Unfortunately, this is all most people know about it.
01-04-06, 04:11 AM
#50
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
For the sake of discussion, let's assume the guy did merge left and not immediately slow down when the cop told them to pull over. Okay, that's wrong. But can we also assume that the cop slammed on his brakes in front of them? If he did that, what do you think of that?
More importantly, in the discussion about why they were pulled over in the first place, with regard to what 21202 says, if the officer really said, "I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars", do you find that outrageous, or not?
More importantly, in the discussion about why they were pulled over in the first place, with regard to what 21202 says, if the officer really said, "I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars", do you find that outrageous, or not?
I guess I am suprised at some of the attitudes I see expressed here on this forum, which seem so antagonistic toward drivers in cars. So much emphasis on demanding your "rights" as a vehicle, then admitting you purposely drive slow to hold up "cagers" when you yourself are in your car, and so on. It all sounds like a big inferiority complex to me and it ends up creating more animosity and resentment toward all cyclists. Whatever happened to building common courtesy and respect? It would be nice if our society weren't so car-centric, drivers were more aware, and the roads weren't so crowded, but sadly that's not the reality we have to deal with. And as always, the rules tend to favor the majority.
And as far as the guy who decided to exercise his rights and ignore a request from a CHP officer when asked to move over - he deliberately ignored the cop and moved further INTO the lane in front of him to PASS another cyclist. What was he thinking? And then he wanted to argue CVC with him? No wonder the cop was pissed. I can't believe there is even a discussion over this.
Last edited by mtnroads; 01-04-06 at 04:20 AM.