Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

View Poll Results: Should Vehicular Cyclists obey the law?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, vehicular cyclists should obey the applicable traffic and vehicular laws.

    57 82.61%
  • No, laws are not important and need not be obeyed.

    12 17.39%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 85
  1. #1
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Obey the law, or obey the mob?

    A simple yes or no poll. Should so-called vehicular cyclists obey the applicable traffic and vehicular laws of their area, or are the laws unimportant and can be ignored or modified at will?
    Last edited by chipcom; 03-08-07 at 01:41 PM.
    "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

  2. #2
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    False dichotomy alert, again.

  3. #3
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    False dichotomy alert, again.
    Come on HH, it's a simple yes or no question. What's the matter, no room for pages and pages of BS totally unsupported by fact or legal precedent?
    "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

  4. #4
    Sumanitu taka owaci LittleBigMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    8,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It was a pretty simple answer. (Who said laws were unimportant and need not be obeyed?)
    No worries

  5. #5
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Since you did not clarify what you mean by "obey the applicable traffic and vehicular law", in particular you did not specify that it means "obey the letter of the law without exception", I am going to interpret it as follows:

    obey the applicable traffic and vehicular law" with the same adherence that drivers of vehicles tend to obey the law.

    Given that interpretation, I am voting Yes.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,209
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    A simple yes or no poll. Should so-called vehicular cyclists obey the applicable traffic and vehicular laws of their area, or are the laws unimportant and can be ignored or modified at will?

    Its not a simple yes or no. First, by "should" do you mean "its a good idea" or "its mandatory"? Next, "unimportant" is a loaded & subjective term. Also---just becuase a rule or law is "important" does not mean that there are not exceptions to it. Your questions presents 2 extremes as the only alternatives when there is a lot of room in the middle.

  7. #7
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skanking biker
    Its not a simple yes or no. First, by "should" do you mean "its a good idea" or "its mandatory"? Next, "unimportant" is a loaded & subjective term. Also---just becuase a rule or law is "important" does not mean that there are not exceptions to it.
    Good luck. The import of addressing the details that determine actual underlying meaning is challenging for some to grasp.

    Your questions presents 2 extremes as the only alternatives when there is a lot of room in the middle.
    Exactly. Like I said earlier, false dichotomy alert.

  8. #8
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There is no middle ground. You either think the law should be obeyed, or you don't. If there are exceptions, they are outlined in the law.

    The question didn't ask if you do or don't obey the law, it merely asked if vehicular cyclists 'should' do so.
    "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

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,209
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, I am a little fuzzy as to how "vehicular cylists" are defined here. There apparrently is no consensus on that here.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,209
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=chipcom]There is no middle ground. You either think the law should be obeyed, or you don't.[QUOTE]

    Only a Sith deals in absolutes

  11. #11
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Since you did not clarify what you mean by "obey the applicable traffic and vehicular law", in particular you did not specify that it means "obey the letter of the law without exception", I am going to interpret it as follows:

    obey the applicable traffic and vehicular law" with the same adherence that drivers of vehicles tend to obey the law.

    Given that interpretation, I am voting Yes.
    Your interpretation is both dishonest and invalid. There is nothing in the law that I know of that qualifies it's obedience to include "with the same adherence that drivers of vehicles tend to obey the law.".

    That statement tells me that you believe that we only should follow the law if everyone else is doing it - so you, like other JAMs feel no need to obey speed limits, wear seat belts, give pedestrians the right of way in crosswalks, pass cyclists safely, etc.

    If you were honest, you'd have voted no...but you'd rather hedge your bets and throw up a smoke screen. Nice.
    "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

  12. #12
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Chip's a Sith!

    I voted yes, but I have to say I'm not obeying laws where strictly doing so might get me killed or injured.
    "Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

    Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me

  13. #13
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skanking biker
    Well, I am a little fuzzy as to how "vehicular cylists" are defined here. There apparrently is no consensus on that here.
    You're right. In the context of this thread, let's use the favorite of HH and other vc proponents:
    "riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles".
    "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

  14. #14
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=skanking biker][QUOTE=chipcom]There is no middle ground. You either think the law should be obeyed, or you don't.

    Only a Sith deals in absolutes
    Like you're the first to notice that about me!
    "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

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    My Bikes
    Miyata 600, Marin Larkspur, Marin Muirwoods, GT tequesta, Fuji Ace
    Posts
    970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah - I'm gonna vote 'yes' but I think there is some wriggle room where the spirit of the law can be followed, if not the letter. A bit like a motorist who is generally law abiding, but might go 5-10 k(or m)ph over the limit from time to time - or turns left on a yellow(also not legal - a friend of mine got a ticket for it).

    I do have a beef with the 'complete stop' as it applies to bikes at stop signs (another one that motorists tend to honour more in the breach) but I agree that bikes have to come to a 'substantial stop' at stop signs.

  16. #16
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If the definition of vehicular cyclist includes that they obey the law then the answer is Yes.

    If the definition of vehicular cyclist does not include that they obey the law then the answer is No.

    The thing with laws is that they often are defined based upon what the common reasonable person would do. Since Vehicular Cyclists have a definition of "as far to the right as practicable" that differs from what the common reasonable person would perceive it to be, one of their core concepts is already contrary to law.

    The answer cannot be Yes. It must be No.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,209
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree that generally one should follow all applicable rules of the road if one wants to act and be treated as any other vehicle. However, as someone else said---I am not gonna follow the law if it gets me killed. For instance, if somejackof is bumping me with his front fender, I'm gonna blow the red light.

    I don't usually frequent this forum, so excuse my naievette---but to me there seems to be a difference between the notion that cyclists should have the same rights as other vehicles and follow the same rules, versus the notion that one should always ride a bike on the road like one is driving an automobile.

    I agree with the first propositiojn but not the second because the second ignores the physical fact that bikes are NOT the same an automobiles in a number of areas: speed, mass, visibility, etc. In some circumstances the physical differences between the two vehicles necessitates different forms of action.

  18. #18
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dropmachine.com
    Posts
    4,062
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The scofflaw checks in.

    I think I am probably in the top 10% of all road users for adherence to the letter of the law.. that is to say, I break a traffic law every two minutes instead of every 20 seconds. Guilty as charged.

  19. #19
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rando
    Chip's a Sith!

    I voted yes, but I have to say I'm not obeying laws where strictly doing so might get me killed or injured.
    I won't claim that I obey them all either...which is why I consider myself an adaptive cyclist or anything BUT a vehicular cyclist. Supposedly a vehicular cyclist rides according to the rules of the road for vehicles, which obviously should include any applicable traffic or vehicular laws. But HH and others seem to think that the laws are unimportant and only the mythical 'universal rules of the road for vehicles' should be followed.

    It funny how the vs crowd crows on about these mythical rules that are not documented or accepted by any authorative source, but have little respect for actual laws that are documented and accepted by the governments we elect as a free society. Bunch o hypocrites if you ask me. At least of the rest of us honest enough to admit that we don't always follow rules or laws.
    "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

  20. #20
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    Your interpretation is both dishonest and invalid. There is nothing in the law that I know of that qualifies it's obedience to include "with the same adherence that drivers of vehicles tend to obey the law.".

    That statement tells me that you believe that we only should follow the law if everyone else is doing it - so you, like other JAMs feel no need to obey speed limits, wear seat belts, give pedestrians the right of way in crosswalks, pass cyclists safely, etc.

    If you were honest, you'd have voted no...but you'd rather hedge your bets and throw up a smoke screen. Nice.
    When you refuse to specify what you mean by the ambiguous terms in your question, everyone answering is forced to interpret those terms any way they wish.

    Characterizing the person who at least clarifies what interpretation he is going with before answering as being dishonest is laughable.

  21. #21
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
    The scofflaw checks in.

    I think I am probably in the top 10% of all road users for adherence to the letter of the law.. that is to say, I break a traffic law every two minutes instead of every 20 seconds. Guilty as charged.
    Again, this is not about our behavior or adherance to the law. The question is, should Vehicular Cyclists, who claim to ride 'according to the rules of the road for vehicles' obey the applicable laws pertaining to traffic and vehicles.
    "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

  22. #22
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skanking biker

    ...
    to me there seems to be a difference between the notion that cyclists should have the same rights as other vehicles and follow the same rules, versus the notion that one should always ride a bike on the road like one is driving an automobile.

    I agree with the first propositiojn but not the second because the second ignores the physical fact that bikes are NOT the same an automobiles in a number of areas: speed, mass, visibility, etc. In some circumstances the physical differences between the two vehicles necessitates different forms of action.


    Some people just get it.

  23. #23
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    When you refuse to specify what you mean by the ambiguous terms in your question, everyone answering is forced to interpret those terms any way they wish.

    Characterizing the person who at least clarifies what interpretation he is going with before answering as being dishonest is laughable.
    There is nothing ambigious in "Should so-called vehicular cyclists obey the applicable traffic and vehicular laws of their area" Yes or no? Trying to overcomplicate a simple question and add your own exceptions is dishonest...I suspect because you don't have the courage to supply a simple answer that might come back again to bite you in your future debates concerning the vc religion.

    You don't believe that vehicular cyclists should obey the law, yet you answer yes - pretty dishonest.
    "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

  24. #24
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    But HH and others seem to think that the laws are unimportant and only the mythical 'universal rules of the road for vehicles' should be followed.

    It funny how the vs crowd crows on about these mythical rules that are not documented or accepted by any authorative source, but have little respect for actual laws that are documented and accepted by the governments we elect as a free society. Bunch o hypocrites if you ask me. At least of the rest of us honest enough to admit that we don't always follow rules or laws.
    If you're too obtuse and/or lazy to make a genuine effort to understand what others are saying, fine. But please do not characterize your understanding of others' positions in a derogotary manner when you've been told repeatedly that you simply don't get it.

  25. #25
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head


    Some people just get it.
    Too bad that you don't.
    "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

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •