Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 161
  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,430
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    (Zac, i hope you can respond to my finished posts instead of responding to my first draft. i edit after posting for clarity.)
    This is a weird request.

    It's your problem, not anybody else's. No one has any way of telling when you happen to be finished.

    Quote Originally Posted by zac View Post
    Please don't change your posts after the fact, couple of reasons: First, no, I will not go back and review, as I have no idea when you are finished editing.
    This is a weird request. (One quotes things so that it's clear what is being responded to.)

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,430
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zac View Post
    All that phrase is, is a requirement to yield to the overtaking vehicle after a pass and not to speed up and prevent a clean return to the lane. I fail to see how a bicycle would even do that.
    Operators don't need to speed up to fail to facilitate passing. They just have to move to the left (something a bicyclist can do quite easily). And even a moderate change in forward speed is enough to make executing the pass more difficult.

  3. #53
    2 Fat 2 Furious contango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    My Bikes
    2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
    Posts
    3,987
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by prathmann View Post
    It's actually "Far Right As Practicable" which generally allows more leeway than if it said "possible." Florida's FRAP statute at the link you cited is:
    "
    Roadway position
    (Section 316.2065(5) and (6), F.S.)
    A person operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic under the conditions existing must ride in the lane marked for bicycle use or, if no lane is marked for bicycle use, as close as practicable [safe] to the roadway's right-hand curb or edge, except under any of the following situations:


    • when passing another vehicle
    • when preparing for a left turn
    • when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including (but not limited to), a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard
    • when a lane is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side."


    This is pretty typical although the wording differs slightly in various states. Your impression is correct that there are a variety of interpretations - this is partly because the word "practicable" is not commonly used and has no precise definition. Most consider the term to allow for considerations of the cyclist's safety so that it allows riding far enough from the edge of the roadway to provide some maneuvering room if there are unexpected obstructions and also to avoid door zones of parked cars and to follow a straight path if there is an area with intermittent parked vehicles. But individuals differ as to how much of a margin is reasonable to allow for such safety considerations.
    Just out of curiosity, these references to "the normal speed of traffic under the conditions existing" leave a possible dual interpretation if traffic is breaking the law.

    If you've got a 25mph limit zone and a cyclist doing, say, 23mph while the traffic is (illegally) doing 35mph, does the cyclist still have to ride as far right as practicable? Do "the conditions existing" refer to the 25mph limit (and 23 in a 25 zone is hardly holding anyone up) or the prevailing speed of the traffic even if it is breaking the law?

  4. #54
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i suggest 'prevailing' trumps 'posted' in most states, for safety's sake.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  5. #55
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zac View Post
    All that phrase is, is a requirement to yield to the overtaking vehicle after a pass and not to speed up and prevent a clean return to the lane. I fail to see how a bicycle would even do that.
    how does a bicyclist 'yield' a shareable lane in massachuetts, zac?

    FRAP law - say WHAT?
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  6. #56
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    if zac IS a lawyer, curious he'd suggest MGL 89-2 doesn't apply to bicyclists!

    there's a statutory requirement to do so in MGL 85 !

    (1) Bicyclists riding together shall not ride more than 2 abreast but, on a roadway with more than 1 lane in the direction of travel, bicyclists shall ride within a single lane. Nothing in this clause shall relieve a bicyclist of the duty to facilitate overtaking as required by section 2 of chapter 89.

    which in its wording regulates ALL traffic to turn out to the right if its possible to share the lane....

    MGL 89 section 2. Except as herein otherwise provided, the driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall drive a safe distance to the left of such other vehicle and shall not return to the right until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and, if the way is of sufficient width for the two vehicles to pass, the driver of the leading one shall not unnecessarily obstruct the other. If it is not possible to overtake a bicycle or other vehicle at a safe distance in the same lane, the overtaking vehicle shall use all or part of an adjacent lane if it is safe to do so or wait for a safe opportunity to overtake. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on visible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.




    give way to the right if safe to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake in the commonwealth of massachusetts. It's NOT onerous.

    Besides, not only is it a legal requirement in the commonwealth where you live, Zac, its the traffic savvy thing to do!

    share the road.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 09-19-11 at 04:29 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    if zac IS a lawyer, curious he'd suggest MGL 89-2 doesn't apply to bicyclists!

    there's a statutory requirement to do so in MGL 85 !

    (1) Bicyclists riding together shall not ride more than 2 abreast but, on a roadway with more than 1 lane in the direction of travel, bicyclists shall ride within a single lane. Nothing in this clause shall relieve a bicyclist of the duty to facilitate overtaking as required by section 2 of chapter 89.

    which in its wording regulates ALL traffic to turn out to the right if its possible to share the lane....

    MGL 89 section 2. Except as herein otherwise provided, the driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall drive a safe distance to the left of such other vehicle and shall not return to the right until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and, if the way is of sufficient width for the two vehicles to pass, the driver of the leading one shall not unnecessarily obstruct the other. If it is not possible to overtake a bicycle or other vehicle at a safe distance in the same lane, the overtaking vehicle shall use all or part of an adjacent lane if it is safe to do so or wait for a safe opportunity to overtake. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on visible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.




    give way to the right if safe to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake in the commonwealth of massachusetts. It's NOT onerous.

    Besides, not only is it a legal requirement in the commonwealth where you live, Zac, its the traffic savvy thing to do!

    share the road.
    Here is Bek blathering on with another presentation of his cyclist-inferiority ideology. Of course, the statute was written from the mental bias of cyclist inferiority, not unexpected since that is the almost universal attitude in America. But once you consider what the statute actually requires, the cyclist inferiority nature of the statute disappears. Quite clearly, what the statute actually requires could be expressed in much simpler terms. That is, if the lane is sufficiently wide for the motorist to overtake within the lane, then ride FRAP to oblige. If the lane is not sufficiently wide for that, then the motorist must change lanes to overtake. Which is what I have been preaching all along.

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,430
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by contango View Post
    Just out of curiosity, these references to "the normal speed of traffic under the conditions existing" leave a possible dual interpretation if traffic is breaking the law.

    If you've got a 25mph limit zone and a cyclist doing, say, 23mph while the traffic is (illegally) doing 35mph, does the cyclist still have to ride as far right as practicable? Do "the conditions existing" refer to the 25mph limit (and 23 in a 25 zone is hardly holding anyone up) or the prevailing speed of the traffic even if it is breaking the law?
    Unless you happen to have a radar detector strapped to your rear, how are you going to determine precisely that the other vehicle is speeding?

    No, what is illegal is not normal (in the eyes of the law).

    (That doesn't mean one should ignore anything, illegal or otherwise, going on around you.)

    Keep in mind that "move to the right lane for faster traffic" is a legal requirement that is not suspended even if that faster traffic is breaking the law.

    The basic rule is that you adhere to the law as closely as you can. The fact that someone else is doing something illegal doesn't nullify your obligation to follow the law (as best you can safely).


    (At times, there appears to be a serious lack of common sense here.)
    Last edited by njkayaker; 09-19-11 at 06:05 PM.

  9. #59
    Senior Member Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
    My Bikes
    Specialized Hardrock Mountain; Giant Seek 2
    Posts
    8,530
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zac View Post
    Yeah, I know, and I know better, got bored is all. Still waiting for his Mass FRAP reference...the part of 89/2 that he lists in post #47 logically does not apply to bicycles, (it is part of 89/2 which I cited earlier). It was a bit muddy before the most recent law change, as it was one of those provisions that by it's nature did not logically apply to bicyclists. I guess he can't comprehend the full meaning of the entire sentence. He would do well to read the legislative history too, to know why, but I guess that only judges and lawyers do that to determine legislative intent, when the plain meaning of the statute is entirely clear. I am done in here.


    Just to edit my own post, since it has not been replied to yet: Assuming even arguendo that phrase does apply to bicycles, how exactly is that FRAP? Where is the requirement to ride to the right as far as practicable? when in fact the law of the Commonwealth spefically grants bicycles the full and equal right to the travel lane MGL 85/11B? All that phrase is, is a requirement to yield to the overtaking vehicle after a pass and not to speed up and prevent a clean return to the lane. I fail to see how a bicycle would even do that.

    Steve, I enjoy you posts too, best clearing that docket.
    I could be mistaken, but don't most (if not all) states have that language in it?
    Digital Cowboy
    Cyclists Against Carlos Bertonatti
    1.0.0 Normal Grey Cockatiel (Hikaru)
    0.0.1 2005 Specialized Hardrock MTB
    0.0.2 Albino Cory Cats
    0.0.? Ghost Shrimp
    0.0.3 Neon Tetras
    1.0.0 Red Betta
    0.0.? Snails
    1.2.0 Swordtail
    2.10.0 Swordtail (fry)
    0.0.3 Zebra's
    0.0.1 G. rosea (Kirk)
    0.0.1 A. avicularia (Pinkie)
    0.1.0 Orange Tabby Cat (Little One)
    0.0.1 2009 Giant Seek 2
    Live Long and Prosper

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The fish are spread out between several tanks.

  10. #60
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    and, what does it all mean?

    How DOES a bicyclist yield a shareable lane in ohio or the commonwealth of massachusetts?

    FRAP a doodle do. Say WHAT?
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  11. #61
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Here is Bek blathering on with another presentation of his cyclist-inferiority ideology. Of course, the statute was written from the mental bias of cyclist inferiority, not unexpected since that is the almost universal attitude in America. But once you consider what the statute actually requires, the cyclist inferiority nature of the statute disappears. Quite clearly, what the statute actually requires could be expressed in much simpler terms. That is, if the lane is sufficiently wide for the motorist to overtake within the lane, then ride FRAP to oblige. If the lane is not sufficiently wide for that, then the motorist must change lanes to overtake. Which is what I have been preaching all along.
    John. you're talking about the general SMV law in Massachusetts, that somehow the statute was written from a "cyclist inferiority" bias. That's an interesting perspective to say the least, but not statutorily supported.


    clearly you've lost sight of the rudiments of this discussion. A nice bike ride might clear that head.

    you are also endorsing operating as far right as practicable to share the lane, a position I applaud to see coming from you.

    I like your turn of the phrase "ride FRAP to oblige."

    It sounds a lot like my "ride safely right to share the road" doesn't it?

    FRAP - say WHAT?
    Last edited by Bekologist; 09-20-11 at 04:26 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Miami, FL
    My Bikes
    1986 Fuji Allegro 12 Spd; 1997 Fuji MX-200 21 Spd; 2010 Vilano SS/FG 46/16
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have no problems with FRAP legislation. I have yet to see it abused and generally feel it's there as the ultimate ruling in a case when a cyclist & motorist simply are unable to share the road and have had a collision. To me reasonable persons should be able to commute at the same time without being involved in a collision, I've been doing it for decades and the more vulnerable should be given the right of way simply because the bigger vehicle maims or kills the other. Unfortunately there are ret*rd motorists that need this explained to them after they've done something like that and look to be absolved from wrong doing. By the same token, there are going to be those exceptions where a cyclist is going to endanger themselves just the same. And when those idi*ts bounce off objects because they saw it in a cool video, well, those were a case of the laws of nature. They weren't going to make it deep into the game anyway. Some say those have a death wish or whatever. I doubt the FRAP law will ever be necessary, it's really common sense, but it's there and there will be those that need it applied to them at a judicial level.

  13. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,430
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy View Post
    I could be mistaken, but don't most (if not all) states have that language in it?
    Yes. I'd feel quite safe to say that all states have that language.

    (Note that most state's traffic laws originated with the Universal Traffic Code text.)

  14. #64
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    all except arkansas have some form of share the road- frap regulation for bicyclists. and even in Arkansas a savvy cyclist should safely share the road so as to not unduly delay faster traffic overtaking.

    Arkansas riders should ride in a style similar to that prescribed by the commonwealth of massachusetts, in its statutory codification of the long standing common-law duty to share the road.

    share the road. ride safely smart and safely right to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake.

    its the smart, savvy thing to do. in ALL states, not just the 49 with that duty written into law.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 09-20-11 at 07:40 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  15. #65
    Senior Member work4bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Atlantic Beach Florida
    Posts
    612
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm the OP and I just can't read this thread -- it's too crazy.

    Someone early in this thread suggested that I not ride in the road since I wasn't familar with the term FRAP. Granted I made a mistake by using the word "possible" in lieu of the legally correct "practicable"; I understand the difference and agree with it, just don't always talk like a lawyer. However, I'm very aware of the law and cycing in traffic, thus being part of traffic. I think too many are just being irrational about laws that are pretty rational, for example my law here in Florida. I'm not familar with the term FRAP, because it seems to be a term mostly used on forums like this, which I'm kind of new to. But I'm not new to cycling, been cycling as my primary form of transportation for over 20 years and have done several self-contained touring.

    FRAP to me is common courtesy, it has nothing to do with inferiority.

    KISS is somewhat of a cliche, but doesn't detract from the basic premise. When you don't employ the KISS method things do get distorted as is the case in this issue.

    Me, I'm not going to debate it. I'm too happy of a cyclist to get dragged down in BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris516 View Post
    So since you were unfamiliar with FRAP, don't go on a road with a 30MPH Max. speed limit until you get accustomed to going fast.
    "The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way; the aim of poetry is to state simple things in an incomprehensible way. The two are incompatible."

    -- Paul Dirac

  16. #66
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, that's the thing, john - it's commonsense, and most everyone that's put down the miles like you have unerstands the premise.

    Its a duty cyclists possess in 49 states and a courtesy obligation to do so in the lone outlier, Arkansas. Sharing the road is NOT anv onerous duty to ask of cyclists and not worth the misdirection some invest in trying to deny their states' traffic codes.

    simply put:

    Quote Originally Posted by john forester
    if the lane is sufficiently wide for the motorist to overtake within the lane, then ride FRAP to oblige.
    Ride safely right to share the road with overtaking traffic.

    FRAP law - say WHAT?
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  17. #67
    For The Fun of It
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisissippi Coast
    My Bikes
    Specialized Tarmac Expert, Giant XTC, Home built commuter on a Schwinn Supersport GS frame
    Posts
    1,464
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by john gault View Post
    I'm the OP and I just can't read this thread -- it's too crazy.

    Someone early in this thread suggested that I not ride in the road since I wasn't familar with the term FRAP. Granted I made a mistake by using the word "possible" in lieu of the legally correct "practicable"; I understand the difference and agree with it, just don't always talk like a lawyer. However, I'm very aware of the law and cycing in traffic, thus being part of traffic. I think too many are just being irrational about laws that are pretty rational, for example my law here in Florida. I'm not familar with the term FRAP, because it seems to be a term mostly used on forums like this, which I'm kind of new to. But I'm not new to cycling, been cycling as my primary form of transportation for over 20 years and have done several self-contained touring.

    FRAP to me is common courtesy, it has nothing to do with inferiority.

    KISS is somewhat of a cliche, but doesn't detract from the basic premise. When you don't employ the KISS method things do get distorted as is the case in this issue.

    Me, I'm not going to debate it. I'm too happy of a cyclist to get dragged down in BS.

    More on the KISS thing. I live by that. General Colin Powell once said, "the greatest leaders are most often the greatest simplifiers." Suffice it to say that few among us here at BF are leaders. There's actually some useful and productive discussion that takes place here. You just have to wade through a bunch of sanctimony and self-aggrandizing blather to get to it.

  18. #68
    24-Speed Machine Chris516's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wash. Grove, MD
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
    Posts
    4,948
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by john gault View Post
    I'm the OP and I just can't read this thread -- it's too crazy.

    Someone early in this thread suggested that I not ride in the road since I wasn't familar with the term FRAP. Granted I made a mistake by using the word "possible" in lieu of the legally correct "practicable"; I understand the difference and agree with it, just don't always talk like a lawyer. However, I'm very aware of the law and cycing in traffic, thus being part of traffic. I think too many are just being irrational about laws that are pretty rational, for example my law here in Florida. I'm not familar with the term FRAP, because it seems to be a term mostly used on forums like this, which I'm kind of new to. But I'm not new to cycling, been cycling as my primary form of transportation for over 20 years and have done several self-contained touring.

    FRAP to me is common courtesy, it has nothing to do with inferiority.

    KISS is somewhat of a cliche, but doesn't detract from the basic premise. When you don't employ the KISS method things do get distorted as is the case in this issue.

    Me, I'm not going to debate it. I'm too happy of a cyclist to get dragged down in BS.
    The 'legal' mentality by cyclists, comes from the hostility they have experienced at the hands of motorists.

    As for FRAP, that is a matter of definition, in terms of how far in the right-most lane the individual cyclist is willing to position themselves, not where motorists want cyclists. Some motorists even yell out their vehicle window, for the cyclist to get on the sidewalk when, the cyclist not only has a right to be on the road, the local jurisdiction may even have an ordinance making it illegal to ride on the sidewalk.

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=Bekologist;13251944]Well, that's the thing, john - it's commonsense, and most everyone that's put down the miles like you have unerstands the premise.

    Its a duty cyclists possess in 49 states and a courtesy obligation to do so in the lone outlier, Arkansas. Sharing the road is NOT anv onerous duty to ask of cyclists and not worth the misdirection some invest in trying to deny their states' traffic codes.

    simply put:



    Ride safely right to share the road with overtaking traffic.

    FRAP law - say WHAT?[/QUOTE

    Here is Bek exaggerating simple statements to proclaim his own ideology. I stated that the law being discussed required the cyclist to ride FRAP when the lane was sufficiently wide for safe overtaking within the lane. So Bek proclaims that I agree with him and follows this up with his own proclamation "Ride safely right to share the road with overtaking traffic", as if that is the meaning of what I wrote.

    Bek seems to have some compulsion to keep proclaiming the inferior status of cyclists on roadways.

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    John. you're talking about the general SMV law in Massachusetts, that somehow the statute was written from a "cyclist inferiority" bias. That's an interesting perspective to say the least, but not statutorily supported.


    clearly you've lost sight of the rudiments of this discussion. A nice bike ride might clear that head.

    you are also endorsing operating as far right as practicable to share the lane, a position I applaud to see coming from you.

    I like your turn of the phrase "ride FRAP to oblige."

    It sounds a lot like my "ride safely right to share the road" doesn't it?

    FRAP - say WHAT?
    When I wrote that the cyclist part of the Mass SMV law was written from a cyclist-inferiority bias Bek jumps in to say that my statement is not "statutorily supported". Bek here claims that the style and wording with which a statute is written has to have statutory support. That's ridiculous; the statute is the statute. Each statute stands on its own words unless it conflicts with other requirements of the legal system (other statutes, the relevant constitution, etc.) The bias is immediately obvious from the convoluted way in which it expresses the very simple idea that if the lane is sufficiently wide for safe overtaking within the lane the cyclist must ride FRAP.

    And again Bek proclaims his generally uniform principle of cyclist inferiority: "Ride safely right to share the road", which is a plain exhibition of Bek's belief that cyclists are second-class road users.

  21. #71
    For The Fun of It
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisissippi Coast
    My Bikes
    Specialized Tarmac Expert, Giant XTC, Home built commuter on a Schwinn Supersport GS frame
    Posts
    1,464
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=John Forester;13252451]
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    Here is Bek exaggerating simple statements to proclaim his own ideology. I stated that the law being discussed required the cyclist to ride FRAP when the lane was sufficiently wide for safe overtaking within the lane. So Bek proclaims that I agree with him and follows this up with his own proclamation "Ride safely right to share the road with overtaking traffic", as if that is the meaning of what I wrote.
    Functionally, how are the two statements different?

  22. #72
    For The Fun of It
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisissippi Coast
    My Bikes
    Specialized Tarmac Expert, Giant XTC, Home built commuter on a Schwinn Supersport GS frame
    Posts
    1,464
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    And again Bek proclaims his generally uniform principle of cyclist inferiority: "
    I don't see Bek as proclaiming cyclist inferiority, but rather acknowledging that there are substantive differences between cars and bikes. And he is indeed correct about that. He advocates facilitating passes by moving to the right when safe to do so. I thought that was part of sharing the road. Am I wrong? When I drive a car, I drive like I'm in a car. When I ride my bike, I ride like I am on a bike. While I am charged with adherence to the law and afforded equal rights under the law when I am pedaling, my behavior can and should be different with each.

  23. #73
    Al noisebeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    AZ
    My Bikes
    Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
    Posts
    13,907
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Barnard View Post
    When I drive a car, I drive like I'm in a car. When I ride my bike, I ride like I am on a bike. While I am charged with adherence to the law and afforded equal rights under the law when I am pedaling, my behavior can and should be different with each.
    I follow the exact same rules whether driving car or bicycle, but in doing so my resulting action may or may not be different depending on the width of the vehicle I am driving, my current speed relative to other traffic and road conditions (widths, debris, intersections, etc.)

    In other words, in the presence of traffic traveling faster that I am, I will facilitate safe passing by moving right if safe, practical and legal to do so. That may or may not result in moving right when driving a car and may or may not result in moving right when driving a bicycle.

  24. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Barnard View Post
    I don't see Bek as proclaiming cyclist inferiority, but rather acknowledging that there are substantive differences between cars and bikes. And he is indeed correct about that. He advocates facilitating passes by moving to the right when safe to do so. I thought that was part of sharing the road. Am I wrong? When I drive a car, I drive like I'm in a car. When I ride my bike, I ride like I am on a bike. While I am charged with adherence to the law and afforded equal rights under the law when I am pedaling, my behavior can and should be different with each.
    Bek's proclamation "Ride safely right to share the road with overtaking traffic" states that cyclists should nearly always (considering that the times when no faster traffic is about) ride as far to the right as is safe to facilitate overtaking by that faster traffic. That's always been the motorists' and legislators' (same people, in highway affairs) view of cyclists as second-class road users, the view that Bek apparently can't escape. The engineering fact, that I support, is that a cyclist's lateral position within the lane can create opportunities for lawful, safe overtaking only when that lane is sufficiently wide for overtaking within that lane. In most situations, the faster driver, assumed to be driving a dual-track motor vehicle of typical width, can overtake safely and lawfully only when the adjacent lane is clear of traffic, in which case the cyclist's lateral position in his lane makes no difference. Following that principle treats cyclists as genuine drivers of vehicles instead of second-class roadway users.

  25. #75
    For The Fun of It
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisissippi Coast
    My Bikes
    Specialized Tarmac Expert, Giant XTC, Home built commuter on a Schwinn Supersport GS frame
    Posts
    1,464
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Bek's proclamation "Ride safely right to share the road with overtaking traffic" states that cyclists should nearly always (considering that the times when no faster traffic is about) ride as far to the right as is safe to facilitate overtaking by that faster traffic. .
    My question to you John is that if it is safe to move to the right and in doing so you facilitate the passing of faster traffic, how is that a problem? The benefit to that is that you piss fewer motorists off, and wrong as it may be pissed off motorists don't play well with cyclists.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •