Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-19-11, 02:52 PM   #51
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(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.)
njkayaker is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 03:26 PM   #52
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(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.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 03:31 PM   #53
contango 
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
Posts: 3,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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?
contango is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 04:09 PM   #54
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i suggest 'prevailing' trumps 'posted' in most states, for safety's sake.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 04:11 PM   #55
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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?
Bekologist is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 04:21 PM   #56
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 04:57 PM   #57
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
John Forester is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 05:41 PM   #58
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(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.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 10:32 PM   #59
Digital_Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Posts: 9,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(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 is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 04:01 AM   #60
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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?
Bekologist is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 04:05 AM   #61
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 05:02 AM   #62
fuji86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Miami, FL
Bikes: 1986 Fuji Allegro 12 Spd; 1997 Fuji MX-200 21 Spd; 2010 Vilano SS/FG 46/16
Posts: 1,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
fuji86 is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 06:46 AM   #63
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(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.)
njkayaker is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 07:23 AM   #64
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 07:44 AM   #65
work4bike
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
work4bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Bikes:
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(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.
work4bike is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 08:28 AM   #66
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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?
Bekologist is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 08:29 AM   #67
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Bikes: Garage full of bikes
Posts: 2,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(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.
Paul Barnard is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 09:31 AM   #68
Chris516
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Posts: 6,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Chris516 is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 10:08 AM   #69
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
John Forester is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 10:24 AM   #70
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
John Forester is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 10:30 AM   #71
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Bikes: Garage full of bikes
Posts: 2,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(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?
Paul Barnard is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 10:37 AM   #72
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Bikes: Garage full of bikes
Posts: 2,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(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.
Paul Barnard is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 11:25 AM   #73
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(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.
noisebeam is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 01:00 PM   #74
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
John Forester is offline  
Old 09-20-11, 01:10 PM   #75
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Bikes: Garage full of bikes
Posts: 2,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(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.
Paul Barnard is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:54 PM.