jeichelberg87

If you are still cycling, the car only won a round or two...it did not beat you.

VTBike

The OP observed a bicyclist, on a busy road, travel straight while occupying a left turn only lane. You believe that this may have been safe. Since you are the one making the extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you. Until and unless you substantiate your claim, you are merely engaging in the these logical fallacies: ad ignorantium, and argument from final consequences,

spivonious

+1000

mikeybikes

I assume you're referring to 17th Ave and 18th Ave? if so, which sections? 17th Ave on the west side of town is a great street to ride on.

Regardless, all of those streets are perfectly suitable for riding down. Yes, there are in some places better alternates, but not always, and I may be heading to a business off of those streets. Those streets don't have very fast traffic and all have multiple lanes for impatient motorists to pull into in order to make passes.

On the one way streets, what's the problem with the left lane? Colorado and Denver law allow it. Also, if its a street with heavy bus traffic, I prefer the left lane so I don't have to leap frog with RTD's crappy drivers.

Agreed

You should also mention it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk in Denver.

mikeybikes

The OP mentions streets that are pretty much exclusively one way (except for Colfax). Colorado and Denver law allow FLAS (Far Left As Safe) as well as FRAS (Far Right As Safe) on one way streets.

spare_wheel

The ability of hominids to assess risk in a complex urbanized civilization is notoriously poor.

spare_wheel

When I ride with the better half or with others I enthusiastically use bike facilities. However, when I ride on my own I am intensely political in my route choices and will almost always choose the busiest most car-centric arterial that provides a direct route to my destination. And if the lane is narrow (e.g. <11 feet) I ride on the left side of the lane in order to eliminate in lane passes. Motorists almost never complain but I do experience road rage from cyclists who are angry that I am not using the bike facility a few blocks away. I originally started riding this way to educate motorists but now I think it's mostly cyclists that I am educating.

TL;DR: I make the cyclist the OP complains about look like a cute fuzzy puppy.

mikeybikes

I find it hilarious that if I ride on a busy street (yes, jitteringjr, I ride on Colfax Avenue some times), I almost never have problems with cars, but I've been yelled at by cyclists.

jeichelberg87

Well, that is the point.
Not only do you and the OP have an opinion, you have extraordinarily deficient reading and comprehension skills. Kindly point out to the readers here where I claimed the wayward cyclist was riding in a "safe," manner. Since I know I have not made the claim you state I have made ("You believe that this may have been safe."), and making false statements or providing knowingly false information is against the TOU here at bikeforums, I expect an apology.

EvilWeasel

You're not the boss of me.

VTBike

What is the exact political message you are trying to send?

mikeybikes

@VTBike , the OP never mentioned operating a bicycle in the left turn lane, only left most lane. He's referring to a local road which is one way for the much of its length. If the cyclist was operating in the left most lane on a one way road, that is safe and legal here.

VTBike

Then what did this mean?
[H]e continues straight from the left most lane, a turn only lane, and crosses another turn option lane.

mikeybikes

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that.

In this case though, it is no different than riding through right turn lanes, which numerous cyclists do on a normal basis.
*Assuming this is on the one way section of 6th Avenue, which it is for most of its length.

VTBike

A very fair point. The OP did not mention that in his initial post. It only was suggested in later posts.

jeichelberg87

Obviously, you have not read my posts...otherwise, you would have notice this statement in my very first post: "The only thing wrong about the incident you describe with the "wayward cyclist," is his taking a lane he should not have been in (i.e., the left hand turn lane only and crossing what must have been a double yellow in order to end up in the opposite left hand turn only lane)."

Quote:

What is obvious is that you were playing a passive-aggressive game of "prove the negative" as far as the allegation of unsafe operation is concerned. There can only be one of three scenarios:
A) You agree that operating a bicycle in a left-turn-only lane without turning left is not a safe way to operate. If this is the case, you are being difficult for the sake of being difficult.
B) You are unsure. If this is the case, you need to engage in critical thought.
C) You believe that it was a safe manner of operation. If this is the case, you are the one making an extraordinary claim - and therefore the burden of proof is upon you.

Passive aggressive? I asked the OP to provide something of substance, relative only to the assertion he made other streets would be safer. That was the particular point in the OP I was addressing. In response, I receive nothing but ad hominem. You are tilting at a windmill.

Quote:

If you want to debate, respect the rules of logical argument. If you can't do so, then you deserve to be ignored since it would be otiose to entertain your pontifications.

Logical argumentation consists of providing salient, substantive support of a position. Who is lacking in this conversation?

Quote:

Another tactic you have used is to attempt to discredit the OP's assertion that going straight in a left-turn-lane is unsafe by calling it a mere "opinion." This is a shallow attempt to deflect and distract. Let's assume that it is an "opinion." Since you have not produced any evidence to back up an "opinion" that it was safe to operate in that manner, the same rules apply. Specifically, a person with the "opinion" that it was a safe manner of operation bears the burden of proof - not the person making the ordinary claim.

Once again, i never stated this anywhere in this topic.

Quote:

You obviously think that you are very clever. Maybe you are. But you aren't clever enough to convince me to suspend rules of critical thought. The title of this thread is applicable to the discussion in more than one way.

I suggest you take your own advice. Stick to bicycling (safely, however you define it), rather than posting false information. I still expect that apology.

ETA: I have looked at a map of Denver. I see 6th and Speer but I see no 6th and Logan...is Logan East or West of Speer?

ETA: Never mind...I found it...it is east of Speer.

jitteringjr

This isn't a game here. I think you took the wrong meaning of the word beat that I intended. It was not meant to be used in the game or boxing match sort of meaning. You do not want to be in an accident at all be it bike on bike, car on bike, or car on car. And you especially don't want to be on the recieving end of the bike on car accident on a bike because that car will beat you like a red headed step child.

jitteringjr

I'm mostly referring to the area between downtown and Colorado blvd.

I get if you need to head to a business on one of them, but these streets all handle much more traffic and that traffic is almost always more aggressive and much faster paced than on the bike lane streets. Having multiple lans also means that you have lead foots weaving in and out around the poke drivers. A fast moving car coming around the right of a slow moving truck in the left lane with you in front of it means you are blind to the car until the last second. This puts you at a disadvantage. Maybe its just my opinion, but I certainely feel these streets are not the safest option.


See above for the left lane. IMO if you are on a street that carries bus traffic in Denver with multiple lans to choose to ride in, then there is a safer route you could be taking.

jitteringjr

[QUOTE=spare_wheel;17118452] However, when I ride on my own I am intensely political in my route choices and will almost always choose the busiest most car-centric arterial that provides a direct route to my destination.

This behavior is not the safest behavior in my opinion.

This I completely agree with, taking the lane is a good idea in a lot of cases.

jitteringjr

Yes one way down by Speer. And riding straight through right hand turn only lanes is also illegal and a just a bad idea. Car's can stop and slow down much much faster than a cyclist and many drivers do not recognize that fact when they slam on the breaks to turn and end up hooking you. IMO its much safer to take the lane going straight in this case.

jitteringjr

You are clearly taking this the wrong way. Its not about mandating anything here. Its about thinking about ways we can be safer while riding on our bikes reguardless of what the law says.

EvilWeasel

Actually i do understand your point. I was just trying to interject some humor. At the end of the day though i believe people are gonna do what they want. Stupid, dangerous or otherwise. Nothing we say here gonna change that.

VTBike

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeichelberg87

(Long winded rant)

You just can't stop, can you? He said the other streets were safer because fewer cars used them. If, as you now claim, you merely demanded proof that riding on a road with fewer cars is safer than riding on a road with greater cars - you still have no concept of what an extraordinary claim is and who the burden of proof lies with. Let me ask you point blank: Do you disagree with the assertion that roads with fewer cars are safer (all other things being equal)? Yes or no?


You also need to learn the definition of "ad hominem". I will give you a sorely needed lesson. An ad hominem attack is an assertion that "You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong."


I've made it quite clear that you may indeed be a clever person - but in this case your arguments are wrong because they are not supported by logical reasoning and critical thought. So stop playing the victim card when it doesn't even apply. Surely you skin can't be as thin as you suggest.


You'll get my apology when you are deserving of it. Right now that is when hell freezes over.

Dave Cutter

Is that actually possible? I mean.... if it was avoidable wouldn't it be called a "deliberate" or an "on-purpose" (or reckless). Isn't the word "accident" reserved for when the proper precautions were taken but the accident/event happen in spite of the preventative measures? Do you think you are suggesting "new" precautions and/or procedures? I am pretty sure the old.... "just stay away" or "don't go there" precaution was issued to me by my mother more than half a century ago. Nothing new in your warning!

I agree with you completely that some areas/times/traffic conditions/weather and such do seem to add marginally to the risk. And avoiding such risky feeling conditions might reduce theoretical injuries.... that can never be verified. But all bicycle accidents/injuries/deaths can absolutely eliminated by just leaving the bicycle hang in the garage.

So what you're really stuck with is: No accidents guaranteed (and no bicycling ether). Or a slight chance of an unavoidable injury... that might have life long serious repercussions. And.... there is NO known way of reducing the seriousness of bicycle injuries. It can be scary!

jeichelberg87

Cars can stop and slow down much faster than a cyclist? That is news to me...Section 4.1

67 feet to stop a car at 20 mph...

Science of Cycling: Steering + Activity | Exploratorium

Less than 20 feet to stop a bicycle.