chipcom
03-08-07, 01:36 PM
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?
View Full Version : Obey the law, or obey the mob?
Pages :
[1]
2
Helmet Head
03-08-07, 01:40 PM
False dichotomy alert, again. :rolleyes:
chipcom
03-08-07, 01:42 PM
False dichotomy alert, again. :rolleyes:
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?
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?
LittleBigMan
03-08-07, 01:46 PM
It was a pretty simple answer. (Who said laws were unimportant and need not be obeyed?) ;)
Helmet Head
03-08-07, 01:52 PM
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.
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.
skanking biker
03-08-07, 02:00 PM
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.
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.
Helmet Head
03-08-07, 02:13 PM
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.
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.
chipcom
03-08-07, 02:20 PM
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.
The question didn't ask if you do or don't obey the law, it merely asked if vehicular cyclists 'should' do so.
skanking biker
03-08-07, 02:21 PM
Well, I am a little fuzzy as to how "vehicular cylists" are defined here. There apparrently is no consensus on that here.
skanking biker
03-08-07, 02:22 PM
[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
Only a Sith deals in absolutes
chipcom
03-08-07, 02:24 PM
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.
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.
rando
03-08-07, 02:25 PM
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. :eek:
I voted yes, but I have to say I'm not obeying laws where strictly doing so might get me killed or injured. :eek:
chipcom
03-08-07, 02:26 PM
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".
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".
chipcom
03-08-07, 02:27 PM
[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
Like you're the first to notice that about me! :p
Only a Sith deals in absolutes
Like you're the first to notice that about me! :p
rajman
03-08-07, 02:29 PM
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.
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.
sbhikes
03-08-07, 02:30 PM
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.
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.
skanking biker
03-08-07, 02:32 PM
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.
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.
ghettocruiser
03-08-07, 02:33 PM
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.
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.
chipcom
03-08-07, 02:34 PM
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. :eek:
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.
I voted yes, but I have to say I'm not obeying laws where strictly doing so might get me killed or injured. :eek:
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.
Helmet Head
03-08-07, 02:37 PM
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.
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.
chipcom
03-08-07, 02:38 PM
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.
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.
Helmet Head
03-08-07, 02:39 PM
...
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.
:beer:
Some people just get it.
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.
:beer:
Some people just get it.
chipcom
03-08-07, 02:41 PM
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.
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.
Helmet Head
03-08-07, 02:42 PM
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.
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.
chipcom
03-08-07, 02:44 PM
:beer:
Some people just get it.
Too bad that you don't.
Some people just get it.
Too bad that you don't.
slowandsteady
03-08-07, 02:47 PM
Maybe
Ed Holland
03-08-07, 02:47 PM
Elephant trap?
I believe some districts have traffic laws for bicycles which disallow the use of bicycles on the road in certain streets ot circumstances e.g. mandatory bike lane usage ;)
Ed
I believe some districts have traffic laws for bicycles which disallow the use of bicycles on the road in certain streets ot circumstances e.g. mandatory bike lane usage ;)
Ed
Helmet Head
03-08-07, 02:51 PM
Too bad that you don't [get it]. Whatever you say, Chip. :rolleyes:
How many people have to tell you that you don't get it, that your question is ambiguous, that "maybe" is a reasonable answer to your question, that you're a Sith, that it is an elephant trap, that it is a false dichotomy, before you even begin to think that this one time, just maybe, you don't get it? How many? 1? 2? 4? 6? If a hundred people told you this, would you consider it might be true? Or do you just know better than everybody else?
How many people have to tell you that you don't get it, that your question is ambiguous, that "maybe" is a reasonable answer to your question, that you're a Sith, that it is an elephant trap, that it is a false dichotomy, before you even begin to think that this one time, just maybe, you don't get it? How many? 1? 2? 4? 6? If a hundred people told you this, would you consider it might be true? Or do you just know better than everybody else?
chipcom
03-08-07, 02:51 PM
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.
Here we go again - because you don't understand or perfer to be dishonest, I don't get it. I understand perfectly what you are saying...you're just unhappy that I call it what it really is - dishonesty.
You've answered the poll, honest or not, so the point is moot. You're excused.
Here we go again - because you don't understand or perfer to be dishonest, I don't get it. I understand perfectly what you are saying...you're just unhappy that I call it what it really is - dishonesty.
You've answered the poll, honest or not, so the point is moot. You're excused.
chipcom
03-08-07, 02:54 PM
Now that the vote is 14 to 3 that vehicular cyclists should obey the laws, I guess I can take these numbers into other threads and make wild claims concerning the what the results mean. But I'm not HH, luckily for all of us. ;)
Bikepacker67
03-08-07, 02:54 PM
For some reason this thread reminds me of an old Star Trek episode...
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b/STLastBattle.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b/STLastBattle.jpg
deputyjones
03-08-07, 02:57 PM
For some reason this thread reminds me of an old Star Trek episode...
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b/STLastBattle.jpg
I was thinking Star Wars with the Sith reference
Chip = http://www.bobgentry.com/blog/sith-vader.jpg
:D
BTW, I obey the law
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b/STLastBattle.jpg
I was thinking Star Wars with the Sith reference
Chip = http://www.bobgentry.com/blog/sith-vader.jpg
:D
BTW, I obey the law
Helmet Head
03-08-07, 02:58 PM
For some reason this thread reminds me of an old Star Trek episode...
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b/STLastBattle.jpg :roflmao:
Can't you picture the puzzled look on Chipcom's face as he stares baffled at this image wondering how it's relevant to his poll?
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b/STLastBattle.jpg :roflmao:
Can't you picture the puzzled look on Chipcom's face as he stares baffled at this image wondering how it's relevant to his poll?
Bikepacker67
03-08-07, 02:59 PM
I was thinking Star Wars with the Sith reference
Chip = http://www.bobgentry.com/blog/sith-vader.jpg
:D
BTW, I obey the law
Nawww.. Chip is not nearly as pretentious as to try to pull off that mask.
Chip = http://www.bobgentry.com/blog/sith-vader.jpg
:D
BTW, I obey the law
Nawww.. Chip is not nearly as pretentious as to try to pull off that mask.
skanking biker
03-08-07, 03:00 PM
For some reason this thread reminds me of an old Star Trek episode...
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b/STLastBattle.jpg
+1
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b/STLastBattle.jpg
+1
deputyjones
03-08-07, 03:09 PM
BTW, my post was just a joke. No offense Chip.
chipcom
03-08-07, 03:09 PM
Ya know what's really funny....HH doesn't even realize that this is a parody of his polls!
1. He gets frustrated in a thread and rushes off to make a poll.
2. The poll is designed to prove whatever point he's trying to make, no matter what people answer.
3. When challenged he resorts to silly answers and personal attacks.
4. He manipulates the results to support other wacky theories in other threads. (OK, I haven't gone there yet...but I might :eek:
MERRY CHRISTMAS CHARLIE BROWN! :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
1. He gets frustrated in a thread and rushes off to make a poll.
2. The poll is designed to prove whatever point he's trying to make, no matter what people answer.
3. When challenged he resorts to silly answers and personal attacks.
4. He manipulates the results to support other wacky theories in other threads. (OK, I haven't gone there yet...but I might :eek:
MERRY CHRISTMAS CHARLIE BROWN! :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
chipcom
03-08-07, 03:11 PM
BTW, my post was just a joke. No offense Chip.
No offense taken DJ - did I come off as appropriately rabid and nuts? :D
No offense taken DJ - did I come off as appropriately rabid and nuts? :D
Bikepacker67
03-08-07, 03:13 PM
Yes, HH can get too preachy, and he does word his polls to elicit the best results for the point he's trying to make.
But you know what Chip? As infuriatingly self-righteous as he can be, he's usually correct (IMHO) when it comes to the best interest of cyclists re: traffic.
But you know what Chip? As infuriatingly self-righteous as he can be, he's usually correct (IMHO) when it comes to the best interest of cyclists re: traffic.
Bikepacker67
03-08-07, 03:15 PM
Ohh and if it needs to be said, none of my posts are meant to offend you. I like you.
I just disagree with you.
I just disagree with you.
chipcom
03-08-07, 03:17 PM
Yes, HH can get too preachy, and he does word his polls to elicit the best results for the point he's trying to make.
But you know what Chip? As infuriatingly self-righteous as he can be, he's usually correct (IMHO) when it comes to the best interest of cyclists re: traffic.
Sometimes he is - nobody argues that....it's when he's not and continues to push and push some wacky theory that things get frustrating. If he'd just keep it simple and down to earth, more folks might actually stick around long enough to learn something.
But you know what Chip? As infuriatingly self-righteous as he can be, he's usually correct (IMHO) when it comes to the best interest of cyclists re: traffic.
Sometimes he is - nobody argues that....it's when he's not and continues to push and push some wacky theory that things get frustrating. If he'd just keep it simple and down to earth, more folks might actually stick around long enough to learn something.
chipcom
03-08-07, 03:24 PM
Ohh and if it needs to be said, none of my posts are meant to offend you. I like you.
I just disagree with you.
Ha, you and I agree more than we disagree I think. Were we disagree is more when I take up for those things that I may not do myself, but others might...like bike paths and bike lanes and such. There is too much either-or in A&S, we gotta learn to accept that everyone has different wants and needs from us honestly try to help them address their questions and concerns in a way that fits them, even if it's not our cup of tea.
I just disagree with you.
Ha, you and I agree more than we disagree I think. Were we disagree is more when I take up for those things that I may not do myself, but others might...like bike paths and bike lanes and such. There is too much either-or in A&S, we gotta learn to accept that everyone has different wants and needs from us honestly try to help them address their questions and concerns in a way that fits them, even if it's not our cup of tea.
Bikepacker67
03-08-07, 03:26 PM
If he'd just keep it simple and down to earth, more folks might actually stick around long enough to learn something.
What can I say... I've always been partial to true believers.
If HH will forgive me for continuing to talk as if he's out of the room:
His basic problem is that his approach lacks both humor and patience. No one likes a polly-anna know-it-all, but that shouldn't (although I understand why it does) make folks discount his arguments out of hand.
Basically our best bet is to treat ourselves like vehicles, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
And that's what he espouses.
What can I say... I've always been partial to true believers.
If HH will forgive me for continuing to talk as if he's out of the room:
His basic problem is that his approach lacks both humor and patience. No one likes a polly-anna know-it-all, but that shouldn't (although I understand why it does) make folks discount his arguments out of hand.
Basically our best bet is to treat ourselves like vehicles, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
And that's what he espouses.
Helmet Head
03-08-07, 03:27 PM
Ya know what's really funny....HH doesn't even realize that this is a parody of his polls!
1. He gets frustrated in a thread and rushes off to make a poll.
2. The poll is designed to prove whatever point he's trying to make, no matter what people answer.
3. When challenged he resorts to silly answers and personal attacks.
4. He manipulates the results to support other wacky theories in other threads. (OK, I haven't gone there yet...but I might :eek:
MERRY CHRISTMAS CHARLIE BROWN! :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: Nice try. You just love to pull the "just kidding!" cord, dontchya? It's always your ace in the hole, "cuz I ain't always serious like that HH guy with the stick up his nether region".
The problem with using that excuse this time is that you're just repeating the same idiotic arguments in this thread that you were using in the other thread.
What happens when you pull the cord and the chute doesn't pop out?
1. He gets frustrated in a thread and rushes off to make a poll.
2. The poll is designed to prove whatever point he's trying to make, no matter what people answer.
3. When challenged he resorts to silly answers and personal attacks.
4. He manipulates the results to support other wacky theories in other threads. (OK, I haven't gone there yet...but I might :eek:
MERRY CHRISTMAS CHARLIE BROWN! :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: Nice try. You just love to pull the "just kidding!" cord, dontchya? It's always your ace in the hole, "cuz I ain't always serious like that HH guy with the stick up his nether region".
The problem with using that excuse this time is that you're just repeating the same idiotic arguments in this thread that you were using in the other thread.
What happens when you pull the cord and the chute doesn't pop out?
Bikepacker67
03-08-07, 03:33 PM
Ha, you and I agree more than we disagree I think. Were we disagree is more when I take up for those things that I may not do myself, but others might...like bike paths and bike lanes and such. .
Bike paths I can agree with as long as they are not designed to remove my rights to the parallel roadway.
Bike lanes, on the other hand, are the slow steady erosion of my right to travel where I want.
Did I mention that I am coming up to my 1 year anniversary of living car free? This shyt is important to me - moreso than having noobs feel artificially safe by magic white lines.
Bike paths I can agree with as long as they are not designed to remove my rights to the parallel roadway.
Bike lanes, on the other hand, are the slow steady erosion of my right to travel where I want.
Did I mention that I am coming up to my 1 year anniversary of living car free? This shyt is important to me - moreso than having noobs feel artificially safe by magic white lines.
fat_bike_nut
03-08-07, 03:36 PM
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. :eek:
Same here.
I will obey the law in so far as it either:
A) Keeps me safe and everything around operating efficiently.
or
B) Doesn't have any effect on me either way.
If following the law means I'll get killed or seriously injured, then screw that! I'll break the law to save my own life!
I voted yes, but I have to say I'm not obeying laws where strictly doing so might get me killed or injured. :eek:
Same here.
I will obey the law in so far as it either:
A) Keeps me safe and everything around operating efficiently.
or
B) Doesn't have any effect on me either way.
If following the law means I'll get killed or seriously injured, then screw that! I'll break the law to save my own life!
randya
03-08-07, 03:48 PM
The corollary would be that if you don't consider yourself to be a vehicular cyclist, you don't need to obey the law.
;)
;)
bigpedaler
03-08-07, 04:16 PM
ok, the baiting nature of this thread is pretty evident -- but guess what? any subject like this is going to evoke some strong feelings on a lot of fronts, whether from people who 'get it' or not.
taking the question at face value, guess what? as a 'v.c.', operating a bike on the road, you are legally obligated to follow the law as set for bikes. if you cut a corner here and there for survival, that's a grey area (i follow the dictum: "it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six"). but NO ONE has the right to decide that a law is stupid and they're not going to follow it. i spent too many years of my life defending our country to allow 'scofflaws' (good word, btw) to spit on my blood/sweat/tears.
if laws were just there when it was convenient, they'd be called 'suggestions'. laws are unfortunately necessary because of a percentage of society thinks they're above respect for others.
taking the question at face value, guess what? as a 'v.c.', operating a bike on the road, you are legally obligated to follow the law as set for bikes. if you cut a corner here and there for survival, that's a grey area (i follow the dictum: "it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six"). but NO ONE has the right to decide that a law is stupid and they're not going to follow it. i spent too many years of my life defending our country to allow 'scofflaws' (good word, btw) to spit on my blood/sweat/tears.
if laws were just there when it was convenient, they'd be called 'suggestions'. laws are unfortunately necessary because of a percentage of society thinks they're above respect for others.
Bruce Rosar
03-08-07, 04:22 PM
I believe some districts have traffic laws for bicycles which disallow the use of bicycles on the road in certain streets ot circumstances e.g. mandatory bike lane usageFYI: According to Bicycles and the Traffic Law (http://www.bicycledriving.com/trafficlaw.htm):
Six states require cyclists to use the bike lane if one is marked on the road (AL, CA, HI, MD, OR, PA). The accompanying table of exceptions also includes NY, so the number of states mandating that each and every cyclist get the heck out of the way anytime there's a BL appears to really be seven.
Four states require cyclists to use the shoulder (AL, CO, MD, NY)
Fifteen states still have some version of a mandatory sidepath rule ... (AL, GA, KS, LA, MI, NE, NY, ND, OK, OR, SC, UT, VA, WV, WY)
Six states require cyclists to use the bike lane if one is marked on the road (AL, CA, HI, MD, OR, PA). The accompanying table of exceptions also includes NY, so the number of states mandating that each and every cyclist get the heck out of the way anytime there's a BL appears to really be seven.
Four states require cyclists to use the shoulder (AL, CO, MD, NY)
Fifteen states still have some version of a mandatory sidepath rule ... (AL, GA, KS, LA, MI, NE, NY, ND, OK, OR, SC, UT, VA, WV, WY)
Bikepacker67
03-08-07, 04:26 PM
taking the question at face value, guess what? as a 'v.c.', operating a bike on the road, you are legally obligated to follow the law as set for bikes. if you cut a corner here and there for survival, that's a grey area (i follow the dictum: "it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six").
Well, see... that's the problem.
There are plenty of folks (they don't post here) that feel the corners they should cut are that they should ride sidewalks or against traffic. You may not agree with it (I certainly don't) but that is "their" gray area.
I only know the answers pertaining to me. And treating myself as if I was in a car (sometimes a car with it's hazards on) seems to work well, and doesn't surprise anybody.
Well, see... that's the problem.
There are plenty of folks (they don't post here) that feel the corners they should cut are that they should ride sidewalks or against traffic. You may not agree with it (I certainly don't) but that is "their" gray area.
I only know the answers pertaining to me. And treating myself as if I was in a car (sometimes a car with it's hazards on) seems to work well, and doesn't surprise anybody.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.