Blue Order states his purpose: '... for purposes of refuting your claim regarding discriminatory "traffic laws" hatched by motorists (and not presented to refute your now revised “traffic laws related to traffic movements.")' Yes, the context has always been the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which cover traffic movements.That's not what you stated. If that's the context you wanted, that's the context you should have stated.

I had remarked that in the days of the high wheeler, articles in the cycling press urged their members to get off the sidewalks, which were the paved areas and therefore smoother, because riding among pedestrians jeopardized the public acceptance of cycling. To which Blue Order replied: "The high wheeler was dead by the time the bicycle craze of the 1890s hit." That falls rather flat as a rebuttal to my statement, being made either from ignorance or as dissimulation. I know the dates of the high wheeler, and I meant exactly what I wrote. (See Effective Cycling, 6th ed, pgs 421-2 for a discussion of the history of my family in those days) My source for the statement that the cycling press carried articles urging cyclists to get off the sidewalk is a private collection of papers (not owned by me) concerning the early days of the League of American Wheelmen, and that is just one of the items that I remember. However, here is Andrew Ritchie's comment about cycling conditions in the 1870s: "Riders were fined for often trivial reasons, although most of them accepted a fine for footpath riding as an occupational hazard." (King of the Road, pg 84)It wasn't a rebuttal to anything. It was a comment.

The source for Blue Order's claim that bike lanes were a very early development,Get over yourself. You can't even read, apparently; I never made any such claim.


during the 1890s bicycle craze, for the benefit of cyclists, not a discrimination, is as follows: "Sometimes they [some large cities] paved strips adjacent to the curbs on either side of the street to provide some smooth surfaces ... " (Robert A. Smith, The Social History of the Bicycle, pg 216.) Although at least part of the motive was to get cyclists off the sidewalks, which had a long history, as discussed above. In any case, there is no physical, social, or traffic connection between these long-gone facilities and the bicycle lanes invented by motorists of 1970 to clear the roadways of bicycle traffic for the convenience of motorists, none of whom, most probably, knew of these events of 70 years before. Indeed, I had not remembered Smith's statement from when I read his book many years ago.I never said there was a connection. If you think I did, quote me. Or maybe you should throw up a wall of obfuscation, like your disciple does, when his shaky claims fall apart.

And I rather dispute Blue Order's claim, apparently based on Smith's book, that the traffic law rules of the road started with laws regarding bicycling rather than with Eno's traffic code for New York City of 1903, which, as I reported earlier, is considered by may authorities, including the Institute of Traffic and Transportation Engineers, to be the first traffic code. There is a very great difference between a collection of laws from different places enacted to fix particular problems, such as cycling on the sidewalk, and a well thought out code that is designed to make traffic flow safely and effectively. That was Eno's contribution, and it was a new concept.NYC revised it's collection of traffic laws into a coherent code in 1897. It's right there in Smith's book, Page 202, if you don't want to take my word for it. I quote:

The only real solution for how to cut down on accidents in heavy traffic was a revision of the rules of the road. this was finally done in New York City in 1897, when its aldermen produced a new traffic code. More complicated than that used to control horse traffic, the system became the foundation for the automobile ordinances of the present. Most important, pedestrians were to be given the right-of-way. Maximum speed was fixed at five miles per hour for horses, eight for bicycles. All vehicles had to show a white light from thirty minutes before sunset until a half hour after sunrise. Cyclists were not permitted to coast on city streets, and they had to have their feet on the pedals and both hands on the handlebars at all times. Cyclists had to mount and dismount on the right-hand side of the street and had to sound their bells before passing. The law stipulated that bells could not be more than three inches in diameter. This last can be seen as a faltering step toward noise abatement that succeeding generations did not see fit to follow. Trick riding, like reckless driving at a later date, was expressly forbidden on the city streets. A generation of automobilists would probably find nothing seriously wrong with these provisions, but they came under instant attack from horsemen.

First, Al made an assertion about how he interpeted it, and Blue Order challenged him on logical grounds. We refuted that argument such that Blue Order conceded (though apparently he's still clinging to his position based on your "plain language" argument).FFS, you're as hard-headed as your hero, and just as incapable of reading as he is

I am not "clinging to my position based on Brian's 'plain language' argument."

I said, once more, that I was just about to post that you had me convinced, when I read Brian's post re: inclusive and exclusive Or. Brian's post was absolutely correct on the law; the courts do their best to avoid interpretations which would lead to nonsensical results, which is exactly what you and Al are putting forth-- an interpretation that leads to nonsensical results. Pull your head out sometime and read something other than your own BS. Read some court cases that discuss the meaning of the word "or." I have done that, you have OBVIOUSLY not done that. End of. They all state clearly that "or" is a disjunctive word, which is the same thing Brian said last night in regards to "exclusive or." When he posted that, I realized why what you argue makes sense from a logical perspective, but is still wrong as a legal argument.

If you still don't believe that you're wrong, I'll post a quote from a treatise on statutory interpretation, which discusses the use of the "disjunctive or."

Let's take Al's lead and consider a bar owner who wants to enforce two requirements:

You must wear a shirts, AND
You must wear shoes.

Otherwise you will be thrown out.

What should the sign say, in common English language?
To be allowed in the bar, you must wear a shirt AND you must wear shoes.
Anyone not wearing a shirt OR not wearing shoes will be thrown out.
Anyone shirtless OR shoeless will be thrown out.All are correct and logical, per "plain language", yes?

Now let's say you want to write a law that says in order for cyclists to be in the lane they:
Must be at or above the speed limit, AND
Must be at or above the speed of traffic.Otherwise, they must keep right.


How do you word such a law? Consider:
To be allowed in the lane, cyclists must be at or above speed limit AND at or above speed of traffic.
Any cyclist not at or above speed limit OR not at or above speed of traffic must keep right.
Any cyclist below speed limit OR below speed of traffic must keep right.This is how they worded, and is what they intended. There is no reasonable alternative interpretation. You say it seems a bit contradictory. How so?

If they wanted to say you could be doing either one, they would have used AND, not OR with respect to the restrictions.
Anyone shirtless AND shoeless will be thrown out (means if you have a shirt but no shoes, or shoes but no shirt, you can be in the bar).
Anyone cyclist below speed limit AND below speed of traffic must keep right (means cyclist below speed limit but at speed of traffic, or below speed of traffic but at speed limit, is okay in the lane).Nobody reads your wall of words but you, HH. Like I told your hero JF, get over yourself.

FFS, you're as hard-headed as your hero, and just as incapable of reading as he is

I am not "clinging to my position based on Brian's 'plain language' argument."

I said, once more, that I was just about to post that you had me convinced, when I read Brian's post re: inclusive and exclusive Or. Brian's post was absolutely correct on the law; the courts do their best to avoid interpretations which would lead to nonsensical results, which is exactly what you and Al are putting forth-- an interpretation that leads to nonsensical results. Pull your head out sometime and read something other than your own BS. Read some court cases that discuss the meaning of the word "or." I have done that, you have OBVIOUSLY not done that. End of. They all state clearly that "or" is a disjunctive word, which is the same thing Brian said last night in regards to "exclusive or." When he posted that, I realized why what you argue makes sense from a logical perspective, but is still wrong as a legal argument.

If you still don't believe that you're wrong, I'll post a quote from a treatise on statutory interpretation, which discusses the use of the "disjunctive or."
Now your argument is based on the premise that the result of my logical interpretation of the law is nonsensical.

Why is it a nonsensical result?

If they want to prohibit cyclists from riding in the lane unless they are moving at or faster than the speed limit AND are not moving slower than the speed of traffic, the way I'm interpreting the law, logically, it says exactly that. What's nonsensical about it?


Nobody reads your wall of words but you, HH.
No wonder you don't get what I'm saying.

As in, interpreting the OR disjunctively leading to the riduculous idea that a bicyclist would be legally required to stay right even when traffic is slower then the bicyclist.This is EXACTLY why HH's argument would lose in every court in the land.

Now your argument is based on the premise that the result of my logical interpretation of the law is nonsensical.

Why is it a nonsensical result?Numerous people have told you why.

If they want to prohibit cyclists from riding in the lane unless they are moving at or faster than the speed limit AND are not moving slower than the speed of traffic, the way I'm interpreting the law, logically, it says exactly that. What's nonsensical about it?You've already been told, no need to repeat it.



No wonder you don't get what I'm saying.You can't possibly believe that anybody has the time or interest to read your fawning monuments to your intellect. Get over yourself. "Get what you're saying"? You're as arrogant as Forester. At least your condescension isn't as nasty as Forester's; it's your saving grace. Nevertheless, it's still condescension. You're wrong on the law, end of.

Numerous people have told you why.
Only Zeytoun even came close. He said: "However, interpreted disjunctively, this would also mean that the cyclist would have to keep right, even when going as fast as/faster than traffic, if he is going less then the posted speed limit."

He also claimed judges would laugh this out of court. Why? This is simply putting a legal rubber stamp on how the vast majority of cyclists ride anyway, and how motorists expect them to ride.

Cyclists who are willing to take the lane, actually put themselves in front of motor traffic, even if they can keep up with the flow of traffic, are very rare. That thinking that doing this is inherently dangerous... what if traffic suddenly speeds up! ... is not a nonsensical result.

Their reason to make the situation where a cyclist is moving at or faster than the speed limit AND keeping up with traffic a unique exception is because if both conditions are true (perhaps on a downhill with a low speed limit), traffic is unlikely to suddenly speed up (they're already at or above the speed limit) putting the cyclist in dreaded danger.

I honestly don't understand why you guys think this is not exactly what the legislature wanted, or why you think a judge would not uphold this interpretation. I don't see why you think it's an inherently nonsensical result.

Only Zeytoun even came close. He said: "However, interpreted disjunctively, this would also mean that the cyclist would have to keep right, even when going as fast as/faster than traffic, if he is going less then the posted speed limit."That's exactly why. It leads to a nonsensical result. Brian said the same thing. I said the same thing. The result is nonsensical-- absent ANY indication from the legislature that they intended to keep bicycles out of the "traffic lanes" even when they are traveling at the same speed as other traffic, no court is going to accept that interpretation. Only if the legislature makes it clear in the legislative language or history or that it intends exactly that nonsensical result, will the court accept an interpretation that leads to a nonsensical result. Obviously, one would be hard-pressed to find such legislative pronouncements.

He also claimed judges would laugh this out of court. Why? This is simply putting a legal rubber stamp on how the vast majority of cyclists ride anyway, and how motorists expect them to ride.Because courts have no patience for nonsense.


I honestly don't understand why you guys think this is not exactly what the legislature wanted, or why you think a judge would not uphold this interpretation.See above.

I don't see why you think it's an inherently nonsensical result.A cyclist must ride at the speed limit, even if all other traffic is riding at a lower speed. That is a nonsensical result.

A cyclist must ride at the flow of traffic, even if the flow of traffic is 40 MPH above the posted speed limit. That is a nonsensical result.

NYC revised it's collection of traffic laws into a coherent code in 1897. It's right there in Smith's book, Page 202, if you don't want to take my word for it. I quote:

That's very interesting. However, William Phelps Eno is credited with the first real traffic code, in many articles. He wrote: "Reform in our Street Traffic is Urgently Needed" in 1900, and he wrote "Rules of the Road" in 1903, which was adopted by NYC. I presume that Eno's first publication indicates that whatever was done in 1897 didn't work very well. In matters of traffic engineering, even just the history of traffic engineering, I think that I would give greater credibility to the unchallenged (so far as I know) conclusions of the professionals in the field than I would give to writers of popular social history.

John,

when's your book going back into print? never? seems like it'd be tough to get a publishing house to back such an odious, inaccurate, pedantic book nowadays, particularily if one of the vetting editors rode a bicycle.

Publishing houses much prefer snappy, well written ,consise, non-dogmatic books like Robert Hurst's than your pedantic writings.

I bet it'd be tough to float another edition, eh?

That's very interesting. However, William Phelps Eno is credited with the first real traffic code, in many articles. He wrote: "Reform in our Street Traffic is Urgently Needed" in 1900, and he wrote "Rules of the Road" in 1903, which was adopted by NYC. I presume that Eno's first publication indicates that whatever was done in 1897 didn't work very well. In matters of traffic engineering, even just the history of traffic engineering, I think that I would give greater credibility to the unchallenged (so far as I know) conclusions of the professionals in the field than I would give to writers of popular social history.By 1903, automobiles were beginning to appear on the roads. That would be reason enough to revise the traffic codes, don't you think?

I suspect that the Society of Traffic Engineers is perhaps "autocentric"? If so, then their pointing to a 1903 statute as "the first" Traffic Code might make some sense, if it was the first to address their field of expertise.

Incidentally, Smith is (or perhaps was?) a Professor of History at Cal State San Bernardino, so he's not simply a "writer" of a "popular social history."

If you still don't believe that you're wrong, I'll post a quote from a treatise on statutory interpretation, which discusses the use of the "disjunctive or."

From Statutes and Statutory Construction, by Norman J. Singer:

21:14 Conjunctive and disjunctive words

Where two or more requirements are provided in a section and it is in the legislative intent that all of the requirements must be fulfilled in order to comply with the statute, the conjunctive "and" should be used. Statutory phrases separated by the word "and" are usually interpreted in the conjunctive. Where a failure to comply with any requirement imposes liability, the disjunctive "or" should be used. Generally, courts presume that "or" is used disjunctively unless there is clear legislative intent to the contrary.

When talking about a computer program, talk to a computer programmer.

When talking about a law, talk to a lawyer.

I'm just say'n...

Here's another intepretation consistent with Al's and mine:

"In Missouri, cyclists must be both going faster than traffic and going the posted speed limit in order to be permitted to leave the right edge. "
http://www.bicycledriving.com/trafficlaw.htm#appendix



A cyclist must ride at the speed limit, even if all other traffic is riding at a lower speed. That is a nonsensical result.

A cyclist must ride at the flow of traffic, even if the flow of traffic is 40 MPH above the posted speed limit. That is a nonsensical result.

It's nonsensical only to a sensible bicyclist who understands proper bicycle operation in traffic. To a yahoo one notch from believing bikes should be ridden against traffic, it's not nonsensical at all.

Brian, here's how the lawyers interpreted it:

"When operating at less than the posted speed or traffic flow, generally ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe."

http://mobikefed.org/statutes.html

To add insult to injury, in 1998 there was a bill introduced to add this 2nd section to the Missouri Law 307.190 in question:

2. Whenever a usable path for bicycles practical for sustained riding for transportation purposes has been officially designated adjacent to a street or highway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the street or highway.

http://www.house.mo.gov/bills98/biltxt98/intro98/HB1112I.htm

Apparently, it did not pass.

how does ANY of this sophistic banter have ANYTHING to do with John foresters vehicular cycling movement and Robert Hurst's realistic treatments of cycling?

how does ANY of this sophistic banter have ANYTHING to do with John foresters vehicular cycling movement and Robert Hurst's realistic treatments of cycling?
No one seems to be interested in that topic. Oh well.

I thought YOU wanted to talk books and authors, mr. head.

John Forester- antiquated, inaccurate, scientifically baseless, odious, tedious, misleading.

Robert Hurst- concise, well written, sharp analysis of traffic cycling, good history of bicycling in america.

The End!

Robert Hurst- concise, well written, sharp analysis of traffic cycling, good history of bicycling in america. You neglected to mention that Hurst doesn't understand vehicular cycling but criticizes it anyway. For example, he thinks vehicular cycling advocates are hypocrites for advocating riding according to the letter of the law (which we don't advocate), and then don't follow the letter of the law themselves, which we do more than he seems to realize, or is able to realize, given his apparent lack of knowledge about the law in the first place. When I described a vehicular way that I dealt with a particular intersection traffic situation yesterday, which involved changing lanes right before I got to the intersection, he thought it was "yet another" (in his mind) example of VC hypocrisy:

It is illegal to change lanes within 100' of an intersection.

R. :rolleyes: (it is NOT illegal to change lanes within 100' of an intersection, or even IN an intersection).


One of the misconceptions that people have about traffic law is that it is illegal to change lanes in an intersection. Quite often, it isn't. (Check what the law actually says in your state). One of the laws here in Arizona requires that a driver not pass another vehicle (left of the center line) either within 100 feet of an intersection, or while passing through one. Over the years, people started remembering this as a prohibition on changing lanes, rather than crossing the center line. These are two separate things.


http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule55.htm

you vehicular cyclists advocate breaking the law? interesting.....


yesterday, were you driving your car, and pretending it was a bicycle again, mr. head?

Here's another intepretation consistent with Al's and mine:And where did he-- or you-- you get your law degrees? :rolleyes:

Nothing wrong at all with lay people discussing the law, but you have no expertise, and you're arrogantly claiming that you're right on how to interpret the law, and lawyers, courts, and judges are wrong on how to interpret the law.

It's nonsensical only to a sensible bicyclist who understands proper bicycle operation in traffic. To a yahoo one notch from believing bikes should be ridden against traffic, it's not nonsensical at all.It's nonsensical to courts, which is why your argument will never fly in court. The only place your argument flies, in fact, is on an internet forum with other non-lawyers.

Brian, here's how the lawyers interpreted it:

[I]"When operating at less than the posted speed or traffic flow, generally ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe."Now if you apply legal analysis to that, you'll realize that it refutes the position you've taken.

And where did he-- or you-- you get your law degrees? :rolleyes:

Nothing wrong at all with lay people discussing the law, but you have no expertise, and you're arrogantly claiming that you're right on how to interpret the law, and lawyers, courts, and judges are wrong on how to interpret the law. I never made such a claim. My claim is I don't believe lawyers, courts, and judges would interpret it like you did.

It's nonsensical to courts, which is why your argument will never fly in court. The only place your argument flies, in fact, is on an internet forum with other non-lawyers.

Now if you apply legal analysis to that, you'll realize that it refutes the position you've taken. You've produced no reason that your interpretation is the one that would be used in court.
And if you had argued your "nonsensical result" current position from the beginning, instead of saying Al's interpretation was simply wrong or illogical, you might have some credibility on this point.

Original (ridiculous) argument:

I should point out that it says "or," not "and." That means if you're traveling at the posted speed limit, or if you're traveling as fast as traffic, you don't have to ride to the right. You can choose one or the other, and as long as you're in compliance with one of those, you can take the lane.


Latest version:

It's nonsensical to courts,

You neglected to mention that Hurst doesn't understand vehicular cycling but criticizes it anyway. For example, he thinks vehicular cycling advocates are hypocrites for advocating riding according to the letter of the law (which we don't advocate), and then don't follow the letter of the law themselves, which we do more than he seems to realize, or is able to realize, given his apparent lack of knowledge about the law in the first place. When I described a vehicular way that I dealt with a particular intersection traffic situation yesterday, which involved changing lanes right before I got to the intersection, he thought it was "yet another" (in his mind) example of VC hypocrisy:

:rolleyes: (it is NOT illegal to change lanes within 100' of an intersection, or even IN an intersection).


One of the misconceptions that people have about traffic law is that it is illegal to change lanes in an intersection. Quite often, it isn't. (Check what the law actually says in your state). One of the laws here in Arizona requires that a driver not pass another vehicle (left of the center line) either within 100 feet of an intersection, or while passing through one. Over the years, people started remembering this as a prohibition on changing lanes, rather than crossing the center line. These are two separate things.


http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule55.htm

Not so fast there, Helmet. While this move may be technically legal in California it is nonetheless a clear violation of common sense driving principles, defensive driving principles, and your own beloved VC principles, mainly the principle of riding in a predictable fashion. It can be extremely disorienting (i.e. non-predictable) when a driver changes lanes within an intersection; if it's not illegal, it probably should be. So yes, your bragging about changing lanes in an intersection at speed is a fine example of a VC preacher's hypocrisy. VC dogma is armchair philosophy geared at de-legitimizing bike lanes. It's no wonder that it doesn't hold up while actually cycling in traffic.

Robert

Not so fast there, Helmet. While this move may be technically legal in California it is nonetheless a clear violation of common sense driving principles, defensive driving principles, and your own beloved VC principles, mainly the principle of riding in a predictable fashion. It can be extremely disorienting (i.e. non-predictable) when a driver changes lanes within an intersection; if it's not illegal, it probably should be. So yes, your bragging about changing lanes in an intersection at speed is a fine example of a VC preacher's hypocrisy. VC dogma is armchair philosophy geared at de-legitimizing bike lanes. It's no wonder that it doesn't hold up while actually cycling in traffic.

Robert Filtering forward in available space among cars stopped at a red light, including changing lanes from the lane-sharing right side of the left lane to the lane-sharing left side of the right lane (assuming the space is there and it's safe and reasonable to do), is common vehicular behavior for drivers of motorcycles as well as bicycles in every state and country I've ever been to.

Filtering forward in available space among cars stopped at a red light, including changing lanes from the lane-sharing right side of the left lane to the lane-sharing left side of the right lane (assuming the space is there and it's safe and reasonable to do), is common vehicular behavior for drivers of motorcycles as well as bicycles in every state and country I've ever been to.

Such behavior may be common, because it is useful and convenient for cyclists, but it is considered "vehicular" only by those with a desperate need to be labeled "vehicular cyclists."

Filtering around cars at a red light is decidedly non-VC. What you did in your story, change lanes within an intersection at speed, is decidedly non-VC. Just because self-described Vehicular Cyclists do these things does not make these things any more "vehicular." It just makes their preaching more hypocritical.

Robert

Such behavior may be common, because it is useful and convenient for cyclists, but it is considered "vehicular" only by those with a desperate need to be labeled "vehicular cyclists." Once again you imply you have some definition of "vehicular" in mind when used in the term "vehicular cycling", but you won't reveal what it is. I have long wondered what such a definition would look like that would be compatible with all of your apparent expectations for it.

If being consistent with the vehicular rules of the road and being consistent with common behavior by drivers of vehicles all over the world does not determine what "vehicular" is, than what does? Let us know. What's the big secret?

You can't have it both ways. You can't contend this is vehicular and that is not without revealing the standard by which you are making these determinations. But that is what you do in your book, and that is what you're doing here.

Filtering around cars at a red light is decidedly non-VC. And I say it's decidedly non-XYZ. Each is a meaningless statement when the intended meaning of the respective term is not known. You say it's non-VC. By what standard? What is the definition of "VC/non-VC" you are using when you make this assertion? Please, spell it out.

What you did in your story, change lanes within an intersection at speed, is decidedly non-VC. Again, it cannot be decidely anything until you define what you mean by that anything.

And not that it matters, but I changed lanes about one car length prior to the intersection, not within an intersection, and, it was moving from the right side of the left lane (that I was not sharing) to the left side of the right lane (in order to briefly share with a right turner who was far right and I was quickly passing since I was accelerating and he was crawling to make his right turn). In similar situations except with a wider right lane, I've seen drivers of cars do the same thing, but I guess that could be "non-VC" too as long as you're making up definitions as we go along here.

Just because self-described Vehicular Cyclists do these things does not make these things any more "vehicular." If that were the reason claimed for what makes it "vehicular", that would be absurd. But that is not what is claimed (the claim is that it's perfectly legal and drivers of motorcycles and even cars do it, and that's why it's "vehicular"), and, so, your argument is a strawman.

It just makes their preaching more hypocritical.

Robert Did your girlfriend leave you for a vehicular cyclist or something? I just can't figure out where all this irrational animosity is coming from.

I never made such a claim. My claim is I don't believe lawyers, courts, and judges would interpret it like you did.Unbelieveable. I posted a quote from a text on statutory construction. What more do you need? How about this: I don't believe that programmers program code the way you claim they do. Like that?

You've produced no reason that your interpretation is the one that would be used in court.
And if you had argued your "nonsensical result" current position from the beginning, instead of saying Al's interpretation was simply wrong or illogical, you might have some credibility on this point.I have expertise. You don't. Furthermore, I posted the text on stat construction. Those two are reason enough.

Original (ridiculous) argument:


Latest version:Unbelieveable. There was NOTHING contradictory in those two quotes. Get your head out, you're WRONG HH. YOU ARE W-R-O-N-G.

If you don't believe you're wrong, ask one of the lawyers who post here. If you won't ask them, shut it. You're wrong. End of.

21:14 Conjunctive and disjunctive words

Where two or more requirements are provided in a section and it is in the legislative intent that all of the requirements must be fulfilled in order to comply with the statute, the conjunctive "and" should be used. Statutory phrases separated by the word "and" are usually interpreted in the conjunctive. Where a failure to comply with any requirement imposes liability, the disjunctive "or" should be used. Generally, courts presume that "or" is used disjunctively unless there is clear legislative intent to the contrary.


Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe...

I think the confusion here is because meeting the "requirements" in this law means staying to the right. This is a restrictive law (not a real law term, I just made it up if you care) as opposed to a freeing law (again, my term). The freeing law in this case would read:

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at (or greater than) the posted speed and faster than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall not be required to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe.

In this rephrasing of the law, I changed all of the negatives to positives and vice versa. It still reads the same way as HH and Noisebeam have been arguing and this new form fits nicer into the text quoted by Blue Order (which isn't saying what he thinks it's saying), specifically the bolded section. In this reversed version of the law, to be legally left, you must comply with both requirements. In the originally form, failure to comply with any requirement means riding to the right.

I think the confusion here is because meeting the "requirements" in this law means staying to the right. This is a restrictive law (not a real law term, I just made it up if you care) as opposed to a freeing law (again, my term). The freeing law in this case would read:

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at (or greater than) the posted speed and faster than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall not be required to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe.

In this rephrasing of the law, I changed all of the negatives to positives and vice versa. It still reads the same way as HH and Noisebeam have been arguing and this new form fits nicer into the text quoted by Blue Order (which isn't saying what he thinks it's saying). I had a post composed that was 10 times as long what you just wrote trying to say the same thing. I deleted it because it was too convoluted.

Thank you, JJ, thank you.

In short, I did not see how the Singer thing applied to this law as written for the reasons provided by JJ. But I do agree it applies to JJ's rewrite.

Such behavior may be common, because it is useful and convenient for cyclists, but it is considered "vehicular" only by those with a desperate need to be labeled "vehicular cyclists."

Here's one. I regularly encounter the USPS doing their job on my way home from work. The lanes on the roads I'm riding as so narrow that even a cyclist cannot pass the mail truck (with adequate clearance) without going over the solid yellow line. Is doing this (which I do about once a week) non-vehicular since it is breaking the letter of the law?

I think the confusion here is because meeting the "requirements" in this law means staying to the right. This is a restrictive law (not a real law term, I just made it up if you care) as opposed to a freeing law (again, my term). The freeing law in this case would read:

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at (or greater than) the posted speed and faster than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall not be required to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe.

In this rephrasing of the law, I changed all of the negatives to positives and vice versa. It still reads the same way as HH and Noisebeam have been arguing and this new form fits nicer into the text quoted by Blue Order (which isn't saying what he thinks it's saying), specifically the bolded section. In this reversed version of the law, to be legally left, you must comply with both requirements. In the originally form, failure to comply with any requirement means riding to the right.You know nothing about statutory construction. I do. You're wrong.

I had a post composed that was 10 times as long what you just wrote trying to say the same thing. I deleted it because it was too convoluted.

Thank you, JJ, thank you.

In short, I did not see how the Singer thing applied to this law as written for the reasons provided by JJ. But I do agree it applies to JJ's rewrite.HH, you don't know what you're talking about. Nothing new there.

Ask a lawyer, or just fold up your tent and go home, because you're simply to afraid to have your argument exposed as a fallacy by asking an expert.

You know nothing about the law, and you think because you can type code into a computer, you can't possibly be wrong.

Well, you're wrong. Get used to hearing it.

You know nothing about statutory construction. I do. You're wrong.

Where am I wrong? If by applying the passage you quoted to the law we have been discussing makes me auotmatically wrong, then I guess that's how it has to be.

The law, as written, is ridiculous. There are many other ridiculous laws on the books as well. Somebody made a mistake with this law and the only way to interpret it favorably for cyclists is to swap one word out for another. That's not interpretting though; that's changing the meaning of the law. If I could go around swapping out "or" for "and" and vice versa any time I saw fit, the world could be a much better place for me.

Blue Order, with respect to the law we are discussing, what are the "requirements to be fulfilled" and what is "comply[ing] with the statute?"

Where am I wrong? If by applying the passage you quoted to the law we have been discussing makes me auotmatically wrong, then I guess that's how it has to be.

The law, as written, is ridiculous. There are many other ridiculous laws on the books as well. Somebody made a mistake with this law and the only way to interpret it favorably for cyclists is to swap one word out for another. That's not interpretting though; that's changing the meaning of the law. If I could go around swapping out "or" for "and" and vice versa any time I saw fit, the world could be a much better place for me.You are wrong because you don't know jack about statutory construction. I do. Get it?

I will say this, although you VC JABs won't believe it: When a law is poorly written, the courts still have to interpret its meaning, and they WILL NOT give it an interpretation that leads to nonsensical outcomes UNLESS the legislature EXPLICITLY said it intended that nonsensical outcome.

Now you and Hard Head can either ask a lawyer if that's what courts do, or not. But if you don't ask a lawyer, it's because you're both afraid to have an expert tell you you're wrong.

Blue Order, with respect to the law we are discussing, what are the "requirements to be fulfilled" and what is "comply[ing] with the statute?"The cyclist has a choice:

1) the cyclist can ride at the speed limit

or

2) the cyclist can ride with the flow of traffic.

The law does NOT require the cyclist to do both. It's one, or the other. If the cyclist can't do either, the cyclist must ride to the right.

You are wrong because you don't know jack about statutory construction. I do. Get it?

I didn't think one needed a law degree to be able to interpret the rules of the road. Maybe I'm wrong.

I will say this, although you VC JABs won't believe it: When a law is poorly written, the courts still have to interpret its meaning, and they WILL NOT give it an interpretation that leads to nonsensical outcomes UNLESS the legislature EXPLICITLY said it intended that nonsensical outcome.

What does "VC" have to do with this? So do you agree that this law is poorly written and that the only way to interpret it logically is to change it's wording? That's what I'm arguing and that's what I think you are denying by arguing that the law means something different than what it's really saying.

Now you and Hard Head can either ask a lawyer if that's what courts do, or not. But if you don't ask a lawyer, it's because you're both afraid to have an expert tell you you're wrong.

In this debate, I don't give a crap what courts do. You are arguing that the law means something other than what it says. Just because courts would change it's meaning to make it logical means nothing to me. I've never said that they wouldn't.

The cyclist has a choice:

1) the cyclist can ride at the speed limit

or

2) the cyclist can ride with the flow of traffic.

The law does NOT require the cyclist to do both. It's one, or the other. If the cyclist can't do either, the cyclist must ride to the right.

Can you be more specific? Break the law down like this:

Requirement A = ???
Requirement B = ???
Complying with the law = ???

Can you be more specific? Break the law down like this:

Requirement A = ???
Requirement B = ???
Complying with the law = ???We went through that the other day. I'm not going through it again.

1) I've already stated that if it's laid out as a simple equation, HH's interpretation makes sense.

2) Brian has already stated that there are two types of "or."

3) I've already stated that yes, Brian is right, and the courts use the "exclusive or" that I'm using, and not the "inclusive or" that HH is using.

4) HH disputes that, knowing full well that I'm not just making this stuff up.

5) I've already challenged him to ask Caloso, or that other BF lawyer in Florida, whose name escapes me at the moment, if he won't just accept my word on it.

6) I'm not going through it again. The ink is all but dry on my law degree, and then I take the bar. If you and HH think you know more about statutory construction than I do, continue to believe so. This debate with HH has become an extremely juvenile exercise in refusing to acknowledge one's own lack of expertise. It's the equivalent of me offering an explanation of computer programming that is absolutely backwards from how programming is done, and insisting I'm right, and refusing to admit that I don't know as much about programming as HH does. I know you're new to the argument, so I won't apply that to you. But I'm not going to go through it all over again with somebody else who doesn't know the law but thinks he does.

I've already stated that yes, Brian is right, and the courts use the "exclusive or" that I'm using, and not the "inclusive or" that HH is using.

The word "or" can have different meanings depending on how it's used in a sentence. It can be exclusive or inclusive, but that depends on sentence structure, not on who's reading it.

For instance, "Give me all the berries that are red or blue" does not mean the same thing as "Give me all the red berries or all the blue berries." Same word, different meaning based on sentence structure. The law we are discussing is written in the former form. The law wants cyclists to be going both at or above the speed limit and at or above the speed of traffic to be allowed to ride not at the right edge of the road.

"Or's" in Boolean logic only mean something different than what one is used to if someone is only used to applying the word "or" in a certain context. Once one realizes that the word can be used in different ways, both ways make sense. You seem to want to believe that "law" and "computer programming" have their own special logic. They don't.

The word "or" can have different meanings depending on how it's used in a sentence. It can be exclusive or inclusive, but that depends on sentence structure, not on who's reading it.

For instance, "Give me all the berries that are red or blue" does not mean the same thing as "Give me all the red berries or all the blue berries." Same word, different meaning based on sentence structure. The law we are discussing is written in the former form. The law wants cyclists to be going both at or above the speed limit and at or above the speed of traffic to be allowed to ride not at the right edge of the road.

"Or's" in Boolean logic only mean something different than what one is used to if someone is only used to applying the word "or" in a certain context. Once one realizes that the word can be used in different ways, both ways make sense. You seem to want to believe that "law" and "computer programming" have their own special logic. They don't.Well, I guess you and the other non-lawyer are right, and all of the lawyers, courts, and legal scholars are wrong then. :rolleyes:

The law wants cyclists to be going both at or above the speed limit and at or above the speed of traffic to be allowed to ride not at the right edge of the road.Because the legislature wanted cyclists to be riding at 40 MPH on a road (posted speed limit) when all other traffic is moving at 20 MPH. :rolleyes:

I didn't think one needed a law degree to be able to interpret the rules of the road. Maybe I'm wrong.Not as long as you're following the rules of statutory construction. If you're not following the rules of statutory construction, then you're way out of your league.



What does "VC" have to do with this? So do you agree that this law is poorly written and that the only way to interpret it logically is to change it's wording? That's what I'm arguing and that's what I think you are denying by arguing that the law means something different than what it's really saying.I think that law is poorly written. Surprise. It happens more than you'd realize. Here's another surprise for you: If laws were clear and unambiguous, we wouldn't need panels of judges to decide what the legislature meant when it wrote the law.



In this debate, I don't give a crap what courts do. You are arguing that the law means something other than what it says. Just because courts would change it's meaning to make it logical means nothing to me. I've never said that they wouldn't.It should mean something to you, because your interpretation of the law is not how the courts would interpret the law.

Not as long as you're following the rules of statutory construction. If you're not following the rules of statutory construction, then you're way out of your league.

I think that law is poorly written. Surprise. It happens more than you'd realize. Here's another surprise for you: If laws were clear and unambiguous, we wouldn't need panels of judges to decide what the legislature meant when it wrote the law.

It should mean something to you, because your interpretation of the law is not how the courts would interpret the law.

Here's my issue. I realize there is sometimes a difference between spoken words and the actual meaning of those words. The common phrase "I could care less" is a good example I think. If you look at that phrase in an "official" sense, it means what it says. If you interpret it in terms of common usage, it means that opposite. Not knowing exactly what statutory construction entails, I can only assume that issues like this are what it address. Hopefully I can find some condensed reading on the subject.

How is the law poorly written? It's not ambiguous aside from the "as near to the right side of the roadway as safe" part which we are not debating. If you think it's poorly written simply because the real meaning of the words is ridiculous, then we are in agreement. But that's not the case as far as I can tell.

I'm glad the courts would interpret the law in a meaningful way, and not at face value. At this moment, no court in MO has an issue with how I'm riding so it doesn't matter to me as part of this debate.

Here's my issue. I realize there is sometimes a difference between spoken words and the actual meaning of those words. The common phrase "I could care less" is a good example I think. If you look at that phrase in an "official" sense, it means what it says. If you interpret it in terms of common usage, it means that opposite. Not knowing exactly what statutory construction entails, I can only assume that issues like this are what it address. Hopefully I can find some condensed reading on the subject.There are undoubtedly condensed works on the subject. It is a complex subject, however; the work I quoted from is in 8 volumes. Lawyers argue every day over what words mean, what courts meant, what the legislature meant. Even on the highest court, you have some of the best legal minds in the country unable to agree on what the law is.

If it were just a simple matter of reading a statute (although that can obviously be done sometimes, and is the court's first approach), then nobody would ever need courts or lawyers. Everybody would agree on what was meant. Obviously, just reading a statute isn't enough, then.

How is the law poorly written? It's not ambiguous aside from the "as near to the right side of the roadway as safe" part which we are not debating. If you think it's poorly written simply because the real meaning of the words is ridiculous, then we are in agreement. But that's not the case as far as I can tell.That's exactly why i think it's poorly written-- because it lends itself to a ridiculous interpretation. A well-written statute should be clear, unambiguous, and not capable of being interpreted in a way that leads to ridiculous results.

I'm glad the courts would interpret the law in a meaningful way, and not at face value. At this moment, no court in MO has an issue with how I'm riding so it doesn't matter to me as part of this debate.Yes, I'm glad too. Listen, courts don't always get it right either, which is why there's appellate review, but I think in general, they try to come up with reasonable results. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Of course, the side that wins would probably hold the view that the result was reasonable, even though you and I might look at it and wonder how the court could possibly have decided so foolishly.

I posted the question here:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=289776

Such behavior may be common, because it is useful and convenient for cyclists, but it is considered "vehicular" only by those with a desperate need to be labeled "vehicular cyclists."

Filtering around cars at a red light is decidedly non-VC. What you did in your story, change lanes within an intersection at speed, is decidedly non-VC. Just because self-described Vehicular Cyclists do these things does not make these things any more "vehicular." It just makes their preaching more hypocritical.

Robert

By the way, you've claimed before that VC was defined in your book.


VC defined (not by you but by me) and explained: p. 61 onward. Also in the Introduction.

There is no clear definition of VC in your book. Not on p. 61 onward. Not in the introduction. There is nothing in your book that would allow anyone to complete the following sentence:

Robert's definition of vehicular-cycling is _____________________.

You write about VC as if the definition is obvious, but you never actually define it.

You do write vague stuff like this tidbit from p. 61, in a chapter entitled "vehicular cycling": "Just by obeying traditional traffic-law principles and riding predictably, a bicyclist will eliminate a large portion of the danger of urban cycling". From that one might infer that you define vc as "obeying traditional traffic-law principles and riding predictably", but you're not clear on it. Again, allow me to contrast your misrepresentation of VC with the fair approach of Forester critic Jeffrey Hiles, who actually quotes those he critiques:


There is much more to the vehicular-cycling principle than only obeying the traffic laws for drivers. The vehicular-style cyclist not only acts outwardly like a driver, he knows inwardly that he is one. Instead of feeling like a trespasser on roads owned by cars he feels like just another driver with a slightly different vehicle, one who is participating and cooperation in the organized mutual effort to get to desired destinations with the least trouble (Forester, 1994, p. 3).


http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html

There is not a hint in your book about the fact that there is much more to VC than only obeying the traffic laws. In fact, you constantly make comments that reflect your apparent interpretion (though you never clearly define it) of VC to mean strict adherence to the letter of the law, period, like in this excerpt from p. 62:


Evidence of this failure [with the VC principle] is provided in the fact that few experienced cyclists, even those who are vocal proponents of vehicular-cycling dogma [thank you very little for that slam], apply it consistently in their everyday travels. Instead, they use it whenever it suits their purpose and discard it when doesn't. They're not very above using an off-street bike path if it's headed in the right direction.


That Forester, Goodridge, Galen, Joejack, Daily Commute, Al or I or any other "vocal proponents of vehicular-cycling dogma" are not above using a bike path is evidence of how vehicular cycling is a failure? How so? You don't explain it, apparently assuming it's obvious. Hint: it's not, again, primarily stemming from the fact that you never clearly defined what you meant by VC in the first place, and the definition you imply is not consistent with any that I recognize as used by any VC proponents, or even by Forester critics such as Hiles.

You continue:


They roll through stop signs, treat red lights like yield signs, and filter past lines of stopped cars in traffic jams and at intersections. Not very vehicular of them.


I've never seen a red light treated like a yield sign (except for right turns) by a vehicular cyclist. What is your source for this (most if not all of the basis for your opinion about vehicular cyclists and vehicular cycling is conspicuously and unprofessionally unsourced). Other than that, basically you're saying that vehicular cyclists acting like typical drivers of motorcycles indicates that VC has "big problems" (your words, top of p. 62). How is that nonvehicular? How is that a failure?

On p. 62 there is also some fantastic gibberish about what you call "neo-vehicularlists", but still nothing that makes it clear what you believe vehicular cycling to mean, except whatever it is, you have have great disdain for it.

There is another very revealing comment on p. 63:


Decades ago, the vehicular-cycling ideologue had high hopes for their cause: they hoped that cyclists would be granted not only equal rights, but also equal respect, on America's roadways, that cyclists would be able to cruise any city thoroughfare alongside -- or, to be more accurate, in front of -- cars and trucks, and that the whole concept of separate facilities would wither and die from lack of usefulness. The dream has failed to materialize. America is further from a vehicular-cycling utopia that it was twenty-five years ago.


The number of errors in those few dozen words are astounding. Among the most blatant:


For most practical purposes, cyclists have been granted equal rights to drivers of vehicles, subject to the same or very similar restrictions as are all drivers of slow moving vehicles (i.e., equal), in all 50 states. There is room for improvement, of course, but basically one can practice VC just about anywhere in the U.S. today.
There were no "hopes" for respect: it was recognized that the respect was already there from the start (as it still is). In EC on p. 300 Forester writes: "The basic thesis for all traffic cycling is this: If you make the motorist believe you are a vehicle, the motorist will treat you correctly without thinking about it, but if you get the motorist thinking you are different you will be subjected to the motorist's version of your rights. This is also true of traffic engineers and bicycle advocates who emphasize the difference between motorists and cyclists. Those people are more dangerous than the rare maniacs who try to run you off the road."
Indeed, the people that emphasize the difference between motorists and cyclists were more dangerous than the rare maniacs decades ago, and they still are in this millenium. It's very sad that you and your fans apparently do not recognize this.
The contention that "vehicular-cycling ideologues" hoped to be able to cruise in front of cars and trucks - without any qualification for appropriateness of situation to do so - is yet another indication of how much you misunderstand VC. The basic VC riding position - when faster same direction is present, between intersections, the lane is wide enough to be safely shared, and it is safe and reasonable to do so - is "about 3 feet to the right of passing traffic". Always was, always will be. The ability to take the lane in all other conditions has always been there, and still is. Are you not aware of any of this? If you are aware of all of it, then why make these silly statements in your book?
I don't know of any "VC idealogue", including Forester, a champion of useful bike paths, who ever hoped "the whole concept of separate facilities would wither and die from lack of usefulness". Again, this claim about vehicular cyclists is unsourced. One can only assume you made it up as you were typing, perhaps trying to meet the publisher's deadline?
America already was as close to a VC utopia 25 years ago as one could reasonably hope for, and it still is today. That's the point! Sure, there are too many potholes, and some signal detectors don't detect us, a few laws in a few states are unfair to cyclists, and now and then someone honks, but the difference between reality 25 years ago, reality today, and a "VC utopia" is, for all practical purposes, marginal at most.


The "dream" that you say failed to materialize, was never a dream. It was recognition of reality. Here then, here today. The only issue is whether it will still be here tomorrow.

been working up to that diatribe a long time, eh, mr. head?

I think Robert's got the dogmatic VC pegged pretty darn accurately.

Once again you imply you have some definition of "vehicular" in mind when used in the term "vehicular cycling", but you won't reveal what it is. I have long wondered what such a definition would look like that would be compatible with all of your apparent expectations for it.

I am simply using Forester's own definition, which defines 'vehicular cycling' in terms of a few basic principles. If you're not riding according to those principles, you're not 'vehicular cycling.' Of course one of the most prominent of these principles is to ride in a predictable fashion (in the eyes of nearby road users). Correct? Yes, correct. Changing lanes within an intersection, or very close to an intersection, or multiple times while approaching an intersection, clearly runs counter to this basic principle. Such lane-changing for the sake of expedience is classic aggressive driving, and is not a behavior that I appreciate in my fellow road users. Merging into a lane that is already occupied by other traffic clearly runs counter to this principle as well. If not technically illegal, it is a stupid, impatient move that causes confusion with other road users. It is not something that is seen as 'vehicular' to other road users, nor will it foster the idea that cyclists are drivers of vehicles with the same rights and responsibilities as motorists. To convey that notion to your fellow vehicle-drivers you would have waited patiently in a lane behind the last car in that lane, not aggressively changed lanes on top of other vehicles in the intersection.

Here's how you originally described this sequence:

I'm northbound on Regents, 4 lanes + bike lanes.
Signal up ahead is red, there are about 7 or 8 cars stopped in the right lane, 2 in the left lane. There are cars behind me, but they have to slow for the light, so I'm in the right lane, not the bike lane. It is tempting to merge into the bike lane and pass on the right. Of course, I don't...

I look back over my left shoulder and merge into the left lane. From that improved vantage point I can see that the first car at the red light in the right lane is positioned to go straight, while the next 4 or 5 cars are all either flashing right or right biased as if they plan to turn right at the light. As I approach the back of the 2nd car in line in the left lane, the light turns green. I'm still rolling, and they're about to go, so I look back over my right shoulder, merge to the right side of the left lane, look back again, and merge to the left side of the left lane, in a lane-sharing position to the left of the right turners. As I pass the 2nd car in line in the right lane (the 1st one turning right), I look back over my right shoulder and merge right, behind the first car who is now accelerating straight through the intersection.


Merging to the right side of the left lane then to the left side of the right lane, while cars occupied both...To me that sounds like a fancy way to say you impatiently split lanes at the red light, then got lucky when the car you assumed was going to turn right actually did turn right. Don't get me wrong, I do this stuff all day long while in messenger mode, but I don't claim it's 'vehicular cycling.' I understand that lane-splitting is one of the riskiest things I do in traffic. Not only was your passing unnecessary, unpredictable, and non-vehicular in a Foresterian sense, but it sounds like you must have come up beside the left lane cars on their right after the light turned green, violating another cardinal principle of VC. Not only did you pass this traffic on the right, but you did it in the door zone -- there are door zones on both sides of any vehicles stopped in traffic -- between lanes while vehicles other than yours were occupying both. In doing all this furious lane-changing you had to divert your eyes and look back four times, when you could have just cruised patiently in a single lane with eyes forward, 'visible and predictable.' While pedaling in the left lane you were apparently not aware of the possibility of drivers in the right lane stuck behind those right-turners who might try to bust quickly into the left lane to get around -- just as you did. These drivers have a very hard time noticing when cyclists are passing on their left; they have to see you in their mirror or by looking over their shoulder. I wrote a new paragraph about passing lines of stop-and-go traffic for my new edition.

It seems to me you violated any number of hallowed VC principles and defensive driving principles while taking advantage of your bicycle's peculiar properties to ride in a somewhat reckless fashion, just to save a few seconds. Welcome to the club!

As for 'filtering'...You claim, as many self-described VCers do, that filtering forward through stopped traffic at red lights is still consistent with 'vehicular cycling.' As long as there is plenty of space to do it safely you say. Well, I feel that I require almost zero space to filter forward safely at red lights. I can snake around just about any traffic jam, no matter how tangled, and find my way to the front. Is all filtering 'vehicular' or only when you do it? Is filtering on the right side of stopped traffic 'vehicular?' Is filtering through door zones 'vehicular?' Is filtering past moving traffic 'vehicular?' If filtering is not always 'vehicular,' please describe when it is 'vehicular' and when it is not.

Robert

By the way, you've claimed before that VC was defined in your book.


There is no clear definition of VC in your book. Not on p. 61 onward. Not in the introduction. There is nothing in your book that would allow anyone to complete the following sentence:

Robert's definition of vehicular-cycling is _____________________.

You write about VC as if the definition is obvious, but you never actually define it.

You do write vague stuff like this tidbit from p. 61, in a chapter entitled "vehicular cycling": "Just by obeying traditional traffic-law principles and riding predictably, a bicyclist will eliminate a large portion of the danger of urban cycling". From that one might infer that you define vc as "obeying traditional traffic-law principles and riding predictably", but you're not clear on it. Again, allow me to contrast your misrepresentation of VC with the fair approach of Forester critic Jeffrey Hiles, who actually quotes those he critiques:



http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html

There is not a hint in your book about the fact that there is much more to VC than only obeying the traffic laws. In fact, you constantly make comments that reflect your apparent interpretion (though you never clearly define it) of VC to mean strict adherence to the letter of the law, period, like in this excerpt from p. 62:



That Forester, Goodridge, Galen, Joejack, Daily Commute, Al or I or any other "vocal proponents of vehicular-cycling dogma" are not above using a bike path is evidence of how vehicular cycling is a failure? How so? You don't explain it, apparently assuming it's obvious. Hint: it's not, again, primarily stemming from the fact that you never clearly defined what you meant by VC in the first place, and the definition you imply is not consistent with any that I recognize as used by any VC proponents, or even by Forester critics such as Hiles.

You continue:



I've never seen a red light treated like a yield sign (except for right turns) by a vehicular cyclist. What is your source for this (most if not all of the basis for your opinion about vehicular cyclists and vehicular cycling is conspicuously and unprofessionally unsourced). Other than that, basically you're saying that vehicular cyclists acting like typical drivers of motorcycles indicates that VC has "big problems" (your words, top of p. 62). How is that nonvehicular? How is that a failure?

On p. 62 there is also some fantastic gibberish about what you call "neo-vehicularlists", but still nothing that makes it clear what you believe vehicular cycling to mean, except whatever it is, you have have great disdain for it.

There is another very revealing comment on p. 63:



The number of errors in those few dozen words are astounding. Among the most blatant:


For most practical purposes, cyclists have been granted equal rights to drivers of vehicles, subject to the same or very similar restrictions as are all drivers of slow moving vehicles (i.e., equal), in all 50 states. There is room for improvement, of course, but basically one can practice VC just about anywhere in the U.S. today.
There were no "hopes" for respect: it was recognized that the respect was already there from the start (as it still is). In EC on p. 300 Forester writes: "The basic thesis for all traffic cycling is this: If you make the motorist believe you are a vehicle, the motorist will treat you correctly without thinking about it, but if you get the motorist thinking you are different you will be subjected to the motorist's version of your rights. This is also true of traffic engineers and bicycle advocates who emphasize the difference between motorists and cyclists. Those people are more dangerous than the rare maniacs who try to run you off the road."
Indeed, the people that emphasize the difference between motorists and cyclists were more dangerous than the rare maniacs decades ago, and they still are in this millenium. It's very sad that you and your fans apparently do not recognize this.
The contention that "vehicular-cycling ideologues" hoped to be able to cruise in front of cars and trucks - without any qualification for appropriateness of situation to do so - is yet another indication of how much you misunderstand VC. The basic VC riding position - when faster same direction is present, between intersections, the lane is wide enough to be safely shared, and it is safe and reasonable to do so - is "about 3 feet to the right of passing traffic". Always was, always will be. The ability to take the lane in all other conditions has always been there, and still is. Are you not aware of any of this? If you are aware of all of it, then why make these silly statements in your book?
I don't know of any "VC idealogue", including Forester, a champion of useful bike paths, who ever hoped "the whole concept of separate facilities would wither and die from lack of usefulness". Again, this claim about vehicular cyclists is unsourced. One can only assume you made it up as you were typing, perhaps trying to meet the publisher's deadline?
America already was as close to a VC utopia 25 years ago as one could reasonably hope for, and it still is today. That's the point! Sure, there are too many potholes, and some signal detectors don't detect us, a few laws in a few states are unfair to cyclists, and now and then someone honks, but the difference between reality 25 years ago, reality today, and a "VC utopia" is, for all practical purposes, marginal at most.


The "dream" that you say failed to materialize, was never a dream. It was recognition of reality. Here then, here today. The only issue is whether it will still be here tomorrow.


Isn't this post recycled from another equally mind-numbing thread? And didn't I already answer it there? If you can't come up with new material, why should I.

R.