Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Cyclist Inferiority - discussion

Sorry dude, this is the world AS IT IS, not some utopia you cooked up in your mind. Cyclists are not equal users of the road, if we were, you wouldn't have anything to 'advocate'.
BTW 'should not' are your words...I said 'do not', as in reflecting the world as it is. I guess putting words in other's mouths is your idea of 'honest debate'. :rolleyes:

Which is, of course, the perfect reason for cyclists to fight back and regain the equal status that the rules of the road give us, but that too many cyclists have seen fit to relinquish.

And do you see anything wrong with giving drivers of faster vehicles an advantage such as this? Seriously, why must the advantage always be for the cyclist? Just because we are in the minority? We have enough advantages over motorized traffic, such as being able to avoid traffic jams. But there would be at least one advantage I see for cyclists with such a lane. The existance of the lane alone would be a reminder to motorists that cyclists could be present. If there weren't enough cyclists using the road in the first place, then the bike lane would have not been put there. So the fact that it is there is a reminder to them to be cautious.


Well, I don't know the street you used for an example, but I have to disagree with you on this point. The existence of the bike lane alone is a function in and of itself, it is a constant reminder to motorists that cyclists use this road enough that the city installed a bike lane. I know around here a bike lane would allow me (barring lane splitting) to pass 100 to 300 feet of traffic at plenty of stop lights on my way to work every day. It would also cut back on the "get off the road" and "get on the sidewalk" hollars from cars. It would also allow me a more comfortable lane to travel in because, let's face it, sharing a lane with 60mph traffic that is in a hurry to get home to watch American Idol is not fun, so I use the shoulder, which is cluttered and not smooth. A bike lane would be cared for as part of the road in this example and not just a place to pile up snow. This is just one example.


Or, you could read what I just wrote about the lane being a constant reminder and a more comfortable place to travel. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't as well. Maybe you should think about what other people might want before you start preaching against it. It seems clear to me that more people want bike lanes/paths than not. And this is pretty much how our country is run... it is a democracy you know. Bike lanes will not take away our rights to use the road either, people who think that are being asenine.

All this business that motorists have to be reminded that a cyclist might be somewhere ahead is just nonsense, so often repeated that people believe it. I know of no study that demonstrates that a motorist will more likely observe a cyclist on a street with bike lanes than on a street without bike lanes. While this has been claimed for decades, nobody has made a study of this situation. Oh, yes, there have been studies in which motorists have claimed that the presence of a bike-lane stripe will make them more likely to see a cyclist when one is present, but none of these "interviews" has actually tested the claim.

Furthermore, I have cycled the roads since 1937, and, so far as I know, I have never had a problem with not being seen by a motorist from behind; never so much as a braking squeal from recognition too late. Furthermore, I have motored on the roads from 1946, and I don't have a problem seeing a cyclist ahead at normal city speeds, whether or not there is a bike-lane stripe. Of course, I am probably less likely than average to suffer from this complaint, if it exists at all.


The claim that only a bike lane enables filtering forward at stop lights is nonsense. We had filtered forward long before there were bike lanes; all that is needed is sufficient width of the outside through lane.

The idea that bike lanes are justified because the majority wants them is irrelevant. Highway and traffic design should be determined by what operates best, not by public opinion. Bike lanes contradict the rules of the road, making both motoring and cycling more difficult to understand and therefore more dangerous. Bike lanes remove from cyclists some of the rights granted by the rules of the road, most important among them the right to equal consideration by other drivers. The desire for bike lanes is, in fact, the prime example of the cyclist-inferiority attitude; it enables motorists to justify shoving cyclists aside, and it enables cyclists to feel that being shoved aside protects them.

pedestrians also react to the presence of cars ("cars," not motorists... cars are seen as impersonal behemoths... the driver inside is often not seen well enough to "humanize" the vehicle). Peds are often seen running across streets where they have a clear walk signal. Motorcyclists are also treated poorly and act in reaction to "cars." So clearly the syndrome... is not "cyclist inferiority," but "motorist superiority" or worse: "automotive superiority," the latter more the case, due to the dehumanizing nature of the auto."

The same situation applies, in my mind at least, when I drive my car on interstates with high numbers of tractor-trailers. I do not care for driving in close proximity to them, it's nerve wracking. Size, power and speed rules.

All this business that motorists have to be reminded that a cyclist might be somewhere ahead is just nonsense, so often repeated that people believe it. I know of no study that demonstrates that a motorist will more likely observe a cyclist on a street with bike lanes than on a street without bike lanes. While this has been claimed for decades, nobody has made a study of this situation. Oh, yes, there have been studies in which motorists have claimed that the presence of a bike-lane stripe will make them more likely to see a cyclist when one is present, but none of these "interviews" has actually tested the claim.

Furthermore, I have cycled the roads since 1937, and, so far as I know, I have never had a problem with not being seen by a motorist from behind; never so much as a braking squeal from recognition too late. Furthermore, I have motored on the roads from 1946, and I don't have a problem seeing a cyclist ahead at normal city speeds, whether or not there is a bike-lane stripe. Of course, I am probably less likely than average to suffer from this complaint, if it exists at all.


The claim that only a bike lane enables filtering forward at stop lights is nonsense. We had filtered forward long before there were bike lanes; all that is needed is sufficient width of the outside through lane.

The idea that bike lanes are justified because the majority wants them is irrelevant. Highway and traffic design should be determined by what operates best, not by public opinion. Bike lanes contradict the rules of the road, making both motoring and cycling more difficult to understand and therefore more dangerous. Bike lanes remove from cyclists some of the rights granted by the rules of the road, most important among them the right to equal consideration by other drivers. The desire for bike lanes is, in fact, the prime example of the cyclist-inferiority attitude; it enables motorists to justify shoving cyclists aside, and it enables cyclists to feel that being shoved aside protects them.


No sir, you have taken this too far in your mind... the "recognition" that is mentioned regarding Bike Lanes is simply that we cyclists should indeed belong on the street vice the often shouted "get on the sidewalk."

That is about the only thing that BL do... show motorists that bikes do not belong on the sidewalk. Without that line, motorists often believe that the taxes and fees they pay give them exclusive rights to the road. An often declared statement by motorists is that cyclists don't have licenses nor pay taxes and fees, so therefore should not be on the streets... a patently false belief held by many motorists... but since there is very little in the way of information to tell motorists otherwise... that is the attitude they often have and adhere to.

There also seem to be a pervasive anti-cyclist attitude among non-drivers and from drivers/passengers who are not even affected by a cyclists. And even from other cyclists who think they are a different kind of cyclist than the other.

For example I get verbally 'taunted' by elementary and middle school students on my ride home more so that I get honk/yells from motorist. I've overheard negative comments about cyclists appearance from people far from a road. I've even had insults hurled at me from kids on bikes as I am passing thru the playground path.

Certainly the under drivering age anti-cyclist may come from their driving parents.

Al

No sir, you have taken this too far in your mind... the "recognition" that is mentioned regarding Bike Lanes is simply that we cyclists should indeed belong on the street vice the often shouted "get on the sidewalk."

That is about the only thing that BL do... show motorists that bikes do not belong on the sidewalk. Without that line, motorists often believe that the taxes and fees they pay give them exclusive rights to the road. An often declared statement by motorists is that cyclists don't have licenses nor pay taxes and fees, so therefore should not be on the streets... a patently false belief held by many motorists... but since there is very little in the way of information to tell motorists otherwise... that is the attitude they often have and adhere to.

So what do bike lanes do for roads that are not wide enough to have bike lanes (and thus are missing any bike lane stripes/stencils) which make up the vast majority of the roads I have seen?

So what do bike lanes do for roads that are not wide enough to have bike lanes (and thus are missing any bike lane stripes/stencils) which make up the vast majority of the roads I have seen?


Nothing, they are not there, how could they "do something" in their absence? However, on roads such as this (and much like the major arterial arterial going through my neighborhood) motorists often resort to "get on the sidewalk" to cyclists riding in the lane (out of door zones).

Nothing, they are not there, how could they "do something" in their absence? However, on roads such as this (and much like the major arterial arterial going through my neighborhood) motorists often resort to "get on the sidewalk" to cyclists riding in the lane (out of door zones).
I think what JJ was getting at is that if BLs 'legitimize' cyclist using road, what does that do to the perception of cyclist using roads with no BLs, especially in a community where there are often BL'd roads.

I have heard the discussion/question if cyclist are allowed to use roads with no BLs.

Al

No sir, you have taken this too far in your mind... the "recognition" that is mentioned regarding Bike Lanes is simply that we cyclists should indeed belong on the street vice the often shouted "get on the sidewalk."

That is about the only thing that BL do... show motorists that bikes do not belong on the sidewalk. Without that line, motorists often believe that the taxes and fees they pay give them exclusive rights to the road. An often declared statement by motorists is that cyclists don't have licenses nor pay taxes and fees, so therefore should not be on the streets... a patently false belief held by many motorists... but since there is very little in the way of information to tell motorists otherwise... that is the attitude they often have and adhere to.
Gene,

Have you read this thread? Mr. Forester is not taking this too far in his mind. Others are contending that a bike lane helps remind motorists to look for bicyclists.

Gene,

Have you read this thread? Mr. Forester is not taking this too far in his mind. Others are contending that a bike lane helps remind motorists to look for bicyclists.

I have read that, and I somewhat disagree. Bike lanes serve nothing more than as guides to motorists... who tend to try to "stay between the lines." Motorists will not "look for cyclists" in a BL any more than they would any other thing... Motorists in general are herd creatures that tend to simply follow the flock. Motorists are somewhat predictable in that manner... however individuals may act in unpredictable ways.

Motorists tend to only look out for themselves. They will not look out for anything else, unless they are somehow motivated to do so. BL at best guide motorists to keep off the curb. This does create a zone for cyclists... but it also pins cyclists against the far right. Both motorists and cyclists tend to abuse BL by not actually merging for right turns... both do this due to their lack of understanding of how BL are supposed to be used and a lack of understanding of the rights of cyclists to use the entire road. (most cyclists are unaware of this too... sadly). Cyclists too tend to only look out for themselves, but due to their more fragile nature**, this also involves keeping a watch on motorists.

**(not being protected by a thin metal shell)

Sadly both groups could do a far better job with just a bit of training and respect for other road users...

But that is not likely to happen any time soon.

The roads will be safer for cyclists when there are more cyclists on the roads.

Cyclist Inferiority Syndrome is kind of like Gingivitis. It's made up. Regardless, there are people who do not feel comfortable riding on the roads. We can either teach people (by example or classes or whatever) to ride on the roads (adaptive or vehicular, take your pick). Motorists have to understand that cyclists belong on the road. Motorists must drive with care. They don't have a choice. The police must know, understand, and enforce the laws. Cyclists must follow the laws too. Some of us bend them a bit, but so do motorists.

Or we can create segregated cycling facilities, hide on the MUPs, and let ourselves be forced off the roads because they're 'too dangerous'. 'Too dangerous' is nothing more than code for 'get out of my way, jerkwads'. And don't get me wrong, a MUP isn't a bad thing. But MUPs are recreation and transportation. Just ask the joggers, roller bladers, and dog walkers. A jogger once told me to 'get off the bike path'.

I admit that I'm lucky. My commute isn't that long, the roads are in fairly good shape, and the drivers are generally good. Sometimes I'll run across an idiot who has no patience, but I rarely get yelled at or harassed in any meaningful way.

But part of the reason I wear the fancy gear and ride a road bike is that I want to look like cycling to work is a choice. I've been harrassed more when I've been on my mtb in non-cycling clothes. Don't know why, just happens that way. So I want to look like I belong out there. YMMV. (There are other reasons I ride a road bike and have the fancy gear, but this, I admit, is one of them. And it probably says more about me than anything else, but I feel more comfortable in roadie gear.)

Some of you have absolutely no fear when riding in traffic. Maybe fear is the wrong word. Apprehension might be better. That's fine. I feel mostly comfortable riding in traffic. I'm never quite altogether comfortable. I'm okay with that. And maybe I'm nitpicking about what 'comfortable' means.

There are certainly concepts of superior vs. inferior road users out there, not held by all of course.
This does affect both the behaviors and expectations of some motorists and cyclists.

http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html#oct8 (scroll up to start at the begining)

Al

The Nazis are alive and well my foolish friend. And just like slavery, the Nazis were capable of making their victims think of themselves as inferior.
And the really insidious part, which I think applies to a lot of cyclists on this forum, is those who think of themselves as inferior often don't realize that they're thinking this.

I have read that, and I somewhat disagree.
Well, then why take Forester to task for disagreeing with it? Why not take pj7 (or whoever it was) to task for asserting it?

Well, then why take Forester to task for disagreeing with it? Why not take pj7 (or whoever it was) to task for asserting it?

Well as you just pointed out, I have no idea who postulated the original idea, AND there was more to what Forester said than just that idea of "bike lanes tell motorists that cyclists are ahead."

While I disagree with that latter notion, I do see some utility in BL, and Forester was countering against all BL, similar to your arguments.

While I fully admit that BL are no safer, and offer no notification to motorists (who don't care anyway), they do indeed foster the image that cyclists should be in the street (albeit NOT trapped behind that line) vice on the sidewalk, and they do guide motorists (who habitually "stay between the lines".)

Now Forester's further declaration of "never hearing locking brakes" smacks of your earlier "never hear honks" claims... I can only wonder about the frequency and locations in which he has ridden, but I know better than to take him to task for that, and can only suggest that like you, he has selective memory or has lived a charmed life.

However as a sidenote, I do note in another thread that Forester mentions motorists should drive in accordance with the laws and thus should not "speed around corners" where they might encounter slow cyclists. I find it quite interesting that Forester quotes law pertaining to the motor vehicle and in support of VC cycling, yet you and he distain laws that pertain to other areas, such as bike lane use. So are motorists only to obey the law when VC cyclists are in the area? Or should motorists also be aware of and obey the laws as they pertain to all activities on the road?

Now Forester's further declaration of "never hearing locking brakes" smacks of your earlier "never hear honks" claims... I can only wonder about the frequency and locations in which he has ridden, but I know better than to take him to task for that, and can only suggest that like you, he has selective memory or has lived a charmed life.
Are you telling me you've experienced someone coming from behind who noticed you so late that he had to hit the brakes so hard you heard them squealing? How many times has this happened to you?


However as a sidenote, I do note in another thread that Forester mentions motorists should drive in accordance with the laws and thus should not "speed around corners" where they might encounter slow cyclists. I find it quite interesting that Forester quotes law pertaining to the motor vehicle and in support of VC cycling, yet you and he distain laws that pertain to other areas, such as bike lane use. So are motorists only to obey the law when VC cyclists are in the area? Or should motorists also be aware of and obey the laws as they pertain to all activities on the road? How many dozens of times have we discussed this? Why do you bring it up as if it's the first time? I swear, it's like Groundhog Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_%28film%29) around here.

There are underlying principles that the vehicular rules of the road are based on. Most laws are consistent with these principles and rules. One such law is the "drive at a speed that is safe for conditions" law that Forester was referring to. There are also laws that are inconsistent with these rules. One example of such a law is the OR/AZ bike lane law that requires right turning motorists to turn right across a through (bike) lane without merging into it first. Another such law is the CA bike lane law that requires right-turning drivers to merge into a stripe-demarcated space that is too narrow for standard-width vehicles.

Vehicular cycling advocates support laws that are consistent with the vehicular principles and rules of the road that form the basis for most of our laws, and oppose laws that are in conflict with them. Is this difficult to understand and appreciate?

Are you telling me you've experienced someone coming from behind who noticed you so late that he had to hit the brakes so hard you heard them squealing? How many times has this happened to you?


A few... while cycling up steep mountain grades...

No bike lanes were involved however.

And there was no other place to be. This is not to say that the motorist wasn't at fault... as some seem to quite enjoy pushing up speed well beyond their sightlines while driving narrow mountain grades. Of course back in those days I was just as guilty, and would race motorists down those same grades and pass them at speeds approaching 50MPH+ when they had to slow down on the curves...


How many dozens of times have we discussed this? Why do you bring it up as if it's the first time? I swear, it's like Groundhog Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_%28film%29) around here.

There are underlying principles that the vehicular rules of the road are based on. Most laws are consistent with these principles and rules. One such law is the "drive at a speed that is safe for conditions" law that Forester was referring to. There are also laws that are inconsistent with these rules. One example of such a law is the OR/AZ bike lane law that requires right turning motorists to turn right across a through (bike) lane without merging into it first. Another such law is the CA bike lane law that requires right-turning drivers to merge into a stripe-demarcated space that is too narrow for standard-width vehicles.

Vehicular cycling advocates support laws that are consistent with the vehicular principles and rules of the road that form the basis for most of our laws, and oppose laws that are in conflict with them. Is this difficult to understand and appreciate?


It is difficult to understand in that there are no "vehicular principles and rules of the road that form the basis for most of our laws." Go to other countries such as Vietnam, or China and see what "vehicular principles and rules of the road" they use there. The fact is that many of our laws are abitrary, but over time have been ultimately somewhat accepted... Throw new rules in there, and the general public will again fail to adhere as it takes time for these things to "trickle down." (take note of things like sharrows or car pool lanes or the new stoplights in El Cajon... and tell me that these are well and readily accepted as they adhere to "vehicular principles and rules of the road.")

Here is one very clear example of how arbitrary the rules are... why do we drive on the right while part of the world drives on the left?

Oh and that "narrow stripe demarcated space" that motorists seem to have such a hard time using... they seem quite fine using it when it suits their needs... It is only when they have to "merge" with other "inferior" traffic that the use of such space rankles them.

So I guess you get to continue to play Groundhog day... Until you get it right.

But part of the reason I wear the fancy gear and ride a road bike is that I want to look like cycling to work is a choice. I've been harrassed more when I've been on my mtb in non-cycling clothes. Don't know why, just happens that way. So I want to look like I belong out there. YMMV. (There are other reasons I ride a road bike and have the fancy gear, but this, I admit, is one of them. And it probably says more about me than anything else, but I feel more comfortable in roadie gear.)
IMO all the full kit does is further segregate you from the motorists, perhaps even more so than bike lanes. I want the message to motorists to be that anyone can ride a bike, in their street clothes, and not that you need a bunch of expensive racing gear to do so.

No sir, you have taken this too far in your mind... the "recognition" that is mentioned regarding Bike Lanes is simply that we cyclists should indeed belong on the street vice the often shouted "get on the sidewalk."

That is about the only thing that BL do... show motorists that bikes do not belong on the sidewalk. Without that line, motorists often believe that the taxes and fees they pay give them exclusive rights to the road. An often declared statement by motorists is that cyclists don't have licenses nor pay taxes and fees, so therefore should not be on the streets... a patently false belief held by many motorists... but since there is very little in the way of information to tell motorists otherwise... that is the attitude they often have and adhere to.

So, in your opinion, the real function of bike lanes is to tell motorists that cyclists have the right to use that narrow strip of roadway? Indeed, that is part of my view, also. That view, by restricting cyclists to that narrow strip of the roadway, prohibits cyclists from operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That is why I oppose it. Cyclists should have the full rights to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

You, because you worry about what individual motorists think (which doesn't bother me at all), are willing to accept the inferior position and inferior role that motorists have chosen to give you. Better to fight back and oppose the governmental power (bike planning and the like) that creates this situation.

So, in your opinion, the real function of bike lanes is to tell motorists that cyclists have the right to use that narrow strip of roadway? Indeed, that is part of my view, also. That view, by restricting cyclists to that narrow strip of the roadway, prohibits cyclists from operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That is why I oppose it. Cyclists should have the full rights to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

You, because you worry about what individual motorists think (which doesn't bother me at all), are willing to accept the inferior position and inferior role that motorists have chosen to give you. Better to fight back and oppose the governmental power (bike planning and the like) that creates this situation.

While I am not willing to accept the inferior position, and regularly demonstrate a willingness to use all of the road I need; I also believe that without that narrow strip, motorists would give me nothing... as is often demonstrated to me on roads without BL where I am taunted to "get on the sidewalk." And my view of "govermental power" is such that I note with distain that the government often says one thing and does something quite different... (ask any indian native to this country). I also note that what the government does and says often does not trickle down to the people... otherwise laws written that grant rights to cyclists would be well known by the majority users of the road, and stupid stripes would not be needed at all. When all motorists know and heed cyclists' rights, then the BL stripes can be readily erased.

All this business that motorists have to be reminded that a cyclist might be somewhere ahead is just nonsense, so often repeated that people believe it. I know of no study that demonstrates that a motorist will more likely observe a cyclist on a street with bike lanes than on a street without bike lanes. While this has been claimed for decades, nobody has made a study of this situation. Oh, yes, there have been studies in which motorists have claimed that the presence of a bike-lane stripe will make them more likely to see a cyclist when one is present, but none of these "interviews" has actually tested the claim.

It was never told to me. I came up with this conclusion on my own, as a motorist. I never heard it "repeated" and don't need a damned study to tell me about what I percieve. I am capable of making up my own mind without the need of 30 year old studies and statistics that barely hold a candle to todays standards.



Furthermore, I have cycled the roads since 1937, and, so far as I know, I have never had a problem with not being seen by a motorist from behind; never so much as a braking squeal from recognition too late. Furthermore, I have motored on the roads from 1946, and I don't have a problem seeing a cyclist ahead at normal city speeds, whether or not there is a bike-lane stripe. Of course, I am probably less likely than average to suffer from this complaint, if it exists at all.

And ironically. I have never had a problem while riding on the shoulders or bike paths. And as a motorist, I never had any problems seeing a cyclist while they were on the shoulder or in crossing the street while on a bike path.



The claim that only a bike lane enables filtering forward at stop lights is nonsense. We had filtered forward long before there were bike lanes; all that is needed is sufficient width of the outside through lane.

Care to talk about this in more depth? Are you talking about filtering forward on the right? Where there is no lane? Isn't passing on the right illegal in most places? Isn't splitting lanes illegla in most places? Seems to go against your "ride by the rules of the road" idea.
Please tell me how I can filter forward in a line of traffic where no bike lane is present, if the laws do not allow me to split lanes or pass on the right. and do it legally.



The idea that bike lanes are justified because the majority wants them is irrelevant. Highway and traffic design should be determined by what operates best, not by public opinion. Bike lanes contradict the rules of the road, making both motoring and cycling more difficult to understand and therefore more dangerous. Bike lanes remove from cyclists some of the rights granted by the rules of the road, most important among them the right to equal consideration by other drivers. The desire for bike lanes is, in fact, the prime example of the cyclist-inferiority attitude; it enables motorists to justify shoving cyclists aside, and it enables cyclists to feel that being shoved aside protects them.
So you think our current form of highways are what works the best? A small section of freeway collapsed in California recently and all but destroyed commuting travel. Is that the best? To rely on such things?
Shoulda coulda woulda pal. But this is a democracy. And public opinion has more weight than the ideas of a few.

Here is a video of a cyclist filtering to right of a line of cars in a medium wide outside lane. Legal or not they had the room to do so even without a BL stripe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tTtZ6svWgk

Note the vid qualitiy is poor so its hard to see them, I intentionally swerved right a few times trying to get sightlines of them. (I normaly don't ride so swervy). You may have to play a couple times to see the white shirt filtering foward.

Note how far right they are when the bus passes them. I know, I know, one could just as well use this as as an example of how bike lanes would get them further from curb. Before one goes there note I have video of identical riding position of cyclist when there is a BL stripe present.

Al

It was never told to me. I came up with this conclusion on my own, as a motorist. I never heard it "repeated" and don't need a damned study to tell me about what I percieve. I am capable of making up my own mind without the need of 30 year old studies and statistics that barely hold a candle to todays standards.


And ironically. I have never had a problem while riding on the shoulders or bike paths. And as a motorist, I never had any problems seeing a cyclist while they were on the shoulder or in crossing the street while on a bike path.


Care to talk about this in more depth? Are you talking about filtering forward on the right? Where there is no lane? Isn't passing on the right illegal in most places? Isn't splitting lanes illegla in most places? Seems to go against your "ride by the rules of the road" idea.
Please tell me how I can filter forward in a line of traffic where no bike lane is present, if the laws do not allow me to split lanes or pass on the right. and do it legally.


So you think our current form of highways are what works the best? A small section of freeway collapsed in California recently and all but destroyed commuting travel. Is that the best? To rely on such things?
Shoulda coulda woulda pal. But this is a democracy. And public opinion has more weight than the ideas of a few.

The latest discussion of filtering forward occurred on this list (VC) in the last two weeks or so. It is not worth restarting it.

The collapse of a bridge in Oakland is irrelevant to discussion of the virtues, or not, of bikeways.

Your claim that votes should control engineering totally negates the value all the technical, engineering, and scientific societies. If you want to live in medieval times or earlier, go right ahead, but you will largely be alone.

The latest discussion of filtering forward occurred on this list (VC) in the last two weeks or so. It is not worth restarting it.
Nice way to avoid a simple question.
You opened the can of worms pal when you said filtering was easy without bike lanes. All I wanted was Mr. Legal Man himself to tell me how to do it in the rest of America.


The collapse of a bridge in Oakland is irrelevant to discussion of the virtues, or not, of bikeways.
Once again, you are holding the can opener here. You brought up our highway and roadway system into this.


Your claim that votes should control engineering totally negates the value all the technical, engineering, and scientific societies. If you want to live in medieval times or earlier, go right ahead, but you will largely be alone.
*Should* nothing. The do control the way things are done. Welcome to the real world bub.
As far as where do I want to live? I want to live in a place where I can enjoy what I do so long as it is legal and not have to put up with people like you advocating against it.

Nice, nice way to avoid every question and point posed to you. Maybe you have Question Avoidance Syndrome.

Here is a video of a cyclist filtering to right of a line of cars in a medium wide outside lane. Legal or not they had the room to do so even without a BL stripe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tTtZ6svWgk

Note the vid qualitiy is poor so its hard to see them, I intentionally swerved right a few times trying to get sightlines of them. (I normaly don't ride so swervy). You may have to play a couple times to see the white shirt filtering foward.

Note how far right they are when the bus passes them. I know, I know, one could just as well use this as as an example of how bike lanes would get them further from curb. Before one goes there note I have video of identical riding position of cyclist when there is a BL stripe present.

Al
Thanks for the video(s). I love seeing the ones you take, some of them are pretty interesting.
So what I see in that video and understand from the one with the bike lane is that it is possible to filter on the right with or without a bike lane. That's fine, and cool. But for someone who wants to ride using the VROTR as their shield (meaning they want to obey all the laws), which one of them would be the right or wrong?
Personally, I don't ride in bike lanes myself. But if I wanted to avoid any tickets, or make sure I was "in the right" in case of some sort of accident, which one would best suit me? The bike lane one of course.
If VC teaches that we should follow all the rules of the road in order to gain acceptance by motorists, then why do the VC guys say that it is OK to filter? Obviously passing a vehicle on the right in the same lane is illegal in most places, and lane splitting is illegal in most places as well.
What a conundrum eh?

Nice way to avoid a simple question.
You opened the can of worms pal when you said filtering was easy without bike lanes. All I wanted was Mr. Legal Man himself to tell me how to do it in the rest of America.

Once again, you are holding the can opener here. You brought up our highway and roadway system into this.

*Should* nothing. The do control the way things are done. Welcome to the real world bub.
As far as where do I want to live? I want to live in a place where I can enjoy what I do so long as it is legal and not have to put up with people like you advocating against it.

Nice, nice way to avoid every question and point posed to you. Maybe you have Question Avoidance Syndrome.

You have been reduced to irrelevant illogicality. I don't know where you live, I don't care where you live, and I have made no advocacy against, or, for that matter, for, whatever or wherever it is.

You have been reduced to irrelevant illogicality. I don't know where you live, I don't care where you live, and I have made no advocacy against, or, for that matter, for, whatever or wherever it is.
Maybe you should shut the window before any more of your unsubstantuated claims fly out it.
And your post goes to show, you just don't care. You don't care where I live or how it differs from where you live. You are basing your claims off your experiences and you don't care that the rest of America is not like sunny california full of sunshine and fuzzy bunnies.
Wanna know what I am advocating for? I'm advocating for people like you to leave the rest of the people alone who are safe and happy in doing what they do. I'm advocating for common sense, and not some religeous cult whos sole purpose is to make one man money.

Still, you have avoided my question again.
You say that VC is the best way to ride because it is safe and legal right? Then you said something to the fact that we had filtering long before bike lanes. i'm asking you again. How do you legally filter?

Maybe you should shut the window before any more of your unsubstantuated claims fly out it.
And your post goes to show, you just don't care. You don't care where I live or how it differs from where you live. You are basing your claims off your experiences and you don't care that the rest of America is not like sunny california full of sunshine and fuzzy bunnies.
Wanna know what I am advocating for? I'm advocating for people like you to leave the rest of the people alone who are safe and happy in doing what they do. I'm advocating for common sense, and not some religeous cult whos sole purpose is to make one man money.

Still, you have avoided my question again.
You say that VC is the best way to ride because it is safe and legal right? Then you said something to the fact that we had filtering long before bike lanes. i'm asking you again. How do you legally filter?

If there is room alongside the waiting cars, then just move up.

Maybe you should shut the window before any more of your unsubstantuated claims fly out it.
And your post goes to show, you just don't care. You don't care where I live or how it differs from where you live. You are basing your claims off your experiences and you don't care that the rest of America is not like sunny california full of sunshine and fuzzy bunnies.
Wanna know what I am advocating for? I'm advocating for people like you to leave the rest of the people alone who are safe and happy in doing what they do. I'm advocating for common sense, and not some religeous cult whos sole purpose is to make one man money.

Still, you have avoided my question again.
You say that VC is the best way to ride because it is safe and legal right? Then you said something to the fact that we had filtering long before bike lanes. i'm asking you again. How do you legally filter?

You are ignorant. I don't care where you live, what you do, or anything about that. I have cycled extensively in a great many different places in the USA, and some in Europe also, and over many decades. I fully appreciate the kinds of differences that exist.

It's always nice to be called ignorant by someone who has little understanding of basic human nature and the rules of civility.

;)

If there is room alongside the waiting cars, then just move up.
Are you saying to move up on their right? In the same lane they are in? Where at in the rules of the road does it say that is legal?

You are ignorant. I don't care where you live, what you do, or anything about that. I have cycled extensively in a great many different places in the USA, and some in Europe also, and over many decades. I fully appreciate the kinds of differences that exist.
Just like a VCist, or any other cult leader.
You don't care, that's the point. Just buy more books and pay me to speak at your get togethers.

It is difficult to understand in that there are no "vehicular principles and rules of the road that form the basis for most of our laws." Go to other countries such as Vietnam, or China and see what "vehicular principles and rules of the road" they use there. What relevance do the principles and rules used in "other countries such as Vietnam, or China" have to the "vehicular principles and rules of the road that form the basis for most of our laws?"


The fact is that many of our laws are abitrary, but over time have been ultimately somewhat accepted... If you think the vehicular laws are arbitrary, that explains much (hint: they are anything but). If the laws were arbitrary, and not based on a common set of principles and rules, then they would be nearly impossible to follow.

The more consistent the new laws are with the principles and rules existing laws are based on, the easier they are to follow.
The more arbitrary they are, the more difficult it becomes to follow them.


Throw new rules in there, and the general public will again fail to adhere as it takes time for these things to "trickle down." (take note of things like sharrows or car pool lanes or the new stoplights in El Cajon... and tell me that these are well and readily accepted as they adhere to "vehicular principles and rules of the road.") What I'm saying is that the extent to which the new laws are consistent with "vehicular principles and rules of the road" is directly proporitional to how quickly and easily they are adopted.


Here is one very clear example of how arbitrary the rules are... why do we drive on the right while part of the world drives on the left? That is the one classic arbitrary rule. The fact that half the world is one way and the other half is the other illustrates this. But despite that, all the other laws are so consistent that someone from a country that drivers on the right simply needs to flip his understanding from right to left and vice versa, and everything works. An interesting example of this is reading John Franklin's Cyclecraft.



Oh and that "narrow stripe demarcated space" that motorists seem to have such a hard time using... they seem quite fine using it when it suits their needs... It is only when they have to "merge" with other "inferior" traffic that the use of such space rankles them. Drivers are willing to drive in gores and all kind of odd spaces in which it is illegal to drive when it suits there needs. That's very different from understanding that that is where they are supposed to drive.


So I guess you get to continue to play Groundhog day... Until you get it right. There is nothing new here. You just keep forgetting it.

You are ignorant...
Nothing sums up VC-ist philosophy more succinctly than this representative comment from The Great One. VC-ists know it all and everyone else is either ignorant or mentally lacking. Mr. Forester, your highness, you should be quite proud of the cult of wackiness you have inspired. Your seemingly infinite arrogance has served you and your followers well.

Are you saying to move up on their right? In the same lane they are in? Where at in the rules of the road does it say that is legal? It doesn't say it's legal, but it also doesn't say it's illegal.

Surely you know anything is legal unless it is illegal, not the other way around.

There is nothing new here. You just keep forgetting it.

No, just like the movie. You will keep "playing" over and over again until you get it right.

It doesn't say it's legal, but it also doesn't say it's illegal.

Surely you know anything is legal unless it is illegal, not the other way around.
The last time I checked, passing on the right on single lane roads or in a shared lane is generally illegal unless specific legislation makes it legal.

Surely you know anything is legal unless it is illegal, not the other way around.
The last time I checked, passing on the right on single lane roads or in a shared lane is generally illegal unless specific legislation makes it legal. I must have missed the constitional amendment that made passing on the right an exception to this basic principle of free societies.

Passing on the right, like any other behavior, is legal unless there is a law that says it's illegal. Are you saying there is a law that says it is illegal to pass on the right? What state? What's the law?

Not in California.


Passing on the Right
21754. The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:

(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn.

(b) Upon a highway within a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in the direction of travel.

(c) Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width and clearly marked for two or more lines of moving traffic in the direction of travel.

(d) Upon a one-way street.

(e) Upon a highway divided into two roadways where traffic is restricted to one direction upon each of such roadways.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21754.htm

The last time I checked, passing on the right on single lane roads or in a shared lane is generally illegal unless specific legislation makes it legal.

It is specifically not illegal here in CA. There are no laws denying it and the CHP states that it is not illegal on their web site... they do not recommend it, but it is not illegal.

Relevant California Code (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c3a3.htm)

Passing on the Right
21754. The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn.
(b) Upon a highway within a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in the direction of travel.
(c) Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width and clearly marked for two or more lines of moving traffic in the direction of travel.
(d) Upon a one-way street.
(e) Upon a highway divided into two roadways where traffic is restricted to one direction upon each of such roadways.
The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a slow moving vehicle from the duty to drive as closely as practicable to the right hand edge of the roadway.


Pass on Right Safely
21755. The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway.

I must have missed the constitional amendment that made passing on the right an exception to this basic principle of free societies.

Passing on the right, like any other behavior, is legal unless there is a law that says it's illegal. Are you saying there is a law that says it is illegal to pass on the right? What state? What's the law?

Not in California.


Passing on the Right
21754. The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:

(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn.

(b) Upon a highway within a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in the direction of travel.

(c) Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width and clearly marked for two or more lines of moving traffic in the direction of travel.

(d) Upon a one-way street.

(e) Upon a highway divided into two roadways where traffic is restricted to one direction upon each of such roadways.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21754.htm

No Helmet Head, we are saying that passing on the right in the same lane as the vehicle being passed is illegal. And as far your legal unless illegal remark goes, put this in your pipe and smoke it:


Pass traffic on the left. You may pass on the right only when:

* An open highway is clearly marked for two or more lanes of travel in your direction.
* The driver ahead of you is turning left and you do not drive off the roadway. Never
pass on the left if the driver is signaling a left turn.

Pay close attention to the phraseYou may pass on the right only when:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm

Let us not forget what we are talking about here.
We are not talking about passing on the right out in the country. We are talking about filtering forward in a line of traffic.

(b) Upon a highway within a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in the direction of travel.


Note that "hiway" is any road, and the term used here is "lines of traffic..." not "lanes of traffic."

Thus in any form that you can form a new line of traffic, (without leaving the road) it is OK.

Oddly enough, while supporting this "violation" and telling me that it is a violation of the "vehicular principles and rules of the road" for motorists in earlier in post 83 and before; here HH supports this for the purpose of filtering forward. I donno HH, either it is vehicularly OK and everyone can do it, or it is not. And if everyone can do it, motorists can do it too while hugging the curb and using that "narrow space" to make a proper right turn after merging into a dashed bike lane...

How about a bit of consistancy in the "vehicular principles and rules of the road," eh?

But what do I know. I'm just ignorant and The Great J. F. does not care about me.

Lane-sharing is generally illegal except in California (which is the exception that proves the rule) or in a state where John know-it-all Forester doesn't care where you live.

Lane-sharing is generally illegal except in California (which is the exception that proves the rule) or in a state where John know-it-all Forester doesn't care where you live.
In the defense of J.F. (good god did I just say that?) no one really cares about the Detroit area! :D

No Helmet Head, we are saying that passing on the right in the same lane as the vehicle being passed is illegal. And as far your legal unless illegal remark goes, put this in your pipe and smoke it:

Pay close attention to the phraseYou may pass on the right only when:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm

I have to support HH here regarding the law. The handbook is only a guide and it does contain other errors... the law here does not deny passing on the right.

Pj, the driver's manual is not the law, it is a summary of the law. The actual law is in the vehicle code, the relevant section of which I posted (as did Randya).

The law says, specifically section 21754, that, in a city (in a business or residence district) it is legal to pass on the right with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in the direction of travel.

In other words, if the pavement is unobstructed, and there is sufficient width, you can pass on the right. It doesn't say anything about having to use a separate lane. To be clear, it does talk about using a separate lane in (c) when outside of a residence or business direct.

I have to support HH here regarding the law. The handbook is only a guide and it does contain other errors... the law here does not deny passing on the right.

but remember Gene, this discussion is about filtering a line of traffic. And not only that but I did make it clear that I was talking about places other than California... I even believe I said that verbatim.
I see now that California does allow passing on the right. Thanks for pointing that ouyt about the handbook, I do have limited resources. But we are talking about states other than California.

Lane-sharing is generally illegal except in California (which is the exception that proves the rule) or in a state where John know-it-all Forester doesn't care where you live. I keep hearing that but I don't recall anyone actually citing a law that makes it illegal to pass within a lane, from any state.