Pro VC editorial in LA Times today

[sbhikes]

HH & Co. must be so proud:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-campbell19may19,0,6391618.story?coll=la-opinion-center


More bike lanes? No thanks
L.A. should treat cyclists as motorists' equals, not as pesky afterthoughts.
By Will Campbell, WILL CAMPBELL is more than 900 miles toward his goal of bicycling 2,007 miles around Los Angeles this year. He writes at Wildbell.com and Blogging.la.
May 19, 2007

TO EXPERIENCE the full dysfunction of Los Angeles cycling, there's no better place than the Los Angeles River Bikeway.

Its northernmost four miles, from Griffith Park to Atwater Village, are a pedaling paradise: smooth pavement, lighting, a dedicated bridge over Los Feliz Boulevard. But cross Fletcher Avenue and the riding gets rough. The aged asphalt is in various stages of disrepair, and cyclists are forced to negotiate a number of rough drainage ditches. At the bike path's southern end, riders are unceremoniously dumped back onto Riverside Drive in the shadows of the Golden State and Pasadena freeways miles from downtown, Dodger Stadium or any other destination.

The Fletcher Divide, which has aged disgracefully over five years during three mayoral administrations, illustrates how glacially Los Angeles is integrating cycling into its transportation grid. L.A., which averages 329 sunny, bike-friendly days a year, should be one of the most forward-thinking cities on the subject. Instead, greater Los Angeles remains a vast patchwork of bikeways, bike lanes and bike routes that haven't coalesced — as anyone who took part in Bike to Work Day this week surely noticed.

That's not to say nothing is happening. The city has an 11-year-old Bicycle Plan, and city and county officials cite the proliferation of on-street bike lanes as an example of the great strides being made. Yet the numbers leave a lot to be desired. Of Los Angeles County's 6,400 miles of surface streets, only 481 miles have bike lanes (320 inside the city limits — five fewer miles than much smaller Tucson). In milk carton terms, if L.A.'s total street mileage equaled half a gallon, bike lanes would constitute a sip of about 4 ounces.

Whether one sees that glass as half full or half empty, I personally wish the city would just stop filling it. Quit while it's behind and not stripe another inch of bike lane. And yes, this is coming from an avid recreational and commuter cyclist who has pedaled thousands of miles over 20 years.

Here's why: By law, my bicycle is considered a vehicle with the same right to the road as your car or truck. Bike lanes provide an arguable buffer zone of safety (as well as a great place for people to put their garbage containers on trash day), but they marginalize cyclists and reinforce their status as second-class commuters who shouldn't be on the road.

Some bike lanes even put cyclists at greater risk, such as the newest lanes along Santa Monica Boulevard between Century City and the San Diego Freeway. Cars have to make quick cuts across the bike lane to get to side streets, shopping centers and parking spaces. The eastbound bike lane literally vanishes midblock, as if the Department of Transportation ran out of paint before reaching Avenue of the Stars.

L.A. Department of Transportation officials quote chapter and verse how the city's newest bike lanes safely conform to state regulations — and not counting the disappearing act I mentioned, I'm sure that's true. But it's not enough.

What will be enough? I'll never be satisfied until Silverados and Schwinns can peacefully coexist on all surface streets. But an update of the city Bicycle Plan — something the plan stipulated should have been done last year — is a good place to start. Our city and county transportation agencies should be trying out fresher bike-transit concepts, such as shared-use arrows, known as sharrows, and bicycle-priority streets, also called bike boulevards.

Already successful in San Francisco, sharrows have a bike icon topped by two chevrons painted directly on the road. Instead of creating separation, they promote awareness that the right lane is to be shared by motorists and cyclists — and they're easier and less costly to implement than bike lanes.

A network of seven bike boulevards has been used to great effect in Berkeley. All types of vehicles are allowed, but these designated roadways have been enhanced with traffic signals, signage and traffic control for bike safety and convenience. Here in Los Angeles, 4th Street is practically bike-boulevard ready from Vermont Boulevard to La Brea Avenue. Another could be Fountain Avenue between Silver Lake and West Hollywood.

A citywide grid of sharrows that complement and connect bike boulevards and off-street bikeways would go a long way toward fostering a civic culture that embraces cycling rather than treating bikes as a transportation afterthought.

[JRA]

By law, my bicycle is considered a vehicle
LOL. Apparently Will Campbell is not familiar with California law. In California, a bicycle is a device, not a vehicle.

Fortunately, I live in Missouri, where John Forester has not "advocated" for cyclist's rights and not opposed defining a bicycle as a vehicle.

[John Forester]

LOL. Apparently Will Campbell is not familiar with California law. In California, a bicycle is a device, not a vehicle.

Fortunately, I live in Missouri, where John Forester has not "advocated" for cyclist's rights and not opposed defining a bicycle as a vehicle.

JRA, you persist in making statements in some attempt to denigrate my opinions, but they turn back and bite you because they are foolish. In traffic law, vehicles do not have rights. (In maritime law, ships do have rights; that's different.) In traffic law, only people have rights. In California law, a person riding a bicycle on the roadway has the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. So there is nothing to complain about.

[joejack951]

Diane, you've been reading way too many of Bek's posts. To be "Pro-VC" requires a whole lot more than simply opposing bike lane stripes. The fact that you seem to equate the two (with no other considerations) shows your lack of understanding of why there is a disagreement between the two groups.

[pj7]

JRA, you persist in making statements in some attempt to denigrate my opinions, but they turn back and bite you because they are foolish. In traffic law, vehicles do not have rights. (In maritime law, ships do have rights; that's different.) In traffic law, only people have rights. In California law, a person riding a bicycle on the roadway has the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. So there is nothing to complain about.

Here you go again John. You replied to his post but nothing in yours reflects anything he said. He made two statements; that in California law a bicycle is considered a device and not a vehicle (which is true), and that you have not made any advocation attempt in his state to change the wording of the law to reflect the wording used in California law (which is also likely true).

Then you turn it all around into a discussion about "rights" and telling JRA that his comments are coming back to bike him, which I don't see happening.

Your post is yet another perfect example of what I was referring to in my thread about VCists being condecending and trying to belittle others into thinking the way they do.

[joejack951]

Here you go again John. You replied to his post but nothing in yours reflects anything he said. He made two statements; that in California law a bicycle is considered a device and not a vehicle (which is true), and that you have not made any advocation attempt in his state to change the wording of the law to reflect the wording used in California law (which is also likely true).

Then you turn it all around into a discussion about "rights" and telling JRA that his comments are coming back to bike him, which I don't see happening.

Your post is yet another perfect example of what I was referring to in my thread about VCists being condecending and trying to belittle others into thinking the way they do.

What would changing a bicycle from a device to a vehicle do to affect cyclists' rights in a positive way? If you've paid any attention you'd realize why it's way more effort than it's worth (it's worth being nothing more than fitting in with the rest of the states).

[sbhikes]

I can't see what anybody thinks I'm reading into or not comprehending about this article. Here's a guy who thinks that everything will be perfect when bikes and autos coexist perfectly on city streets unadorned by facilities, and in the mean time, he'll settle for sharrows and bike boulevards but doesn't want anymore bike paths or bike lanes. This sounds like something closer to VC, and was printed a mainstream newspaper, making it closer to getting into the mainstream. I'd think the VCers would be quite proud.

[pj7]

What would changing a bicycle from a device to a vehicle do to affect cyclists' rights in a positive way? If you've paid any attention you'd realize why it's way more effort than it's worth (it's worth being nothing more than fitting in with the rest of the states).

I didn't say anything about my opinion on the subject, nothing at all. You are commenting on something you assume I think with no information to come to that conclusion.
I was talking to John, about his comment to JRA, nothing more.

[EDIT]
And you are the one accusing me of not paying attention. :rolleyes:

[joejack951]

I didn't say anything about my opinion on the subject, nothing at all. You are commenting on something you assume I think with no information to come to that conclusion.
I was talking to John, about his comment to JRA, nothing more.

JRA's posts implied that cyclists in CA have less rights than those in states where a bicycle is considered a vehicle. JF replied that this is a foolish statement to make because there is no truth to it. You chime in saying that JF didn't address what JRA said. Well, he did. I made the assumption that because you were jumping up to defend JRA's foolish statements that you agreed with him. Perhaps this was an incorrect assumption and I apologize for that.

[pj7]

JRA's posts implied that cyclists in CA have less rights than those in states where a bicycle is considered a vehicle. JF replied that this is a foolish statement to make because there is no truth to it. You chime in saying that JF didn't address what JRA said. Well, he did. I made the assumption that because you were jumping up to defend JRA's foolish statements that you agreed with him. Perhaps this was an incorrect assumption and I apologize for that.
Understood, reading this post makes me feel bad about my [EDIT] in the previous one, but what has been done has been done I guess.
I was commenting to John about a discussion in another thread on how the arrogance and condecending nature of him and otehr VCists is what turns people off of it. In fact I told them that if they would just lighten up with the holier than thou attitude that people would begin to listen to them, me included. My comment to him was an extension of that which he would have picked up on.
However, I'll keep my opinion to myself on this subject as I feel it is not relevant.

[joejack951]

Understood, reading this post makes me feel bad about my [EDIT] in the previous one, but what has been done has been done I guess.
I was commenting to John about a discussion in another thread on how the arrogance and condecending nature of him and otehr VCists is what turns people off of it. In fact I told them that if they would just lighten up with the holier than thou attitude that people would begin to listen to them, me included. My comment to him was an extension of that which he would have picked up on.
However, I'll keep my opinion to myself on this subject as I feel it is not relevant.

I didn't find JF's post condescending at all. JRA's post was a direct insult at JF, however, and JF simply defended himself.

Don't worry. There's no hard feelings about the [edit] comment.

[Brian Ratliff]

I actually don't mind the editorial's point. Bike boulevards are much better than bike lanes. I might disagree with the opinions of those who choose WOLs over bike lanes, but I agree wholeheartedly that cities who are using bike lane stripping to avoid doing anything real to help bicyclists are wrong headed. Merely laying paint on the ground does not a bike lane make. Bike boulevards, on the other hand, are extremely helpful.

[Brian Ratliff]

Diane, you've been reading way too many of Bek's posts. To be "Pro-VC" requires a whole lot more than simply opposing bike lane stripes. The fact that you seem to equate the two (with no other considerations) shows your lack of understanding of why there is a disagreement between the two groups.

I'll put in Helmet Head's disclaimer:

I only state my opinion. My opinion is formed by what is talked about by the "pro-VC" camp on these forums. So, to me to be "Pro-VC", it basically all comes down to "no-bike lane." People who ride vehicularly but who do not oppose bike lanes are looked on as heretics.

Again, this is my impression you all have given me by what you talk about in these forums. Feel free to prove me wrong about the "Pro-VC" clique that doesn't include cyclists like myself who approve of bike lanes but bicycle in a vehicular manner.

[/sarcasm]

Someone tell me: If I started a dust up about bike lanes on Chainguard, would I be kicked off, despite my riding in a vehicular manner? I believe at least one member of these forums has been kicked off Chainguard for exactly that? Is it my political positions (the VC politics seem to all lead back to bike lanes, so it seems) that defines me as a vehicular cyclist, or my riding style and my approach to riding in traffic?

Are you saying that opposing bike lanes is a necessery but not sufficient condition to be part of the clique? But it is necessary, right?

[John Forester]

I'll put in Helmet Head's disclaimer:

I only state my opinion. My opinion is formed by what is talked about by the "pro-VC" camp on these forums. So, to me to be "Pro-VC", it basically all comes down to "no-bike lane." People who ride vehicularly but who do not oppose bike lanes are looked on as heretics.

Again, this is my impression you all have given me by what you talk about in these forums. Feel free to prove me wrong about the "Pro-VC" clique that doesn't include cyclists like myself who approve of bike lanes but bicycle in a vehicular manner.

[/sarcasm]

Someone tell me: If I started a dust up about bike lanes on Chainguard, would I be kicked off, despite my riding in a vehicular manner? I believe at least one member of these forums has been kicked off Chainguard for exactly that? Is it my political positions (the VC politics seem to all lead back to bike lanes, so it seems) that defines me as a vehicular cyclist, or my riding style and my approach to riding in traffic?

Are you saying that opposing bike lanes is a necessery but not sufficient condition to be part of the clique? But it is necessary, right?

As far as I am concerned, being an advocate for vehicular cycling (rather than just practicing it) has to both advocate better training for cyclists and oppose the forces that are against vehicular cycling, which are the governmental and social programs that support incompetent cycling on bikeways.

[pj7]

As far as I am concerned, being an advocate for vehicular cycling (rather than just practicing it) has to both advocate better training for cyclists and oppose the forces that are against vehicular cycling, which are the governmental and social programs that support incompetent cycling on bikeways.
What about competent cycling on bikeways? Can I be a vehicular cycling advocate that supports competent cycling on bikeways?
I ride a bikeway, and I am a competent cyclist (both while on it and off it) and I advocate the practice of vehicular cycling.

[joejack951]

I'll put in Helmet Head's disclaimer:

I only state my opinion. My opinion is formed by what is talked about by the "pro-VC" camp on these forums. So, to me to be "Pro-VC", it basically all comes down to "no-bike lane." People who ride vehicularly but who do not oppose bike lanes are looked on as heretics.

Again, this is my impression you all have given me by what you talk about in these forums. Feel free to prove me wrong about the "Pro-VC" clique that doesn't include cyclists like myself who approve of bike lanes but bicycle in a vehicular manner.

[/sarcasm]

Someone tell me: If I started a dust up about bike lanes on Chainguard, would I be kicked off, despite my riding in a vehicular manner? I believe at least one member of these forums has been kicked off Chainguard for exactly that? Is it my political positions (the VC politics seem to all lead back to bike lanes, so it seems) that defines me as a vehicular cyclist, or my riding style and my approach to riding in traffic?

Are you saying that opposing bike lanes is a necessery but not sufficient condition to be part of the clique? But it is necessary, right?

I would not be opposed to a bike lane which does not promote cycling against the rules of the road. This basically eliminates bike lanes in any urban and most suburban settings. It also means that bike lanes on roads with few intersections and high speeds would be treated as normal traffic lanes in that whenever other vehicular traffic was to cross the bike lane, the bike lane and traffic lane would merge first, then diverge as is common with normal traffic lanes. There would be none of the blue bike lane treatment that Portland seems to be so proud of.

[Brian Ratliff]

I would not be opposed to a bike lane which does not promote cycling against the rules of the road. This basically eliminates bike lanes in any urban and most suburban settings. It also means that bike lanes on roads with few intersections and high speeds would be treated as normal traffic lanes in that whenever other vehicular traffic was to cross the bike lane, the bike lane and traffic lane would merge first, then diverge as is common with normal traffic lanes. There would be none of the blue bike lane treatment that Portland seems to be so proud of.

What do you promote in the bike lane's place? In the hands of the wrong cyclist, a WOL can also promote cycling against the rules of the road and against best practices of traffic cycling. In the hands of a well trained cyclist, neither a bike lane nor a WOL prevent following the rules of the road.

**I've got a thread going on this topic already where Mr. Forester and I are having a similar conversation. I'm going to cross-post this there, and we'll continue in that thread.

[joejack951]

What do you promote in the bike lane's place? In the hands of the wrong cyclist, a WOL can also promote cycling against the rules of the road and against best practices of traffic cycling. In the hands of a well trained cyclist, neither a bike lane nor a WOL prevent following the rules of the road.

**I've got a thread going on this topic already where Mr. Forester and I are having a similar conversation. I'm going to cross-post this there, and we'll continue in that thread.

Sounds good. This is a good discussion topic.

[CB HI]

Here you go again John. You replied to his post but nothing in yours reflects anything he said. He made two statements; that in California law a bicycle is considered a device and not a vehicle (which is true), and that you have not made any advocation attempt in his state to change the wording of the law to reflect the wording used in California law (which is also likely true).

Then you turn it all around into a discussion about "rights" and telling JRA that his comments are coming back to bike him, which I don't see happening.

Your post is yet another perfect example of what I was referring to in my thread about VCists being condecending and trying to belittle others into thinking the way they do.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
That is so funny pj7, you calling others condescending.

[CB HI]

What about competent cycling on bikeways? Can I be a vehicular cycling advocate that supports competent cycling on bikeways?
I ride a bikeway, and I am a competent cyclist (both while on it and off it) and I advocate the practice of vehicular cycling.
Who among the evil VC'ers ever said that you could not?

[pj7]

That is so funny pj7, you calling others condecending.
Who among the evil VC'ers ever said that you could not?

I know you live on an island, but your angling skills leave a bit to be desired.
But I'm bored so I'll bike.

That is so funny pj7, you calling others condecending.
What in my post was condescending? Nothing in there gave shadow to me having a superior attitude. Nerver the less, my post was not aimed towards you and was in reference to a discussion that John and I had in a different thread. If you are not familiar with that thread, which has been pointed out by me twice (make that three times) in this thread for clarity. It seems that you may not be familiar with the previous thread, yet you commented.

Who among the evil VC'ers ever said that you could not?
I believe that since my post was a question and not an accusation that it is quite clear that no one said that I could not. The answer to your question is right there in the thread that you replied to.

Maybe you should try casting somewhere else.

[CB HI]

You remind me of a dog chasing his own tail.

[Brian Ratliff]

^^^
CB, how helping here? Do I really have to push the link and cause more work for donnamb?

What are your thoughts on the OP?

[CB HI]

Push whatever link you want.

I guess you missed pj7's comments "Your post is yet another perfect example of what I was referring to in my thread about VCists being condecending and trying to belittle others into thinking the way they do."
"What about competent cycling on bikeways? Can I be a vehicular cycling advocate that supports competent cycling on bikeways?
I ride a bikeway, and I am a competent cyclist (both while on it and off it) and I advocate the practice of vehicular cycling."
"I know you live on an island, but your angling skills leave a bit to be desired."

Since you did not threaten to "push the link" with his post.

Maybe you think I should comment on the OP's swipe "HH & Co. must be so proud" that served no useful purpose.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

As far as I am concerned, being an advocate for vehicular cycling (rather than just practicing it) has to both advocate better training for cyclists and oppose the forces that are against vehicular cycling, which are the governmental and social programs that support incompetent cycling on bikeways.
Yep, My Way or the Highway is the bottom line of Forester Brand Vehicular Cycling Advocacy which Forester has succinctly laid out:

Promotion of Forester Brand Training (by trainers certified in Forester Brand technique), and opposition and obstructionism to any program which is not an endorsement of that specific training scheme.

[John Forester]

What do you promote in the bike lane's place? In the hands of the wrong cyclist, a WOL can also promote cycling against the rules of the road and against best practices of traffic cycling. In the hands of a well trained cyclist, neither a bike lane nor a WOL prevent following the rules of the road.

**I've got a thread going on this topic already where Mr. Forester and I are having a similar conversation. I'm going to cross-post this there, and we'll continue in that thread.

I presume that you mean that a wide outside lane is more conducive to disobeying the rules of the road than is a standard width lane. Please explain your thought.

[chipcom]

Correct me if I am wrong:

1. Bicycles are not considered vehicles in California
2. Even though cyclists allegedly have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles, they are forced to use a bike lane or path if one exists...hardly equal rights.

I don't see California as a shining example to be emulated in other parts of the country.

[joejack951]

Correct me if I am wrong:

1. Bicycles are not considered vehicles in California
2. Even though cyclists allegedly have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles, they are forced to use a bike lane or path if one exists...hardly equal rights.

I don't see California as a shining example to be emulated in other parts of the country.

The bolded section of your statement is false. There is no mandatory sidepath law and the mandatory bike lane law only applies in the presence of faster same direction traffic, just like the standard as far right as practicable laws.

[chipcom]

The bolded section of your statement is false. There is no mandatory sidepath law and the mandatory bike lane law only applies in the presence of faster same direction traffic, just like the standard as far right as practicable laws.

Bull. In California people are forced to use the bike lane if one is present or at the very least forced to move into it if traffic approaches from the rear. There is no such requirement in Ohio or many other states with a far right as practicable clause in their laws. Let me put it in terms you can understand - FASTER SAME DIRECTION TRAFFIC DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO USE A BIKE LANE IN OHIO, AS IT DOES IN CALIFORNIA. Californians do not have equal rights, as we do in Ohio.

[John Forester]

Correct me if I am wrong:

1. Bicycles are not considered vehicles in California
2. Even though cyclists allegedly have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles, they are forced to use a bike lane or path if one exists...hardly equal rights.

I don't see California as a shining example to be emulated in other parts of the country.

Item #1 is irrelevant: there is no treatment of cyclists that depends on the difference between defining a bicycle as a vehicle and defining a cyclist as a driver of a vehicle. That is because vehicles have no rights; only people have rights, and in each case the cyclist has the rights of a driver of a vehicle.

Item #2.1 There is no mandatory side-path law in California. They wanted one in 1970, and we cyclists, under my leadership, prevented that from being even offered as a recommendation to the Legislature.

Item #2.2 California does have a mandatory bike-lane law, but we cyclists, under my leadership, managed to get it written with the same exemptions as we had got into the relaxed side-of-the-road law that is so frequently praised as favoring cyclists. Though, of course, I would rather have had neither on the books.

In these respects, California is rather typical, because many other states have followed us. I do not know in what respects chipcom considers his state, whatever it is, to be better.

[joejack951]

Bull. In California people are forced to use the bike lane if one is present or at the very least forced to move into it if traffic approaches from the rear. There is no such requirement in Ohio or many other states with a far right as practicable clause in their laws. Let me put it in terms you can understand - FASTER SAME DIRECTION TRAFFIC DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO USE A BIKE LANE IN OHIO, AS IT DOES IN CALIFORNIA. Californians do not have equal rights, as we do in Ohio.

(B)(1) Upon all roadways any vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding at less than the prevailing and lawful speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, and far enough to the right to allow passing by faster vehicles if such passing is safe and reasonable...

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.25

Note the use of the conjunction "and." This means that simply being the right hand lane for traffic is not enough. You must also be far enough right to "allow passing by faster vehicles if such passing is safe and reasonable." In Delaware and many other states, you only have to be in the right hand lane. These states use the conjunction "or" to clarify positioning on roads with only one same direction lane or multiple same direction lanes. So in that respect, California and Ohio are more restrictive than most states.

[edit]Can't seem to access DE's code at this time but here's Pennsylvania's law:

Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.--Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway (my emphasis)

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/vehicle_code/chapter33.pdf

If you go looking for the bicycle specific laws it will refer you back to this section.[edit]

[Roody]

Bull. In California people are forced to use the bike lane if one is present or at the very least forced to move into it if traffic approaches from the rear. There is no such requirement in Ohio or many other states with a far right as practicable clause in their laws. Let me put it in terms you can understand - FASTER SAME DIRECTION TRAFFIC DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO USE A BIKE LANE IN OHIO, AS IT DOES IN CALIFORNIA. Californians do not have equal rights, as we do in Ohio.

Being from Michigan, I hate to say this, but Ohio has great bike laws, thanks to recent improvements.

Bicycle Law Reform (http://bikelaws.org/) gives Ohio laws a grade of "A", while California only rates a "D".

(Michigan gets an "F-") :( :mad:

[pj7]

Push whatever link you want.

I guess you missed pj7's comments "Your post is yet another perfect example of what I was referring to in my thread about VCists being condecending and trying to belittle others into thinking the way they do."
"What about competent cycling on bikeways? Can I be a vehicular cycling advocate that supports competent cycling on bikeways?
I ride a bikeway, and I am a competent cyclist (both while on it and off it) and I advocate the practice of vehicular cycling."
"I know you live on an island, but your angling skills leave a bit to be desired."

Since you did not threaten to "push the link" with his post.

Maybe you think I should comment on the OP's swipe "HH & Co. must be so proud" that served no useful purpose.

I (call) it like it is pal. You were trolling, plain and simple. I was extending a conversation from a different thread, big difference.
I hope to god that when I reach your ripe old age I am not as bitter as you. you really are a shining example of what we can expect from years of military training. Your personal issues with me (whatever they may be) are yours and yours alone. You are the first person to ever be put on my ignore list, and I thought it would have been Helmet Head, but at least the discussions I have with him have meritt and make sense.

[Roody]

...You are the first person to ever be put on my ignore list....

Not sure you fully understand the meaning of "ignore." ;)

[CB HI]

I all it like it is pal. ...
???

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Being from Michigan, I hate to say this, but Ohio has great bike laws, thanks to recent improvements.

Bicycle Law Reform (http://bikelaws.org/) gives Ohio laws a grade of "A", while California only rates a "D".

(Michigan gets an "F-") :( :mad:
Michigan gets an F-? As far as I know, bikes have full access except on limited access. I ride up in Michigan frequently and find the drivers courteous, and feel quite safe riding the roads there.:eek:

[CB HI]

Michigan gets an F-? As far as I know, bikes have full access except on limited access. I ride up in Michigan frequently and find the drivers courteous, and feel quite safe riding the roads there.:eek:
http://bikelaws.org/laws/Michigan.pdf

[Roody]

Michigan gets an F-? As far as I know, bikes have full access except on limited access. I ride up in Michigan frequently and find the drivers courteous, and feel quite safe riding the roads there.:eek:
I agree that we have nice cagers, and I also feel safe on the road. But this website is referring only to the laws. One beef I have with the website is that we lose a lot of points because local communities MAY mandate sidepath usage, but AFAIK none of them actually do this. We also lose points for not having a bicycle safety manual when we do in fact have one.

[donnamb]

I think one of the western suburbs of Detroit forces cyclists onto the sidewalk. Livonia or Westland - some place like that.

[pj7]

I think one of the western suburbs of Detroit forces cyclists onto the sidewalk. Livonia or Westland - some place like that.
There are actually a few places, even here on the east side, that have those rules. I can't name any off the top of my head but have heard people talking in the bike shop before.
Here in Michigan it's odd, the further you get away from Detroit the more comfortable cycling gets. And once you get up into the UP it's just plain awesome.

[pj7]

Not sure you fully understand the meaning of "ignore." ;)
:p

[chipcom]

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.25

Note the use of the conjunction "and." This means that simply being the right hand lane for traffic is not enough. You must also be far enough right to "allow passing by faster vehicles if such passing is safe and reasonable." In Delaware and many other states, you only have to be in the right hand lane. These states use the conjunction "or" to clarify positioning on roads with only one same direction lane or multiple same direction lanes. So in that respect, California and Ohio are more restrictive than most states.



Nice try, but exactly where does this force one to a bike lane when faster traffic exists? It doesn't...of course we've covered this before but you like wearing them blinders. As Roody has already stated, our bike laws here are much better than California's.

[CB HI]

Someone tell me: If I started a dust up about bike lanes on Chainguard, would I be kicked off, despite my riding in a vehicular manner? I believe at least one member of these forums has been kicked off Chainguard for exactly that? ...
It was not for positions on cycling or bike lanes. The likely reason for banning a certain person from Chainguard; there were occasions when that person sent extremely rude and bigoted PMs to other Chainguard members. I was a recipient of one of his bigoted, hateful messages.

Early on in BF he sent an angry PM to treespeed and apparently the Mod warning here was sufficient.

[sbhikes]

Doesn't anybody have anything positive to say about the article? Sheesh! I thought you guys would have liked it!

[CB HI]

Any article that puts cycling in a good light and does not push the "cycling is dangerous" theme generally helps the cause.
It would have been OK if the "don't build anymore paths" was toned down some.

I did not think you were interested in our opinions on the article, based on your comment before the article. Sorry I got the wrong impression.

[Roody]

Doesn't anybody have anything positive to say about the article? Sheesh! I thought you guys would have liked it!
article? we were supposed to read an article? and now there's a quiz?



;)

I thought it was a good article, Diane. First one I've read in a general interest publication that didn't just blithely assume that bike lanes are the objects of every cyclist's wet dreams. Thanks for posting it! :)

[Bekologist]

WILL CAMPBELL is more than 900 miles toward his goal of bicycling 2,007 miles around Los Angeles this year.

WOW. 38 miles a week.

Somehow, I'm not impressed.

[LCI_Brian]

Nice try, but exactly where does this force one to a bike lane when faster traffic exists? It doesn't...of course we've covered this before but you like wearing them blinders. As Roody has already stated, our bike laws here are much better than California's.
I agree that with regards to bike lanes, Ohio law (optional use) is better than California law (mandatory use with exceptions). But compare Ohio versus California for the "far to the right" laws. The California exception in bold is much more favorable than Ohio's version, as the California exemption doesn't require keeping to the far right in the presence of driveways.

(B)(1) Upon all roadways any vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding at less than the prevailing and lawful speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, and far enough to the right to allow passing by faster vehicles if such passing is safe and reasonable, except under any of the following circumstances:
(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding in the same direction ;
(b) When preparing for a left turn;
(c) When the driver must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on the driver’s intended route.

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects,
vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

[joejack951]

Nice try, but exactly where does this force one to a bike lane when faster traffic exists? It doesn't...of course we've covered this before but you like wearing them blinders. As Roody has already stated, our bike laws here are much better than California's.

What part of "Upon all roadways any vehicle...proceeding at less than the prevailing and lawful speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, and far enough to the right to allow passing by faster vehicles if such passing is safe and reasonable... " says that using a bike lane is optional? Is the bike lane not a part of roadway? Is it not a lane?