That's exactly what I was asking. Given that fact, your contrast between Finland and the US is incorrect.



You mean the contrast that states that this is an autocentric society verses Finland, where the auto and use thereof is second class to actual humans, whether they are walking or cycling?



You are mixing stopping for a cyclist when they have the right of way (law in Finland and the US, despite the implication of your hyperbole) with an accident that is still under investigation and that may have been a violation of a three foot law?

That's silly.

No, what is silly is how often the ROW is violated here, and then not enforced by law.


What system depends upon VC?

Our system in the US, according to some vc advocates here on BF. "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated like drivers of vehicles... "

Sorry, I just don't think that all of the preaching, hand wringing, fear mongering, disagreements and outright goofiness that goes on in this obscure, low-traffic forum has any bearing on the state of cycling in America.

Probably true, but as far as the volume, you know of a higher volume site?

And if you don't believe in at least the debate here, why are you here?

Then the 45MPH motorist has every right to be in the left lane, moving at 45MPH right? (as you so "eloquently" point out in your reply.)
No, not every right. Only if he is planning a left turn.

You mean like what you did by only including part of the "testimony" you quoted earlier, eliminating that part where the person you quote then went on to admit they never even had any experience with BL... Thereby negating their quoted negative opinion simply through their lack of experience?
No, Gene, not like that at all.

What I did was cite the part of the post that supported my point, a point that you have repeatedly disputed (that bike lanes reinforce the notion). I omitted the parts that were irrelevant to my point for the sake of clarity.

If you want to quote some other part of the same post to support some other point, and omit the other parts that are irrelevant to your point (including the parts I cited that were relevant to my point), that's fine. But to claim that omiting irrelevant parts of the post is akin to pointing out that one's side of an issue has pros is plain stupid, especially when no one has disputed that pro that is being pointed out.

Forum: A & S

Site: bikeforums.net

Yes, there are much higher volume bicycling-related sites on the internet.

Where did I write that I don't believe in the debate here? That's an odd thing to claim, even for you.

For that matter, what do you mean by "believe in the debate here"?

Ah, so bikeforums.net A&S is what you mean by a "low volume site." Not bikeforums.net specifically.

And what I mean is that you come on here, debate, challenge, yet offer little in the way of opinion regarding A&S. You seem to be here only to antagonize. You apparently don't believe any of this means anything... based on your statement "Sorry, I just don't think that all of the preaching, hand wringing, fear mongering, disagreements and outright goofiness that goes on in this obscure, low-traffic forum has any bearing on the state of cycling in America."

So what is your point of being here?

You are like someone standing on a crowded corner on Wall Street pointing out all the fashion fax paus to businessmen concerned with the stock market.

No, not every right. Only if he is planning a left turn.

And "fast lanes" do such exist???

No, Gene, not like that at all.

What I did was cite the part of the post that supported my point, a point that you have repeatedly disputed (that bike lanes reinforce the notion). I omitted the parts that were irrelevant to my point for the sake of clarity.

If you want to quote some other part of the same post to support some other point, and omit the other parts that are irrelevant to your point (including the parts I cited that were relevant to my point), that's fine. But to claim that omiting irrelevant parts of the post is akin to pointing out that one's side of an issue has pros is plain stupid, especially when no one has disputed that pro that is being pointed out.

Your quote had the same effect however of quoting a man blind from birth describing the color red. It was the quote of someone that admitted never having used a bike lane or having been in a city with BL.

I like to see them. They're a good sign that a community is taking riding and alternative modes of transport seriously.
Wow, I haven't seen the "important symbol" argument in a while. Though I suppose it's very close to the argument that BLs supposedly let motorists know cyclists can be on the road, and don't have to be on the sidewalk.

I ride in them when they are safe, which is almost never. Why are they always in door range?
Because their purpose is not cyclist safety, but to get cyclists out of the way of slowing down same direction motor traffic.

And "fast lanes" do such exist???
It depends on how you define "fast lanes".
If you define it as the leftmost lane where fastest traffic is expected to be, and through/slow traffic is not expected to be, then, yes, they exist on any road with more than one lane in a given direction.

Your quote had the same effect however of quoting a man blind from birth describing the color red. It was the quote of someone that admitted never having used a bike lane or having been in a city with BL.
Yet he was able to grasp the concept none-the-less. Amazing.

I guess some people just have it, and others don't...

No, I'm the guy laughing at the people who are lecturing the businessmen about the proper way to walk down the sidewalk.

There aren't 800 people a year who are killed because they walk improperly on sidewalks.
There are about 800 people a year who are killed at least partially because they don't know how to ride bicycles properly on roads, and thousands others needlessly injured at least partially for the same reason.

Riding a bicycle in traffic in a manner that can be done repeatedly, safely, is not rocket science, but it is arguably more complicated than driving a car in traffic. The compelixity is more akin to that of riding a motorcycle. The usually slower speeds arguably make it a bit simpler and considerably safer, as compared to motorcycling, but the slower speeds also add some complexity.

Reading comprehension genec, reading comprehension! Grab a cup of coffee or something if you're getting sleepy again.

Seriously, go back and read the post that you responded to (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5392574&postcount=133).

I did not type "low volume site," nor did I mean "low volume site." I meant exactly what I posted, "low volume forum."



BFD. So A&S is a low volume "forum" of which you have some particular interest... as indeed you are here.



#1. You have your blinders on then, or don't understand "opinion," or both.

#2. Even assuming that you claim was valid (it's not) when did it become a prerequisite to posting that someone has to offer an opinion about A&S?

Not a prerequisite to posting, but it emphasizes my opinion that you are just here to antagonize.


You're entitled to your opinion, despite it making you seem frail.


And your opinion doesn't do wonders for you either.




genec, you have a wonderful ability to read something and not understand it. It makes for amusing reading sometimes.

It's usually because I am reading too fast, it is not in fact a comprehension thing, but a time thing.



Just because I don't think that these discussions have any bearing on the (get ready ole chap, here come some key words in your search for understanding!) state of cycling in America, doesn't mean that the discussions have no meaning.

I'm here to see how some folks can try to make such a simple thing so complicated. And for the associated entertainment.

What is your point in being here genec? I know what you inadvertently contribute to said entertainment, but what do you think is the point of you being here?



To gather and share opinions about cycling advocacy and safety. And yeah there is the entertainment aspect too.



No, I'm the guy laughing at the people who are lecturing the businessmen about the proper way to walk down the sidewalk. comprehension problem??? fashion issues is what I stated... But whatever...



p.s. Here are the questions that you dodged:

Where did I write that I don't believe in the debate here?

For that matter, what do you mean by "believe in the debate here"?

Well you seem to hold the opinion that anything debated or discussed here will have little meaning over all on cycling in America. That may or may not be true, but if you believe that, then why participate? Of course it is up to you as to whether you care to take any of it seriously, but consider that we have had here at least the appearance of a couple of leading authors on cycling in America. Perhaps someone is "listening."



..and from the previous post:

Just how often is ROW violated here? How often is ROW violated in Finland? How often is ROW not enforced in the US? How often is ROW not enforced in Finland?

Hadn't gotten around to that question... although regarding ROW in the US... try the "fact" (that's an expression) that of the cyclists deaths posted here, few have resulted in arrests, tickets, or incarceration at least as reported here, and the often held opinion of some cyclists here that if you want to kill someone, put them on a bike and run them over... likely as not there will be no repercussions.

I don't have any comprehensive data, so I could hardly come back with something that you are going to rip full of holes... and I know you will try. So I skipped it for now. Just as a personal aside from my brief observations in Finland though... it was quite odd being treated by motorists in the way I was treated... nothing like the "aggravated impatience" I sometimes feel aimed my way here. Yeah yeah, just my humble opinion... no numbers to back it up. Essentially worthless. just my 2 cents.

It's usually because I am reading too fast, it is not in fact a comprehension thing, but a time thing.

That's a lame excuse. Reading takes much less time than writing.

If you're going to take the time to write a response, please at least take the time to read what you're responding to, and make sure you understand it (if you're not sure what someone means, ask, don't guess wrong and respond to that).

On behalf of everyone and their time, thank you for doing that.

So part of the cause of each of those 800 deaths was the fact that those 800 cyclists didn't know how to ride bicycles properly on roads?

Did you really mean to post that or were you just being sloppy with language again?

Some people just can't fathom that "shait happens".
I'm suprised that *only* an average of 800 people die on bicycles a year. Given the "number of chickens in the fox den" I would have guessed the number to be much higher.

Sorry, I just don't think that all of the preaching, hand wringing, fear mongering, disagreements and outright goofiness that goes on in this obscure, low-traffic forum has any bearing on the state of cycling in America.

I didn't specifically say that THIS FORUM had anything to do with it... but you hear the exact same things if you get a group of 'expert' cyclists together for input on a cycling related project...

With or without 2" knobbies?

Depending upon how frisky I was feeling I might ride/hop over the gravel and scoot across that tire-safe grating with 23s. Is that a line that you would follow?

I disagree that riding on the best pavement, to the right of the lane line puts you half or mostly out of the lane. I think you're just trying to mince words at this point.

Personally... I'd really rather not have 2" or less of GOOD pavement to my right... just in case. So I generally ride about 8" to the left of what I consider 'good' pavement. Gives me room to move laterally in case there's a rock or something in my path.

MOST curbs I see around here are about 6"... if that curb is about 6" high, then the space between the paint and the edge of that gravel looks to be about 4" at it's narrowest... therefore, I'd MOST LIKELY be on or just to the left of the white line at that point... hence MORE THAN HALF of me out of the lane.

My exact position would depend just as much on traffic conditions, though... If traffic was moving at a fairly good clip, I'd be further left, to prevent any chance of a right hook... if traffic was heavy and slow, it's VERY possible that I'd slow down and use the 'bad' section of the path to go around... One of the benefits I see about a bike is that I get to choose which I'd rather do... and they're BOTH legal!

Ok, I considered it. So they've posted here. What bearing do you imagine A&S discussion could possibly have on the state of cycling in America?



I only have time for this one discussion... especially as the rest "require" data to satisfy you... opinion is apparently not enough.

To answer specifically the issue, the discussions here can help "advocates" form opinions about issues they face locally. For instance from discussions here one could then go face their local government to ask for road space during improvement project that can benefit local cyclists. Discussions here can help one form points and counterpoints regarding the use of the road.

Ever gone before a board of supervisors to argue for road improvement for cyclists? I have. And certainly that is one way that we can effect the "state of cycling in America."

Have you done anything beyond post here?

So part of the cause of each of those 800 deaths was the fact that those 800 cyclists didn't know how to ride bicycles properly on roads?

Did you really mean to post that or were you just being sloppy with language again?
Actually, that's what I meant. If there was any sloppiness at all, I did not account for the very rare occurrences that may occur one or twice in some years where there really was nothing the cyclist could have done to avoid the crash. But I honestly believe in most years such crashes account for none of the 800.

This is nothing revolutionary, as it is simply the application of the fundamental principle of defensive driving to cyclists: any crash could have been avoided had either person involved been acting defensively.

So using your "logic," if every cyclist knew how to properly ride on the road there would be no cycling fatalities.

No accidents (you might want to look that up). No equipment failures. No approaching car that swerves suddenly across the lane and head-ons a rider. No heart attacks. etc. etc. No fatalities at all since everyone knows how to properly ride on the road and that "skill set" makes one immune to death while riding a bicycle.

Serge, if ever there was absolute proof of your disconnection from reality, these last two posts are it.

Again, if there was any sloppiness in what I wrote, it was on the order of not taking the time to say "almost no" instead of "no". But the fundamental point is the same. Only a pedant like you would focus on in this minor detail and ignore the main point.

So, yes, if every cyclist knew how to properly ride on the road, and actually did ride properly, there would be no cycling fatalities, except maybe a very few freak occurrences per year.

If we could reduce crashes to only the truly unavoidable causes (freak equipment failures, drunk driver careening across the road from the other side, heart attacks), the 800 deaths per year might very well be reduced to 0 in some years, and probably less than 10 in most years.

I've always thought that you were quite odd but this nonsense punts you all the way into the deranged zone.
Then all defensive driving instruction puts the instructors all the way into the deranged zone too.

Oh, and Robert Hurst must be all the way into the deranged zone as well.

"if some ba$tard breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be YOUR FAULT and nobody else's." - Robert Hurst

Again, if there was any sloppiness in what I wrote, it was on the order of not taking the time to say "almost no" instead of "no". But the fundamental point is the same. Only a pedant like you would focus on in this minor detail and ignore the main point.

So, yes, if every cyclist knew how to properly ride on the road, and actually did ride properly, there would be no cycling fatalities, except maybe a very few freak occurrences per year.

If we could reduce crashes to only the truly unavoidable causes (freak equipment failures, drunk driver careening across the road from the other side, heart attacks), the 800 deaths per year might very well be reduced to 0 in some years, and probably less than 10 in most years.

You forgot the road ragers intentionally hitting people. ;)

To reply just to the title of the OP....I like bike lanes. Because having bike lanes on a couple of busy streets (curtner and leigh for san jose people) let's my son commute with be to school/work much more comfortably and I think safely than trying to take narrow, no bike lane, non major streets (Foxworthy for the locals). There is more room, and the cars while going faster, are further away. I still teach him to take the lane when needed. in general it seems the bike lane makes the average motorist more aware.

ymmv

Please provide a link that demonstrates that all defensive driving instructors believe that defensive driving is risk elimination rather than risk mitigation.

"I just think so" doesn't count.

No one is contending that defensive driving is risk elimination. Only a pedant would think otherwise.



I cannot take your interpretation of his comment to indicate that he believes that all cycling deaths could be eliminated if all cyclists knew how to properly ride on the road. Based upon his posts, he's doesn't seem to be naive like that.

No one believes that all cycling deaths could be eliminated if all cyclists knew how to properly ride on the road. Not Robert. Not me. Nobody. Only a pedant would think otherwise.

But why don't you start a poll and/or ask him what he thinks?
He's very clear about what he thinks in his book as well as in his posts. He thinks risk can be greatly mitigated through cyclist behavior and attitude, but of course never eliminated, at least because cyclists make mistakes too. I agree. We probably disagree on how much of the risk could be mitigated, I suspect I believe it can be more than he does. But these differences would only matter to a pedant. The point is that great reductions can be made in reducing cyclist fatalities through improvements in cyclist behavior and attitude.


You see Serge, there are other factors out there that you cannot control (other road users, good ole Murphy, etc.), no matter how "defensively" you cycle, no matter how "properly" you cycle.

You believe that by "cycling properly" someone has total direct control over whether they are killed while cycling.

That's nonsense.
Now you have gone beyond mere pedantry and moved into the zone of pure fantasy. I've never denied that factors outside of our control exist, nor have I written anything that implied it to be so. I don't believe that by "cycling properly" anyone has total direct control over whether they are killed while cycling. Duh. I do believe that cyclists have much more control than most seem to believe that they have. I believe it might be theoretically true that we have enough control to eliminate all cycling deaths in some years, if cyclists were able to adhere to best practices and pay sufficient attention all the time. In practice, of course that's impossible. But in many cases where it appears there was nothing the cyclist could have done, it is often the case that following best practices and/or paying more attention would almost certainly have made a difference. But rocks do suddenly roll down hills, and cats can sometimes jump into the cyclist's front wheel. (http://www.goese.com/blog.html#cat)

To reply just to the title of the OP....I like bike lanes. Because having bike lanes on a couple of busy streets (curtner and leigh for san jose people) let's my son commute with be to school/work much more comfortably and I think safely than trying to take narrow, no bike lane, non major streets (Foxworthy for the locals). There is more room, and the cars while going faster, are further away. I still teach him to take the lane when needed. in general it seems the bike lane makes the average motorist more aware.

ymmv
It is a common mistake to confuse the stripe which creates the bike lane, with the space that it demarcates and would be there with or without the stripe, and to credit the bike lane for the presence of the space the stripe merely demarcates. If anything, the stripe eliminates space, by making it arguably hazardous to ride on the stripe (when it's wet), and by reducing the cyclist's legal right of way which is arguably lost once his tire is closer than a foot to the right of the stripe (at which point his body begins to encroach into the adjacent traffic lane).

Removing bike lanes means removing space-reducing bike lane stripes, not the narrow debris-filled second-class space they demarcate.

and by reducing the cyclist's legal right of way which is arguably lost once his tire is closer than a foot to the right of the stripe (at which point his body begins to encroach into the adjacent traffic lane).

Wait.... aren't you the one arguing in the other thread that the cyclist DOESN'T have the right of way (regardless of the fact that there's no stripe) if he's to the right of traffic????? Now you're blaming the stripe. Now I'm really confused.

You forgot the road ragers intentionally hitting people. ;)
Yes, but again, this cause is so rare that I bet in many given years it accounts for zero actual cyclist deaths nationwide.

It is a common mistake to confuse the stripe which creates the bike lane, with the space that it demarcates and would be there without or without the stripe, and to credit the bike lane for the presence of the space it demarcates.

Removing bike lanes means removing stripes, not the debris-filled space they demarcate.

weasel word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) alert...

Wait.... aren't you the one arguing in the other thread that the cyclist DOESN'T have the right of way (regardless of the fact that there's no stripe) if he's to the right of traffic????? Now you're blaming the stripe. Now I'm really confused.
That thread, actually those two other threads, are taking about a very specific situation: when a wide/shareable lane narrows to a narrow/unsharable lane. I believe the disappearing margin in that narrowing situation is analogous to the situation where the rightmost lane is disappearing, and puts the onus on the one on the right, who must move laterally relative to the center of the road in order to merge, to yield to overtaking traffic on his left that is maintaing course relative to the center of the road. There is certainly enough confusion about right of way in that situation that it would behoove the cyclist to treat it that way, and ride accordingly: assert right of way by yielding and then merging further left out of the margin prior to the narrowing where the margin disappears. Again, this is analogous to the disappearing right lane situation where it is often best to move laterally early and get out of that right lane before it disappears.

But in the normal (non-narrowing) wide lane situation, of course the cyclist has the right-of-way to continue along his longitunal course.

weasel word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) alert...

"Weasel words are almost always intended to deceive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception) or draw attention from something the speaker doesn't want emphasized, rather than being the inadvertent result of the speaker's or writer's poor but honest attempt at description."

There is no attempt to deceive or draw attention from something I don't want emphasized.

That thread, actually those two other threads, are taking about a very specific situation: when a wide/shareable lane narrows to a narrow/unsharable lane. I believe the disappearing margin in that narrowing situation is analogous to the situation where the rightmost lane is disappearing, and puts the onus on the one on the right, who must move laterally relative to the center of the road in order to merge, to yield to overtaking traffic on his left that is maintaing course relative to the center of the road. There is certainly enough confusion about right of way in that situation that it would behoove the cyclist to treat it that way, and ride accordingly: assert right of way by yielding and then merging further left out of the margin prior to the narrowing where the margin disappears. Again, this is analogous to the disappearing right lane situation where it is often best to move laterally early and get out of that right lane before it disappears.

But in the normal (non-narrowing) wide lane situation, of course the cyclist has the right-of-way to continue along his longitunal course.

Gotcha... so when you say this:

If anything, the stripe eliminates space, by making it arguably hazardous to ride on the stripe (when it's wet), and by reducing the cyclist's legal right of way which is arguably lost once his tire is closer than a foot to the right of the stripe (at which point his body begins to encroach into the adjacent traffic lane).

You really mean:
If you're not pretending that you are a car, you have no legal right to the road whatsoever, and you should just stay the **** out of the way.

Seems to me that your arguments come down to: If you're in the lane, and get hit by a car, you should have gotten out of the lane. If you're out of the lane and get hit by a car, you should have been IN the lane.

"Weasel words are almost always intended to deceive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception) or draw attention from something the speaker doesn't want emphasized, rather than being the inadvertent result of the speaker's or writer's poor but honest attempt at description."

There is no attempt to deceive or draw attention from something I don't want emphasized.

First, let's highlight "almost" above.

Second, you wish to hid the fact that we (you and I, in fact) have had discussions about this very subject, and you are wishing to cover the fact that some people here do not agree with your interpretation of a "bike lane". Hence, you wish to "draw attention from something the speaker doesn't want emphasized". Moreover, you wish to make it seem like your interpretation is the concensus interpretation by the noble "It is common..." entrance.

Your final denial is a politician's denial. Remember Bill Clinton and his "denial"?

Finally, HH, if your claim that it isn't a weasel, answer me this...

Proof?

It is a common mistake to confuse the stripe which creates the bike lane, with the space that it demarcates...

There are two questions:

1) Who says it is common?
2) Who says it is a mistake?

Eariler I wrote:
So, yes, if every cyclist knew how to properly ride on the road, and actually did ride properly, there would be no cycling fatalities, except maybe one or two truly freak occurrences per year.

Which I quickly updated (but not before you quoted):

So, yes, if every cyclist knew how to properly ride on the road, and actually did ride properly, there would be no cycling fatalities, except maybe a very few freak occurrences per year.


Later I also wrote:
No one believes that all cycling deaths could be eliminated if all cyclists knew how to properly ride on the road. Not Robert. Not me. Nobody. Only a pedant would think otherwise.

If you see contradiction rather than consistency between those two quotes, Peter, you're a poor reader. But you've shown your pedantry many times, and not with just me, preferring semantically accurate but practically absurd interpertations of other people's words, rather than on making a genuine effort to undersand what was intended by the writer. Anyway, in this case I've emphasised the key words that drastically distinguish the context of the first from the second.

The first quote was talking about an obviously hypothetical situation. The word if is often a flag for this. In this case it's obviously hypothetical because it rests on two practically impossible assumptions:


every cyclist knew how to properly ride on the road, and
[every cyclist] actually did ride properly


The second quote is about reality, about what could actually be achieved.

It's poor reading or being disingenuous to claim they are contradictory.

First, let's highlight "almost" above.
In what way, then, do you believe they are weasel words?

Second, you wish to hide the fact that we (you and I, in fact) have had discussions about this very subject,
Right Brian, this is all about you, and I'm constantly thinking about those discussions we had months ago and wishing to hide that fact. :rolleyes:

you are wishing to cover the fact that some people here do not agree with your interpretation of a "bike lane".
:eek: That's a new one. I thought we had general agreement that a "bike lane" is space on the roadway demarcated by a painted stripe and designated by stencils and signs, intended primarily for use by bicyclists. Do you disagree with that interpretation? If so, that's news to me, or I forgot.


Hence, you wish to "draw attention from something the speaker doesn't want emphasized". Moreover, you wish to make it seem like your interpretation is the concensus interpretation by the noble "It is common..." entrance.
I don't follow.

Your final denial is a politician's denial. Remember Bill Clinton and his "denial"?
Pardon me for trying to be clear. :rolleyes:

Finally, HH, if your claim that it isn't a weasel, answer me this...

Proof?
You're the one claiming it is a weasel. The onus is on you to show that it is.



There are two questions:

1) Who says it is common?
2) Who says it is a mistake?
I say it is common.
I say it is a mistake.
This an informal discussion forum. Do I have to preface every post with:

It is my opinion that...

:rolleyes:

Stop being ridiculous.

If I didn't have thing for pictures in the sig area this would make a humorous sig line:

No one believes that all cycling deaths could be eliminated if all cyclists knew how to properly ride on the road. So, yes, if every cyclist knew how to properly ride on the road, and actually did ride properly, there would be no cycling fatalities, except maybe one or two truly freak occurrences per year.
Do you see the red and underlined condition that is in the second sentence but not in the first, or are you blind?

Gotcha...

Apparently not;


so when you say this:


If anything, the stripe eliminates space, by making it arguably hazardous to ride on the stripe (when it's wet), and by reducing the cyclist's legal right of way which is arguably lost once his tire is closer than a foot to the right of the stripe (at which point his body begins to encroach into the adjacent traffic lane).


You really mean:


If you're not pretending that you are a car, you have no legal right to the road whatsoever, and you should just stay the **** out of the way.


Huh? That doesn't follow at all. Of course that's not what I mean, and I've never talked about "pretending to be a car".


Seems to me that your arguments come down to: If you're in the lane, and get hit by a car, you should have gotten out of the lane. If you're out of the lane and get hit by a car, you should have been IN the lane.
Well, in certain contexts, that's what it turns out to be, of course.

If you're riding in the bike lane, but partially encroaching into the adjacent traffic lane, and get sideswiped by a car, yes, of course, you should have gottent completely out of the adjacent traffic lane (or merged properly fully into it, yielding as appropriate until you've established ROW within the lane).

If you're riding in the margin of a wide/shareable lane that is narrowing, but you stay right in the disappearing margin despite the fact that the margin is disappearing, and thus you are effectively moving into the primary (non-margin) part of the lane into the path of overtaking traffic to which you have yielded right-of-way in that portion of the lane (by being in the margin in the first place), then, yes, you should have yielded and merged left into the primary part of the lane earlier.

There is nothing hypothetical about those quotes. But you again seem to be blind to key words.

There are about 800 people a year who are killed at least partially because they don't know how to ride bicycles properly on roads, and thousands others needlessly injured at least partially for the same reason.


So part of the cause of each of those 800 deaths was the fact that those 800 cyclists didn't know how to ride bicycles properly on roads?


In those rare cases we've talked about, the part of the cause that was due to them not knowing how to ride bicycles properly is approaching infinitesimally small, and arguably, practially speaking, zero (like the cat that jumps into the cyclist's front wheel), but again, this is a very small percentage of the total 800 and pendantic focusing on these rare exceptions is missing the point.

Exactly. You believe that every cyclist (with a few extremely rare exceptions) is partially responsible for their death due to the fact that if they died while riding on the road, they were, de facto, not riding properly which contributed to their death.

"part of the cause of each of those 800 deaths was the fact that those 800 cyclists didn't know how to ride bicycles properly on roads"

No matter how you slice your unsupportable idiocy, it's still idiocy.



I am not and have not focused on the rare exceptions. I have been focusing on your idiotic "if someone died on a bike on the road they were partially at fault because they were not riding properly" (a paraphrase) idiocy.
Fine, it is your idiotic opinion that my opinion is idiocy. Good to know.

Out of curiousity, about what percentage of cycling bike/car collisions that result in cyclist death do you think are such that even if the cyclist had been following the rules of the road, including riding predictably and visibly, using cycling and defensive driving best practices, and paying attention, he would have still died?


less than 1%
less than 2%
between 1% and 5%
between 2% and 10%
between 5% and 25%
between 10% and 50%
between 25% and 75%
between 50% and 90%
between 75% and 99%
Other: _________________

It is a common mistake to confuse the stripe which creates the bike lane, with the space that it demarcates...


I say it is common.
I say it is a mistake.

Thanks for the clarification. Just so we don't get this opinion of yours conflated with any sort of supposed group/forum consensus.


This an informal discussion forum. Do I have to preface every post with:

It is my opinion that...[?]


If you are dealing with people new to the overall discussion (i.e. they haven't participated extensively with you over the last two years), yes, you need to differentiate between your opinion and any sort of group consensus. You don't get to clobber a person unaware with your opinion stated as fact. You used the royal "It is common..." implying a group consensus. There is no group consensus on this issue.

(And I am not the only one to disagree with you on your traffic bicycling theories. More weasel words on your part. Many contribute to the discussions here who don't agree with you.)

Serge, it's your character flaw that enables you to make wild suppositions when you have no facts to back back them up. Sorry, I don't suffer from that character flaw.

You're merely trying to shift the burden of proof.

After all you're the one that has asserted that part of the cause of each of those 800 deaths was the fact that those 800 cyclists didn't know how to ride bicycles properly on roads.

How do you know?

The answer is easy. You can't possibly know, you're just making something up in a vain attempt at bolstering your extremely fearful riding "techniques," crazy "thoughts" about bike lanes, etc.
What a punt.

Even in a discussion about the existence of God, about which most reasonable people agree certain knowledge on either side cannot be claimed, it is common and reasonable to talk about what one believes is the probability that God exists (Richard Dawkins, for example, characterizes his view as "it is 'almost certain' that God does not exist", and has written a book, The God Delusion, explaining why he is "almost certain").

Here too we can freely admit that we don't know for sure about how many cyclist deaths were probably preventable by the cyclist each year, but if we are honest and genuine we can offer what percentage, expressed in a range with which we are comfortable, that we believe that might be. This is not about shifting burden of proof. This is about having open and discussion, in which you seem to have no interest.

Thanks for the clarification. Just so we don't get this opinion of yours conflated with any sort of supposed group/forum consensus.



If you are dealing with people new to the overall discussion (i.e. they haven't participated extensively with you over the last two years), yes, you need to differentiate between your opinion and any sort of group consensus. You don't get to clobber a person unaware with your opinion stated as fact. You used the royal "It is common..." implying a group consensus. There is no group consensus on this issue.

(And I am not the only one to disagree with you on your traffic bicycling theories. More weasel words on your part. Many contribute to the discussions here who don't agree with you.)
Brian,

That you don't recognize that it is a common mistake to confuse the space demarcated by a bike lane stripe with the bike lane itself, as if the space would disappear if the stripe were removed, is not my problem.

You might as well chastise me for saying the earth is not flat because I did it in a manner that implies it's a fact without clarifying that there are people who believe that it is flat.

Brian,

That you don't recognize that it is a common mistake to confuse the space demarcated by a bike lane stripe with the bike lane itself, as if the space would disappear if the stripe were removed, is not my problem.

You might as well chastise me for saying the earth is not flat because I did it in a manner that implies it's a fact without clarifying that there are people who believe that it is flat.

Except that the former is an opinion with you as the sole source, and the latter is generally accepted and has been verified by pictures from space.

You have set up a paradigm where the bike lane is not a lane in traffic. Therefore, your statement makes sense for you; you see the bike lane line as a division in a single, larger lane. I don't accept your paradigm, and many people here do not either. If you do away with the lane, you do away with the pavement under it as well; or rather, if you fail the add the lane, then you have also failed to add the pavement underneath.

Except that the former is an opinion with you as the sole source, and the latter is generally accepted and has been verified by pictures from space.

You have set up a paradigm where the bike lane is not a lane in traffic. Therefore, your statement makes sense for you; you see the bike lane line as a division in a single, larger lane. I don't accept your paradigm, and many people here do not either. If you do away with the lane, you do away with the pavement under it as well; or rather, if you fail the add the lane, then you have also failed to add the pavement underneath.
My statement is not dependent on that paradigm. To the contrary.

Removing the lane dividing stripe on one side of a 4 lane road does not remove the space either.
When they repave nowadays, at least in San Diego, they tend to install these temporary plastic flap thingies to show where the lane stripes are going to be painted, but not too long ago they didn't do that, and even sometimes 6 lane roads were unstriped for a day or two after repaving. The stripes were not there, but lane space was still there. In this respect at least, bike "lanes" are no different.

In particular, if the problem is that the outside lane is "too narrow", then increasing width will solve that problem, regardless of which paradigm for bike lanes you accept. There is no need to also demarcate that extra width as a "bike lane" in order to solve the "too narrow" problem (there may be other reasons that one may have, but they would not be to solve the "too narrow" problem).

just adding width is not the same as adding bike lanes to roads. cars drive, and congest, all available space in a wide lane. some motorists will take offense to bicyclists in wide lanes riding a bit too far left for the motorists' liking. traffic backs up and blocks all space of wide lanes.

just adding width is not the same as adding bike lanes to roads. cars drive, and congest, all available space in a wide lane. some motorists will take offense to bicyclists in wide lanes riding a bit too far left for the motorists' liking. traffic backs up and blocks all space of wide lanes.
I never said it's the same.
I said that IF lack of width is the problem then adding width is the solution.
A bike lane is a solution to something else (what, i don't know).

Edit: For example, you might argue (and you have) that a bike lane is a solution to the problem of motorists blocking extra space when traffic is congested, making it more difficult for cyclists to filter forward. Again, that's a different problem - that's not a lack-of-width problem.

Adding a bike lane does not make cyclists into second class citizens. Failing to accommodate certain modes of transportation bestows second-class-citizenhood.

The more Serge carries his VC anti-bike lane flag and the harder he fights against the evils of normal bicycle operation the stronger and more powerful and dangerous bike lanes have to become for him, to the point of utter ridiculousness.

Please! I ride my bike all the time and do not have the kinds of problems Serge Chicken-Littles about all over this forum. 800 people die in cycling accidents each year? Compared to how many 10s of thousands dying in auto accidents, presumably while not driving in the bike lane?

Eeek! The sky is falling! Bike lanes! Eeek!

Even in a discussion about the existence of God, about which most reasonable people agree certain knowledge on either side cannot be claimed, it is common and reasonable to talk about what one believes is the probability that God exists (Richard Dawkins, for example, characterizes his view as "it is 'almost certain' that God does not exist", and has written a book, The God Delusion, explaining why he is "almost certain").
Mod note: Let's keep God out of bike lane discussions, please. P&R is the place to discuss deities and/or the lack thereof. Thank you.

Mod note: Let's keep God out of bike lane discussions, please. P&R is the place to discuss deities and/or the lack thereof. Thank you.

Thanks Donna (can I call you Donna?), I don't like when people talk about me in threads that I am not involved in at the time. :D

(can I call you Donna?)
Maybe. :p

just adding width is not the same as adding bike lanes to roads. cars drive, and congest, all available space in a wide lane. some motorists will take offense to bicyclists in wide lanes riding a bit too far left for the motorists' liking. traffic backs up and blocks all space of wide lanes.

And is there something wrong with that? Personally I would rather offend a motorist a bit because he is stuck behind me, rather than make him happy that he can pass at will and right hook me.

Your full statement above almost seems to indicate that the bike lane is there not to make us cyclists safer, but to keep the drivers happy by keeping us in our place, out of their way.

-D