Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Other Agendas

I see the solution to changing peoples mind about the restrictive principles are AASHTO pocket lanes and/or ending bike lanes well before intersections.

That is all I desire, but with clarification to end striping (unless pocket lane left of RTOL) before EVERY intersection including driveways. In my locality that would only remove at most 30% of striping.

Bek, I think you'll agree I have repeatedly said I am equivocal about the foggy line and I appreciate your responses about how to counter the unintended consequence of the line suggesting cyclists don't have a right to the through lanes. In fact, I have no problem with the line and as I've agreed before, there's no way it is going to be 'got rid of.' My focus is on enhancements to the line's unlawful implication.

Confining my self to the issue, I've given some thought to what the signs should say and haven't come up with good language. I'm thinking of the typical 50 mph two lane road (one lane in each direction) that has a foggy line which marks the beginning of the shoulder. The shoulder is wide but varies from smooth to chipseal to gravel as one moves from left to right.

The wording should be clear and brief. I hope folks can come up with improvements to:

"Bicycles not confined to shoulder," or "Yield to Bicycles."

Whatever the wording, it would also have to be salable to government. I assume there are people here, or in the industry that have given longer thought to this than I have.

Ed, we were in a discussion of improper instruction for making left turns or moving laterally on the roadway. I described the improper instruction as making the left turn arm signal and turning left, without using judgment about the other traffic. You came back with a reply that could have come from such instruction, identifying your signal, with no mention of yielding or judgment, as persuading motorists to accept your movement. I can't help it that you provided the incorrect description of the precise point at issue. I didn't accuse you of operating in that incompetent manner, but I did suggest that you worded your reply because that has been the traditionally erroneous way to describe the movement, a kind of residual thought pattern.

So there's no need to be personally upset about this; save your upset for the public who believe what you think I accused you of.

No upset here, but certainly a little frustration.

I did provide a technically incomplete description of the manouvre, but that was not the point I was trying to make. I did not expect to have to describe, to an audience of experienced cyclists, a left turn down to the last rotation of my pedals. The point I was trying to make (which you acknowledged) was that cyclists do seem, in general, to be well accepted when they behave in a predictable way according to written & unwritten traffic conventions. Done!

If you wanted to start a discussion of cyclist instruction methods, then please do so, but please be careful how you use the postings of others to bring up the subject. When you quoted my post, you gave no acknowledgement of my contribution before changing the subject and launching into your discussion of bike safety instruction.

I have never heard of teaching that does not teach riders to maintain an awareness of traffic and I find it hard to believe this would be a standard practice. Even if this has been the case at times, only a person exhibiting a stunning lack of common sense or self preservation would fail to take account of other traffic whilst using a bicycle.

unfortunately, even some agenda driven, public figure cycling advocates- john forester, john schubert, steve goodridge - seem intent on misinterpreting the leeways granted from frap positioning and marginalizing what it allows bicyclists to confuse and conflate laws allowing behaviors into restrictions not written into the statute.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Chris Ziegler's recent loss on appeal of his violation of California's bicycle-specific FRAP. Chris is an LCI, and according to his account the officer who ticketed him for violation of FRAP on a 30 mph road lied in court and the judge rejected every well-crafted argument about safety reasons to stay away from the curb under the conditions that were present. Chris says he spent around $4000 on this appeal including his attorney.

Bicycle-specific FRAP laws do get enforced in an onerous manner regardless of what you'd like, Bek. Not having them would be the best legal defense.

Bicycle-specific FRAP laws do get enforced in an onerous manner regardless of what you'd like, Bek. Not having them would be the best legal defense.
Almost any law can be enforced in a "onerous" manner.

Anyway, I suspect that that the alternative to FRAP laws is to make bicycles illegal on the roadways.

Almost any law can be enforced in a "onerous" manner.

Anyway, I suspect that that the alternative to FRAP laws is to make bicycles illegal on the roadways.

The alternative to a bicycle-specific FRAP law is to have just the generic FRAP law that applies to all vehicles. This is what works in NC - our own DMV's Driver Handbook explains that cyclists have the right to the full lane. When police have erroneously ticketed cyclists under the generic FRAP law in NC for not hugging the right edge of a lane, the charges have been dropped before they could go to court.

Chris was riding in stop-and-go urban traffic with lots of intersections and traffic signals, and generally keeping up with the traffic (30 mph posted max) while taking the lane according to his account. The problem appears to be that the police officer and judge believed that he should be staying at the right edge of the lane because he was using a bicycle, because the law appears to prescribe special positioning just for bicycle traffic.

Re: onerous enforcement of bicycle laws and ignorance:

The lady I rode with yesterday told me a story about when she was lawfully cycling up a local favorite, Weber Canyon Road in Eastern Washington.

A Washington State Trooper pulled up along side her and using his bull horn shouted:

"That's not a motorized vehicle!" before he continued on his way.

She ignored him continued to lawfully ride as he continued on his way.

Confining my self to the issue, I've given some thought to what the signs should say and haven't come up with good language. I'm thinking of the typical 50 mph two lane road (one lane in each direction) that has a foggy line which marks the beginning of the shoulder. The shoulder is wide but varies from smooth to chipseal to gravel as one moves from left to right.

The wording should be clear and brief. I hope folks can come up with improvements to:

"Bicycles not confined to shoulder," or "Yield to Bicycles."

Whatever the wording, it would also have to be salable to government. I assume there are people here, or in the industry that have given longer thought to this than I have.

I like that. "Share the road" is a bit too subtle for some ;)

Other thoughts:

"Bicycles may use all lanes"
"O#O` unrestricted" (O#O` is supposed to be the "standard bike" symbol)
"Watch for bicycles in road"

The alternative to a bicycle-specific FRAP law is to have just the generic FRAP law that applies to all vehicles. This is what works in NC - our own DMV's Driver Handbook explains that cyclists have the right to the full lane. When police have erroneously ticketed cyclists under the generic FRAP law in NC for not hugging the right edge of a lane, the charges have been dropped before they could go to court.
Did NC ever have a bicycle-specific FRAP law? Or have they just not gotten around to making one?

The alternative to a bicycle-specific FRAP law is to have just the generic FRAP law that applies to all vehicles. This is what works in NC - our own DMV's Driver Handbook explains that cyclists have the right to the full lane. When police have erroneously ticketed cyclists under the generic FRAP law in NC for not hugging the right edge of a lane, the charges have been dropped before they could go to court.

Chris was riding in stop-and-go urban traffic with lots of intersections and traffic signals, and generally keeping up with the traffic (30 mph posted max) while taking the lane according to his account. The problem appears to be that the police officer and judge believed that he should be staying at the right edge of the lane because he was using a bicycle, because the law appears to prescribe special positioning just for bicycle traffic.


Thanks for the pointer. I don't know about Bek, but I will look it up.

^ with that in mind, it would be interesting how that would be interpreted in the UK. The reason I mention that is there is a general requirement of all vehicles to FLAP (far left as possible) i.e. one does NOT pass other vehicles on their left as you are all headed down the same stretch of roadway. Of course this generally applies in the case where there are multiple lanes in the same direction of travel.
I'd have to look at the Highway Code to find the rules for cycling and lane occupancy - May be back later with that.

Ed

OK, here we go, for those of us of the British persuasion here is a selection of the Highway Code's Rules for cyclists. Generally I think they are pretty fair, and it seems implicit, as I've always believed, that cyclists have full rights to the roadway. I've highlighted a few things that suggest this:

61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

62
Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.


[Law HA 1835 sect 72]

63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

Multi-lane carriageways (133-143)
64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]

65
Bus Lanes. Most bus lanes may be used by cyclists as indicated on signs. Watch out for people getting on or off a bus. Be very careful when overtaking a bus or leaving a bus lane as you will be entering a busier traffic flow. Do not pass between the kerb and a bus when it is at a stop.

66
You should

keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
keep both feet on the pedals
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
not ride close behind another vehicle
not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted

Did NC ever have a bicycle-specific FRAP law? Or have they just not gotten around to making one?

NC never had one. This spring HB1451, the "Bicycle Protection Act," proposed a bicycle-specific FRAP law lacking an exception for narrow lane, preparing to turn left or avoiding right turn hazards. It would also make bike lane use mandatory. The bill generated opposition among cyclists and died in committee.

There appears to be an effort to bring it back next session. Some people are promoting a 3' passing law and a law against yelling at cyclists, and some say they are willing to accept the bicycle-specific FRAP restrictions and mandatory bike lane use laws in exchange. This seems to be the strategy of opponents to roadway cycling: As long as you stay out of the way of motorists under penalty of law, we'll pass unenforceable laws that make you feel better about being there. I hope to develop greater understanding among cycling advocates about the utility of taking the lane, and problems with police misunderstanding about bike-specific FRAP laws (or perhaps the police understand the true intent, and we dont?) to prevent one from passing next session.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Chris Ziegler's recent loss on appeal of his violation of California's bicycle-specific FRAP. Chris is an LCI, and according to his account the officer who ticketed him for violation of FRAP on a 30 mph road lied in court and the judge rejected every well-crafted argument about safety reasons to stay away from the curb under the conditions that were present. Chris says he spent around $4000 on this appeal including his attorney....

I'd be interested in reviewing the briefs and the Court of Appeals decision.

One issue that frequently makes appeals pointless, is if the trier of fact makes a finding of fact that demolishes your case. If the judges says I believe the [Assos-Whole-gawd-dam-lying] police officer, which is frequently the case in lower courts, then the litigant is skewered if the case turns on a question of fact, rather than law, and sound legal advice may be to cut your losses and fergit the appeal.

snip

I have never heard of teaching that does not teach riders to maintain an awareness of traffic and I find it hard to believe this would be a standard practice. Even if this has been the case at times, only a person exhibiting a stunning lack of common sense or self preservation would fail to take account of other traffic whilst using a bicycle.

Ed, I think that you have an English background, although I do not know at what age you arrived in the USA. I am going to assume that you arrived here as an adult; if that's incorrect, please inform us. If that is so, you did not have the typical American "bike-safety" training inflicted on you, the training that was almost universal until very few years ago. When I cycle-toured in England, conveying the first impression of an American, I would stop in roadside pubs and talk with people. When I asked "How should cyclists behave on the road?", the universal answer was, obey the rules of the road just like everybody else.

That is not the typical answer when such questions are asked of Americans. A typical American answer is, "They must stay over at the side of the road so they will be safe." Attend any public meeting about bicycle transportation and you will hear that as the majority opinion, quite generally the only opinion expressed, and, certainly, the only opinion tolerated. I have been to so many such meetings, over the decades.

Ed, I think that you have an English background, although I do not know at what age you arrived in the USA. I am going to assume that you arrived here as an adult; if that's incorrect, please inform us. If that is so, you did not have the typical American "bike-safety" training inflicted on you, the training that was almost universal until very few years ago. When I cycle-toured in England, conveying the first impression of an American, I would stop in roadside pubs and talk with people. When I asked "How should cyclists behave on the road?", the universal answer was, obey the rules of the road just like everybody else.

That is not the typical answer when such questions are asked of Americans. A typical American answer is, "They must stay over at the side of the road so they will be safe." Attend any public meeting about bicycle transportation and you will hear that as the majority opinion, quite generally the only opinion expressed, and, certainly, the only opinion tolerated. I have been to so many such meetings, over the decades.

Yes, I'm English. I arrived here on a permanent basis (California) about 3 years ago, though I had visited and cycled here periodically from the early 2000's. I certainly know little/nothing about US cycle instruction of the past. Whilst you say that in Britain, the general opinion is that cyclists should "Obey the rules of the road like everybody else", in practice it is expected that you stay to the left when practicable (See my quote from the UK Highway Code, above).
When I do my parts as a cycling instructor, and teach my Son to ride, it will be my endeavour to instill the practices I have learned for safe & effective riding, and that one has a right to the roadway - but that its no use being a damn fool about it if you don't feel safe & confident or another individual gets nasty.

Now Barry ... we have been around long enough to understand that the loop has been playing -- i.e., the jukebox has been on repeat -- for years.

Well ya but generally only after the whole play list has been played. This is the first I've seen ignoring the last days posts and reposting the same junk as the day before.


...AND they have a duty to address that miscommunication.

I think I may borrow that line.

I see, Steve.

so positioning as far right as practicable in the presence of faster traffic is vehicular when it applies to all vehicles including bicycles, and it is not vehicular when it applies to all vehicles including bicycles, and bicycles.

yes, the misinterpretation on the part of law enforcement and the judiciary needs to be addressed, but this does NOT nullify the inherent vehicularity of FRAP as bicyclists' vehicular road positioning rule.

I suspect a cyclists could still get ticketed under general traffic FRAPS, perhaps there would even be a bigger backlash against bicyclists FRAPping the center of the lane, despite steve's recap of NC traffic court rulings.

SHOCKED to see guys like JF or SG or JS interpreting FRAP as 'edge of road' - how intellectually dishonest!!! actually, understanding the backdrop of their retarding agenda it doesn't suprise me as much as disgust me. really, guys - edge of road and prevents full lane use? what a crock of marginalizing lies about bicyclist best practices...




after all, steve, you state FRAP IS a generally accepted vehicular road positioning rule for slower moving traffic.......

frapping right down the middle of the inside lane of traffic is sometimes as far frapped as i'm frapping.

frippin frapping....

Yes, I'm English. I arrived here on a permanent basis (California) about 3 years ago, though I had visited and cycled here periodically from the early 2000's. I certainly know little/nothing about US cycle instruction of the past. Whilst you say that in Britain, the general opinion is that cyclists should "Obey the rules of the road like everybody else", in practice it is expected that you stay to the left when practicable (See my quote from the UK Highway Code, above).
When I do my parts as a cycling instructor, and teach my Son to ride, it will be my endeavour to instill the practices I have learned for safe & effective riding, and that one has a right to the roadway - but that its no use being a damn fool about it if you don't feel safe & confident or another individual gets nasty.

There is a distinct difference between the attitude of the UK Highway Code and the statutes of the US states. The UKHC has its words in an advisory tone and is very careful to state that its recommendations are not mandatory, while the US statutes use shall and their exceptions are listed as exceptions rather than as general principles. I also have the opinion, subject to correction, that the UKHC is not considered the law of the land, but has a rather lower place. These differences are the result of very different views about the legitimacy of cycling and how it is to be carried out.

There is a distinct difference between the attitude of the UK Highway Code and the statutes of the US states. The UKHC has its words in an advisory tone and is very careful to state that its recommendations are not mandatory, while the US statutes use shall and their exceptions are listed as exceptions rather than as general principles. I also have the opinion, subject to correction, that the UKHC is not considered the law of the land, but has a rather lower place. These differences are the result of very different views about the legitimacy of cycling and how it is to be carried out.

I think this is a good summary of the difference between UKHC and the various State Vehicle codes here in the US. In the UK, the HC is considered required knowledge for drivers seeking to pass the driving test. It contains rules as guidance but also references the law, where that highway code rule arises from a statute. It is a bit quirky, but I think the format is generally clear and effective, and legal requirements are well outlined alongside best practice for all vehicle types and pedestrians.

Ed

Ed, I think that you have an English background, although I do not know at what age you arrived in the USA. I am going to assume that you arrived here as an adult; if that's incorrect, please inform us. If that is so, you did not have the typical American "bike-safety" training inflicted on you, the training that was almost universal until very few years ago. When I cycle-toured in England, conveying the first impression of an American, I would stop in roadside pubs and talk with people. When I asked "How should cyclists behave on the road?", the universal answer was, obey the rules of the road just like everybody else.

I don't know about Ed, but I grew up in America (southeastern Virginia, to be more precise) and never had any sort of "bike-safety" training nor do I recall ever seeing any offered. As children in the late '50s and early '60s, both I and my friends rode however and wherever we wished: On sidewalks, on the wrong side of the street, through front yards, in circles in the middle of the street, etc. (That's the same way the younger kids in my neighborhood still ride today.) By the time I was a teenager I had heard that bikes should follow the same rules as cars and cyclists should use hand signals, but nothing more specific than that. I sort of figured out on my own that it meant riding on the right, obeying stop signs, etc. Then in the early '70s I bought a ten-speed and read a couple of books on cycling, from which I learned a few more specific rules (like staying as much as possible in an imaginary two-foot zone on the far right -- a rule I still follow today). But I was never exposed to any formal training classes on bike safety, in school or anywhere else. I think people sort of assumed that it was common sense to be alert and watch for cars, whether walking or biking, and the only safety lessons I remember from school were things like "walk on the left" and "look both ways before crossing the street." (On the other hand, in elementary school, I do remember the whole student body being called to the auditorium for a lecture about some new-fangled contraptions called "skateboards" and how dangerous they were and why we ought to avoid having anything to do with them. Naturally, we all went home and got our dads to help us build our own out of old roller skates.)

My own children were born in 1982 and 1988, and were raised in Mississippi and Alabama. I don't recall either of them ever having any bike safety classes. As far as I know, everything they learned about bikes came from me, and their friends, and what they figured out for themselves.

I'd be interested in reviewing the briefs and the Court of Appeals decision.

One issue that frequently makes appeals pointless, is if the trier of fact makes a finding of fact that demolishes your case. If the judges says I believe the [Assos-Whole-gawd-dam-lying] police officer, which is frequently the case in lower courts, then the litigant is skewered if the case turns on a question of fact, rather than law, and sound legal advice may be to cut your losses and fergit the appeal.

I can't find anything on the web.

Steve, are you writing that he lost his appeal or that he lost his initial court case? And this cost $4000? That sounds pretty steep.

NC never had one. This spring HB1451, the "Bicycle Protection Act," proposed a bicycle-specific FRAP law lacking an exception for narrow lane, preparing to turn left or avoiding right turn hazards. It would also make bike lane use mandatory. The bill generated opposition among cyclists and died in committee.

There appears to be an effort to bring it back next session. Some people are promoting a 3' passing law and a law against yelling at cyclists, and some say they are willing to accept the bicycle-specific FRAP restrictions and mandatory bike lane use laws in exchange. This seems to be the strategy of opponents to roadway cycling: As long as you stay out of the way of motorists under penalty of law, we'll pass unenforceable laws that make you feel better about being there. I hope to develop greater understanding among cycling advocates about the utility of taking the lane, and problems with police misunderstanding about bike-specific FRAP laws (or perhaps the police understand the true intent, and we dont?) to prevent one from passing next session.

So, it looks like NC just hasn't gotten around to it! This supports my opinion that it's unlikely that more freedom will be granted to cyclists. (The 3-foot laws are an interesting contradiction.)


The alternative to a bicycle-specific FRAP law is to have just the generic FRAP law that applies to all vehicles. This is what works in NC.
This "works" in NC because it's the status quo.

In FRAP states (wherein FRAP is the status quo), I think it would be highly unlikely that the law would be changed to allow cyclists more freedom.

I don't know about Ed, but I grew up in America (southeastern Virginia, to be more precise) and never had any sort of "bike-safety" training nor do I recall ever seeing any offered. As children in the late '50s and early '60s, both I and my friends rode however and wherever we wished: On sidewalks, on the wrong side of the street, through front yards, in circles in the middle of the street, etc. (That's the same way the younger kids in my neighborhood still ride today.) By the time I was a teenager I had heard that bikes should follow the same rules as cars and cyclists should use hand signals, but nothing more specific than that. I sort of figured out on my own that it meant riding on the right, obeying stop signs, etc. Then in the early '70s I bought a ten-speed and read a couple of books on cycling, from which I learned a few more specific rules (like staying as much as possible in an imaginary two-foot zone on the far right -- a rule I still follow today). But I was never exposed to any formal training classes on bike safety, in school or anywhere else. I think people sort of assumed that it was common sense to be alert and watch for cars, whether walking or biking, and the only safety lessons I remember from school were things like "walk on the left" and "look both ways before crossing the street." (On the other hand, in elementary school, I do remember the whole student body being called to the auditorium for a lecture about some new-fangled contraptions called "skateboards" and how dangerous they were and why we ought to avoid having anything to do with them. Naturally, we all went home and got our dads to help us build our own out of old roller skates.)

My own children were born in 1982 and 1988, and were raised in Mississippi and Alabama. I don't recall either of them ever having any bike safety classes. As far as I know, everything they learned about bikes came from me, and their friends, and what they figured out for themselves.

Yes, the absence of formal bicycle safety training was the other method. Of course, that is not documented by printed or verbal official instructions, so it is invisible. But I have heard and read of both ways, no training and "bike-safety" training. I suggest that "bike-safety" training was provided in those states in which society both had the money and considered bicycling traffic to be more important.

Funny, but this is an example in which ignorance turned out to be better than education.

In FRAP states (wherein FRAP is the status quo), I think it would be highly unlikely that the law would be changed to allow cyclists more freedom.

Some states have eliminated discriminatory laws such as mandatory sidepath-use laws. Some have added narrow-lane exceptions (including specification of 14' as the minimum width expected for sharing) and other exceptionsto their existing bicycle-specific FRAP laws.

I expect more states with bicycle-specific FRAPs to pass more exceptions as cycling advocates become more active. That seems to be the trend right now. As the number of exceptions increases to cover all the situations needed (and cyclists become increasingly aware of the problems with prejudiced police and judges) we have

lim(BikeFRAPLaw) = 0*BikeFRAPLaw
exceptions->inf

I suspect some states like NC may look at those states with a laundry list of exceptions and decide that the easiest thing to do is not mess with a bicycle-specific FRAP law at all. Let them legally take the whole lane but share it as a courtesy.

None of the mandatory bicycle laws is good for bicyclists and none enhance bicylist safety. Despite what Bek says, this includes mandatory bicycle-specific FRAP. Bek's claim that that bike-specific FRAP law is the essence of vehicular cycling is a real stretch-- not so much because of what such laws say but because of how they are so often mininterpreted. Bike-specific FRAP are unnecessary at best. How harmful they are may be a matter of debate.

If a bike-specific FRAP law is just a list of exceptions, then it might be argued that such a law does little harm but even exceptions can be problematic. A case in point is the "lane too narrow to share" exception which might lead some to conclude that, if the lane isn't too narrow to share, then the bicyclist must share (although that is a logical fallacy).

Bike specific FRAP only leads to confusion.

Mandatory bike lane and mandatory sidepath laws are, of course, nonsense. My experience is that there are enough runners/joggers in the bike lane early in the morning that there's hardly any point trying to spend any time in the bike lane.

[begin rant]Having once been a rather fanatical runner myself, I don't begrudge runners their use of the bike lane-- if bicyclists feel discriminated against, try being a runner-- not welcome anywhere-- too fast for the sidewalk, too slow for the road and locked out of running tracks-- yes, sports fans, world record-holders have to break into local tracks to train-- it's the American way-- the public can't use public high school tracks, nevermind that the public paid for the tracks [end of former runner's rant- no hard feelings (well, maybe a few)].

Bicyclists have it so good compared to runners. I could tell some stories. :)

And, by the way, I'm not aware that runners have any legal status anywhere-- on the road, on sidewalks, on public tracks they've been locked out of or on public golfcourses that they get chased off of. :)

Bicyclists are the ones discriminated against. Yea, right. Bike lanes are Jim Crow. What a crock from the Foresterites!

But, as I said, no hard feelings. :)

[begin rant]Having once been a rather fanatical runner myself, I don't begrudge runners their use of the bike lane-- if bicyclists feel discriminated against, try being a runner-- not welcome anywhere-- too fast for the sidewalk, too slow for the road and locked out of running tracks-- yes, sports fans, world record-holders have to break into local tracks to train-- it's the American way-- the public can't use public high school tracks, nevermind that the public paid for the tracks [end of former runner's rant- no hard feelings (well, maybe a few)].

This must be an area-dependent thing. My early-morning rides often take me by a public high school where members of the community can be seen walking or running on the track nearly every morning. The only sort of restriction I've seen is a sign on the fence that says "No cars allowed on track." (It sort of boggles my mind that such a prohibition should be necessary!)

Before moving to Alabama I lived in Mississippi and attended a church whose parking lot was built behind a public high school running track. Local people of all ages used that track, too, in the afternoons and evenings.

i don't think i've ever proclaimed bike specificity in FRAP laws enhanced bicyclist safety; I've stated several times that FRAP is NOT 'edge of road' or edge of lane even in the absence of other trafffic' as steve goodridge has erroneously stated in another recent BF thread.

FRAP is the essence of vehicular road and destination/ safety positioning in a nutshell. ride frap and you concurrently are riding vehicularly.

FRAP=VC.

what irks me is seeing "advocates" like steve or john marginalizing what and how a bicyclist should ride under the dictates of frap.....

simply put, their agenda forces them to mislead, marginalize and blatantly lie about what FRAP legally affords bicyclists.

their then use this flawed interpretation to endorse road engineering dictates which actively discourage bicyclist ridership in communities. the use of a bald faced lie about how bicyclists are allowed to ride under FRAP positioning to further their agenda is DISGUSTING.



which steve goodridge and the UVC seems in agreement with is that FRAP for slower moving vehicles is a vehicular construct.

to borrow a note from Steve goodridge, maybe he can understand a math equation or two.

FRAP≠edge of road.

FRAP≠far right.

FRAP=VC.

FRAP(bikes + cars)=FRAP(vehicles), as steve mentions on the last page.

i don't think i've ever proclaimed bike specificity in FRAP laws enhanced bicyclist safety; I've stated several times that FRAP is NOT 'edge of road' or edge of lane even in the absence of other trafffic' as steve goodridge has erroneously stated in another recent BF thread.

FRAP is the essence of vehicular road and destination/ safety positioning in a nutshell. ride frap and you concurrently are riding vehicularly.

FRAP=VC.

what irks me is seeing "advocates" like steve or john marginalizing what and how a bicyclist should ride under the dictates of frap.....

simply put, their agenda forces them to mislead, marginalize and blatantly lie about what FRAP legally affords bicyclists.

their then tying this misinterpretation into a flawed road engineering dictate which actively discourage bicyclist ridership. those blatant marginalizing of how bicyclists should ride under FRAP positioning to further their agenda is DISGUSTING.



which steve goodridge and the UVC seems in agreement with is that FRAP for slower moving vehicles is a vehicular construct.

to borrow a note from Steve goodridge, maybe he can understand a math equation or two.

FRAP≠edge of road.

FRAP≠far right.

FRAP=VC.

Bekologist, you keep presenting the argument that FRAP equals vehicular cycling. However, you have never presented any argument that demonstrates your claim. Please refrain from making this argument until you have demonstrated its validity.

sorry, john. you don't get to play that game.

you've never proven FRAP equates to edge of lane or prevents use of the full lane; in fact, i've quoted a noted lawyer and expert in bicycling law, Bob Mionske, that discredits your proclaimations about FRAP.

since you so are either unclear, or lying about FRAP, why you think you get to dictate the debate is hilarious in its presumption.

let me demonstrate its validity to you john, since you clearly don't understand how to ride FRAP.

since FRAP applies to slow moving vehicles FRAP is therby vehicular, old man. and positioning onesself only as far right as is safe at any given time is the very embodiment of vehicular cycling's safety, anticipatory, destination and visibility positioning's best practices wrapped up in a simple explanatory nutshell.


it is so easy to expose john forester's bluster about this too, as fraudlent postulations of a man with a flawed, bankrupt agenda.

what irks me is seeing "advocates" like steve or john marginalizing what and how a bicyclist should ride under the dictates of frap.....

simply put, their agenda forces them to mislead, marginalize and blatantly lie about what FRAP legally affords bicyclists.


When Bek misrepresents my position like this, I usually assume it is accidental, i.e. that he merely has poor reading comprehension. But perhaps it is deliberate.

I have repeatedly said that there is a difference between how bicyclists and police should interpret all FRAP laws when deciding how cyclists should ride safely, and how biased police, judges, and motorists will often misinterpret bicycle-specific FRAP laws when they believe motorists may be inconvenienced. Due to the fact that they enable misinterpretation and discrimination, I oppose bicycle-specific FRAP laws. Bek has read this explanation repeatedly, yet he continues to misrepresent my position. Why?

His words below explain his motives:



their then use this flawed interpretation to endorse road engineering dictates which actively discourage bicyclist ridership in communities. the use of a bald faced lie about how bicyclists are allowed to ride under FRAP positioning to further their agenda is DISGUSTING.


Bek seems to be afraid that if I spread awareness about how police and judges often misinterpret (or interpret, depending on the actual intent of the legislature) bicycle-specific FRAP laws and mandatory bike lane use laws, bicyclists' support for bicycle lane striping may be reduced. He must be so worried by this remote threat to his striping agenda that he will resort to calling me a liar for revealing real-world cases of cyclists ticketed for riding safely away from the curb.

Certainly his concern is not that I will tell cyclists to hug the right edge of narrow lanes; he knows that the LAB classes I teach encourage cyclists to ride in the center of narrow lanes. He cannot be concerned that I will tell cyclists traveling at slow speed mid-block to ride in the center of a wide lane; so much of my advocacy work that he has read has explained the benefits of 14' or wider lanes as allowing safer, easier same-lane passing and making cyclists more comfortable than narrow lanes. No, Bek has previously said that he believes that we both use similar positioning on similar roads. We advocate similar behavior to other cyclists.

This is all about the vulnerability of public support for the separated cycling facility agenda to the fallout of discriminatory actions by police, judges, and legislators who want to keep cyclists out of the way regardless of the safety, comfort or efficiency of cyclists. Bek's shooting of the messenger is misguided; he should instead be upset with the police, judges, and legislators who take actions that create problems for cyclists acting appropriately. But part of the problem with a facilities advocate arguing against laws mandating the use of the separated facilities is that it requires admission that the facilities are imperfect. Many facilities advocates are unwilling to do this. Furthermore, effectively defending a cyclist's legal right to take the lane requires explaining in a convincing manner that this action is reasonably safe. This further undermines the separated facility advocacy platform that presents separate facilities as being essential for safety.

As are result of his conflicts of interest, Bek closes his mind to the nuances of my positions, and casts me as some dishonest guy who doesn't want to see more cyclists enjoying more comfortable cycling to more places more often with a better transportation network. This irony undermines his credibility as a cyclist advocate.

steve,


his concern is not that I will tell cyclists to hug the right edge of narrow lanes

part of my concern is exactly that. you misstate what frap allows bicyclists, repeatedly.

why did you post that FRAP requires edge of road positioning even in the absence of faster moving traffic and prevents full lane use?

marginalizing to further your agenda - fighting tooth and nail against bike specificity in roadscape design.

and be very careful how you frame your argument, you conflate a few core concepts when trying to frame your criticisms.....


But part of the problem with a facilities advocate arguing against laws mandating the use of the separated facilities is that it requires admission that the facilities are imperfect........

This further undermines the separated facility advocacy platform that presents separate facilities as being essential for safety.

woah, steve. you're mixing up sidepath and streetscape.

bike lanes and on road, bike specific street enhancements are part of the roadway. integrated road architecture.


not 'sidepaths' which are separate facilites. and that 'essential for safety' nonsense??? only on a small percentage of streets across communities.....

get the rudiments straight first.

you're argument is conflated.

steve,
part of my concern is exactly that. you misstate what frap allows bicyclists, repeatedly.


My advice to cyclists is to operate safely, taken the lane as needed, since safety is more important than the threat of inappropriate ticketing by biased police officers.


steve,
why did you post that FRAP requires edge of road positioning even in the absence of faster moving traffic and prevents full lane use?

marginalizing to further your agenda.

Because that is how some police interpret it, and this interpretation is the basis for why cyclists should oppose the law as written.

Does the bicycle specific FRAP law say anything about what other traffic is doing? No. Does the one that was proposed for NC (HB1451) make an exception for narrow lanes? No. Many police can and do interpret such laws as requiring cyclists to ride curbside at all times, period.

I marginalize discriminatory traffic laws, with the agenda of preventing them from being adopted, and hoping for their repeal elsewhere. Why you find this threatening to your pavement marking agenda is fascinating.

so you admit you misinterpret and marginalize traffic laws.

i don't find it threatening, i find it incredibly dishonest and disgusting.

and what of your conflating sidepath with streetscape?

states' clarity in statute to expressly allow bicyclists to travel only as far to the right as is safe is not a credible reason to oppose bike specificity in roadscape design.

several states have changed frap statutes in recent years to read 'only as far right as is safe' to clarify bike positioning to people like steve who seem intent to misread laws.

I suggest to those 'suffering' intolerable and un-vehicuklar cycling in states under the hugely onerous bike specific FRAP law to lobby your state legislature to simply strike and substitute 'safe' for 'practicable' as has been done in at least Oklahoma and Washington state in the last 10 years......


it should make it easier for judges, steve, and others intent on misreading and marginalizing bicyclists rights.

so you admit you misinterpret and marginalize traffic laws.

i don't find it threatening, i find it incredibly dishonest and disgusting.


That's funny.



and what of your conflating sidepath with streetscape?

Nice straw man.

When Bek misrepresents my position like this, I usually assume it is accidental, i.e. that he merely has poor reading comprehension. But perhaps it is deliberate.

Oh PUH-leeze.

Assuming it's accidential is like asking for a whole lotta lumps.

steve-
you've conflated 'separated facilties' AKA sidepaths with integrated roadway architecture that faciltates lawful, on-road bicycling.

YOU created the strawman.

get the rudiments straight because you are blatantly conflating two separate :D issues.

do i really have to reiterate your fallacious reasoning?


But part of the problem with a facilities advocate arguing against laws mandating the use of the separated facilities is that it requires admission that the facilities are imperfect........

This further undermines the separated facility advocacy platform that presents separate facilities as being essential for safety.


you've deliberately mixed up sidepath and streetscape.

bike lanes and on road, bike specific street enhancements are part of the roadway. integrated road architecture, not 'separated' facilites, which are sidepaths. and that 'essential for safety' nonsense??? only on a small percentage of streets across communities.....

get the rudiments straight first.

you're argument is conflated.

wow, guys like john forester and steve, driven to lie from the weight of their agendas, forcing them to marginalize cyclists rights and willing to conflate and mislead about 'as far right as practicable', 'bikeway' and 'separated facility.'


lame and dangerous lies driven by a dubious agenda.

Bekologist,

I am still waiting for you to convince me that I should support the cycling-specific FRAP law. Can you describe a scenario where a cyclist should justly and rightfully be cited and prosecuted for violating it?

Oh PUH-leeze.

Assuming it's accidential is like asking for a whole lotta lumps.

Well, I like taking the high road and giving people the benefit of the doubt, especially where I think there is the possibility for common ground. It is true that a shewd debater might leverage this to his or her advantage. Bek, on the other hand, just continues on to hang himself.

steve-
you've conflated 'separated facilties' AKA sidepaths with integrated roadway architecture that faciltates lawful, on-road bicycling.
...
YOU created the strawman.


Even funnier.

Your strained semantic arguments might be interesting in another context (e.g. which bikeway types should legally be considered part of the roadway and which should be considered part of the highway outside the roadway), but are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I was speaking quite clearly about bike lanes on roadways and their separation of traffic by vehicle type. But you knew that.

actually not, steve.

it's not irrelevant to this discussion, as lawful road bicycling is the discussion. you conflate a few of the core issues, this is not just 'semantics' when guys like you and john are telling a public forum bike laws prevent vehicular cycling and on which types of roads under which legal statute.

you consistently muddle definitions and base your platform on this false foundation in attempts to justify your agenda - fighting tooth and nail against bike specificity in roadway design.

I would disagree with any contention that bike infrastructure on the roadway constitutes a "separated facility" at all.

Bekologist,

I am still waiting for you to convince me that I should support the FRAP law. Can you describe a scenario where a cyclist should justly and rightfully be cited and prosecuted for violating it?

Interesting question which got me thinking can anyone describe a scenario where a slow moving vehicle should justly and rightfully be cited and prosecuted for violating the slow moving vehicle law? (Think Amish buggy or farm equipment.)

Personally I am drawing a blank on this this one but maybe I have not thought of everything.

sorry, john. you don't get to play that game.

you've never proven FRAP equates to edge of lane or prevents use of the full lane; in fact, i've quoted a noted lawyer and expert in bicycling law, Bob Mionske, that discredits your proclaimations about FRAP.

since you so are either unclear, or lying about FRAP, why you think you get to dictate the debate is hilarious in its presumption.

let me demonstrate its validity to you john, since you clearly don't understand how to ride FRAP.

since FRAP applies to slow moving vehicles FRAP is therby vehicular, old man. and positioning onesself only as far right as is safe at any given time is the very embodiment of vehicular cycling's safety, anticipatory, destination and visibility positioning's best practices wrapped up in a simple explanatory nutshell.


it is so easy to expose john forester's bluster about this too, as fraudlent postulations of a man with a flawed, bankrupt agenda.

Well, Bekologist, you argue that the law for slow-moving vehicles and the law for slow-moving bicycles are identical, and since the law for slow-moving vehicles is "vehicular", so must be the law for slow-moving bicycles. This latter "vehicular" argument is nothing more then verbal sleight-of-hand; it is not true, but, in any case, it doesn't matter at all.

However, the first part of your argument is false, as any lawyer will tell you. This has been often explained to you, perhaps as many a one hundred times, and your mind is so clouded by ideological superstition that you act as if you did not understand it. You start by defining "practicable" as "safe", and that's not really incorrect. The definition of "practicable" was given more than thirty years ago by the executive director of the Committee for Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. He stated that practicable meant possible, safe, and reasonable, but there is no real difference in the argument whether the words are "practicable", or "safe", or "possible, safe, and reasonable". We don't get concerned about "possible", but both "safe" and "reasonable" are never defined and are the subject of judgment, and, therefore, also of prejudice and superstition.

The crucial legal difference between the law for slow-moving vehicles and the law for slow-moving bicycles is that the first applies to drivers while the latter applies to bicyclists. Therefore, the meaning of "practicable" in the law for drivers of vehicles is not the same as the meaning of "practicable" for riders of bicycles. Conditions which are clearly impracticable for automobiles are often deemed practicable for bicycles. Furthermore, different people, particularly people with power over us, may have very different views as to "practicable" as applied to bicycle travel, as many of have learned over the years. What happens, Bekologist, when a police officer holds that practicable requires you to ride in a different part of the roadway than you think is the practicable place? That's not an argument that cyclists win. Judges have held, time after time, that the criterion for practicability for vehicles does not apply when the device is a bicycle, because there are two different laws, one law for each type.

This simply means that society is empowered, by the special bicycle laws, to apply its prejudices regarding bicycling without having to consider the effect of their prejudice upon their own actions as drivers of vehicles.

That's been explained to you, Bekologist, time after time. Is this explanation sufficiently simple for you to understand it?

Bekologist,

I am still waiting for you to convince me that I should support the cycling-specific FRAP law. Can you describe a scenario where a cyclist should justly and rightfully be cited and prosecuted for violating it?

I'm not suggesting you 'support' anything; bike specific frap laws do not prevent vehicular cycling and are not enough reason to stand against bike specificity in roadscape design.

i suggest too, "high roller" that FRAP is going to apply as per the UVC and your state code wether it is expressed as 'all vehicles' or "all vehicles including bicycles."

states' attempt to acheive greater clarity in statute to expressly allow bicyclists to travel only as far to the right as is safe is not a credible reason to oppose bike specificity in roadscape design.


And finally, that FRAP embodies all the nuance of vehicular cycling's best destination, speed, anticipation and safety lateral road positions into one condensed nutshell, and that FRAP equates with the core road positioning concepts of vehikular cycling.

Well, Bekologist, you argue that the law for slow-moving vehicles and the law for slow-moving bicycles are identical, and since the law for slow-moving vehicles is "vehicular", so must be the law for slow-moving bicycles. This latter "vehicular" argument is nothing more then verbal sleight-of-hand; it is not true, but, in any case, it doesn't matter at all.

Where did I say the two laws are identical? i understand the difference!!! :roflmao: I said FRAP is vehicular wether it's for all vehicles or all vehicles (including bicycles).

don't create a false argument for me; you've got one heck of a hole you need to dig yourself out of first.



blah blah prejudice and superstition, ideological cloudiness......

That's been explained to you, Bekologist, time after time. Is this explanation sufficiently simple for you to understand it?

no not in the least. is FRAP a general vehicular rule of the road for slow moving vehicles in the presence of faster vehicles or isn't it? is speed positioning part of vehicular cycling or isn't it?

-what gives YOU the right to tell a public forum that FRAP equates with requring edge of road bicycling and prevents full lane use? or that 'of course states expect lawful cycling!" bluster when confronted with the fallacies surrounding your 'childish cycling' theory? :D

Explain YOUR ideological misinterpretations.


john forester, your public lies in this forum and your marginalization of bicyclists rights is disgusting.

Bekologist,

I am still waiting for you to convince me that I should support the cycling-specific FRAP law. Can you describe a scenario where a cyclist should justly and rightfully be cited and prosecuted for violating it?

No examples? I didn't think so.

John Forester has frequently been accused in these forums of collaborating with the motoring establishment to discourage the popularization of cycling in America. This accusation is more aptly directed at those who favor a law designed not to enhance the safety and efficiency of human-powered travel, but merely to keep the cycling minority out of the way of the motoring majority. How much is the Detroit lobby paying YOU?