Vehicular Cycling (VC) - john forester quote on bicyclists duties to FRAP

a john forester quote on bicyclists duties to share the road and operate FRAP to facilitate overtaking, in an interview with About.com's David Fiedler on bicycling.


The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both drivers.

from the interview with john at about.com (http://bicycling.about.com/od/thebikelife/a/forester.htm)

1) I don't think he has stated otherwise.

2) having a duty/obligation as a road user and having a statutory duty are different.

3) did we need another thread to post this?

WELL, this is a different topic.

this is a statement of cyclists duties to share the road to facilitate overtaking, from one of the founding fathers of vehicular cycling, and an appropriate topic in and of itself.

maybe it could also be referred to at the other thread as well.

a john forester quote on bicyclists duties to share the road and operate FRAP to facilitate overtaking, in an interview with About.com's David Fiedler on bicycling.

from the interview with john at about.com (http://bicycling.about.com/od/thebikelife/a/forester.htm)

Beck has again tried to make bricks without straw by quoting only the first part of the paragraph fully quoted below.


"The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both drivers. That is not a duty to cringe out of the way regardless of danger or inconvenience to the cyclist, but a duty to move right only when it is safe to do so and is in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles."

Notice that I say "in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" and that I don't mention "as far right as practicable". Providing more details for my statement results in the following. On roads with typical lanes, occupy the right-hand through lane; on roads without any lane line stay as far right as practicable unless other considerations apply; on roads with an outside lane wide enough to share, stay as far right as practicable unless other considerations apply. These recommendations are in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Bicyclists, absolutely, have a duty to share the road, by riding FRAP safely to facilitate passing and that is in accordance with the rules of the road that govern vehicle operation, in all 50 states.

Absolutely, john.


Its entirely unreasonable to think bicyclists wouldn't have to ride as far right as practicable on laned roads, to be perfectly honest, john, if the duties of cyclists are, like you state, are to share the road and facilitate passing when safe.

you've also stated vehicles have to operate as far right as practicable on two lane roads in california


The drivers who must comply with the statute are given the choice of lateral position on the roadway, the two options being: "in the right-hand lane for traffic" or "as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb." It is reasonable to conclude that "the right-hand lane for traffic" means that two or more lanes are available for traffic in that direction (if this is not the assumption, the phrase would have no relevance). Therefore, while the cyclist has the choice, he is lawful if occupying the right-hand lane for traffic if there are two or more lanes for traffic in his direction, and is required, on road with only one lane for traffic in his direction, to ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge.

and that's exactly what's required of bicyclists, to share the road safely by operating FRAP, like other slowly driven, narrow vehicles. A man on a horse must also share a two lane road, similar to a bicyclist, with a duty to facilitate overtaking by operating FRAP, in accordance with the laws regulating slow moving vehicle operation in all 50 states.


it's a duty vehicles have when slowly driven. even more so when narrow and slowly driven, as it is easier to facilitate that safe passing we demand as road users.

Bicyclists, absolutely, have a duty to share the road, by riding FRAP safely to facilitate passing and that is in accordance with the rules of the road that govern vehicle operation, in all 50 states.

Absolutely, john.


Its entirely unreasonable to think bicyclists wouldn't have to ride as far right as practicable on laned roads, to be perfectly honest, john, if the duties of cyclists are, like you state, are to share the road and facilitate passing when safe.

you've also stated vehicles have to operate as far right as practicable on two lane roads in california



and that's exactly what's required of bicyclists, to share the road safely by operating FRAP, like other slowly driven, narrow vehicles. A man on a horse must also share a two lane road, similar to a bicyclist, with a duty to facilitate overtaking by operating FRAP, in accordance with the laws regulating slow moving vehicle operation in all 50 states.


it's a duty vehicles have when slowly driven. even more so when narrow and slowly driven, as it is easier to facilitate that safe passing we demand as road users.

Yes, I made a mistake, just like Bek's. But once I worked out the traffic engineering aspects together with the actual words of the slow vehicle statute in the historical context in which it was written, I realized that Bek's view that cyclists on two-lane roads with typical lane width must ride FRAP did not facilitate safe overtaking, but encouraged unsafe overtaking into the face of opposite-direction traffic. The critical difference for us concerns the specific conditions under which the width or narrowness of the slow vehicle actually facilitates safe overtaking, and the answer is that narrowness facilitates safe overtaking only when the outside through lane is wide, which is the atypical condition. With typical conditions the width or narrowness of the slower vehicle has no effect on the safe overtaking opportunities. Motorists haven't had to think this matter through; they find it easiest, and conforms to their idea that cyclists don't have traffic skills, to just tell us to ride FRAP and let them work out when it is safe. Which we have had plenty of evidence of, they don't understand.

I think that Bek should mature his understanding, but that would require that he grow out of his popular attitude of subservience to motorists, apparently done for political ideological motives. It is clear that Bek, currently, doesn't want motorists to think that cyclists are getting uppity.

it's a duty vehicles have when slowly driven. even more so when narrow and slowly driven, as it is easier to facilitate that safe passing we demand as road users.


Whoa there. Just because a vehicle is narrow and/or slow does not mean it is easier to facilitate overtaking on roads where split operation is unsafe. If split operation is safe there is no reason to be blocking overtaking traffic.

Ah, so ol' John believes in common sense, eh?

Share the road is a two-way street, folks.

Yes, I made a mistake, just like Bek's. But once I worked out the traffic engineering aspects together with the actual words of the slow vehicle statute in the historical context in which it was written, I realized that Bek's view that cyclists on two-lane roads with typical lane width must ride FRAP did not facilitate safe overtaking, but encouraged unsafe overtaking into the face of opposite-direction traffic. The critical difference for us concerns the specific conditions under which the width or narrowness of the slow vehicle actually facilitates safe overtaking, and the answer is that narrowness facilitates safe overtaking only when the outside through lane is wide, which is the atypical condition. With typical conditions the width or narrowness of the slower vehicle has no effect on the safe overtaking opportunities.


...doesnt want motorists to think that cyclists are getting uppity.


'bek's view'? 'getting uppity?' :roflmao:

John, its YOUR interview. YOU state bikes should ride FRAP to facilitate overtaking when safe for both drivers. when was that interview, by the way?


The entirely rational reasoning that when it is unsafe for bikes and cars to share lanes, bikes should be allowed to take the lane for safety is what led to BIKES-FRAP protections in states like california, which recognized the value in adding cyclist specific protections so cyclists would not be endangered to share roads unsafely, under SMV-FRAP law, which predicates FRAP without allowance for lane width.


arguing that slowly driven vehicles can't, shouldn't facilitate safe overtaking on two lane roads by operating FRAP, and have no obligation to share two lane roads?

what in the world???? contrary to all obligations spelled out under the law.

'getting uppity?' :roflmao:

John, its YOUR interview. YOU state bikes should ride FRAP to facilitate overtaking when safe for both drivers. when was that interview, by the way?


The entirely rational reasoning that when it is unsafe for bikes and cars to share lanes, bikes should be allowed to take the lane for safety is what led to BIKES-FRAP protections in states like california, which recognized the value in adding cyclist specific protections so cyclists would not be endangered to share roads unsafely, under SMV-FRAP law, which predicates FRAP without allowance for lane width.


arguing that slowly driven vehicles can't, shouldn't facilitate safe overtaking on two lane roads by operating FRAP, and have no obligation to share two lane roads?

what in the world???? contrary to all obligations spelled out under the law.

Bek, you are lying by selective and partial quotation when you discuss my interview. You are both omitting consideration of the conditions that make overtaking safe and the compliance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It doesn't matter when that interview took place, I stand by my full statement that I provided a few posts ago.

When Beck argues about the motivation for the modern version of the cyclist FRAP law, created by a governmental highway committee on which I was the only cyclist representative, he is also inaccurate, because he wasn't there and his supposed motivation is contrary to the historical record. The exceptions to both the cyclist FRAP law (CVC 21202) and the mandatory-bike-lane law (CVC 21208) were not created to protect cyclists from the evil effects of the cyclist FRAP law. If that were desired, the obvious way to protect cyclists from the cyclist FRAP law would be to repeal that law, which is what I was arguing for when I still believed that the purpose of the committee was to benefit cyclists by rationalizing the law for bicycle traffic. Of course, the actions of the committee convinced me, along with documentary evidence that I discovered, that the purpose of the committee was to restrict cyclists as much as possible by forcing them to operate in the cyclist-inferiority manner both on normal roads and where bike lanes and side paths would be created. Bek argues as if this were not both accurate and long on the historical record. That makes his argument either one from ignorance or, if he is not as ignorant as he might claim, by lying.

The exceptions in both the cyclist FRAP law and the bike-lane law were created to preserve the laws based on the principle that cyclists should be subservient to motorists. I repeat: the proper way to save cyclists from the legal jeopardy created by cyclist FRAP and bike-lane laws is to not have those laws in the first place. One would think that Bek was sufficiently intelligent to understand that.

Therefore, Bek is reduced to trying to argue that the standard slow-moving vehicle law (CVC 21654), which gives cyclists the right to use the outside through lane, is more restrictive than the cyclist FRAP law which is based on the principle that cyclists should ride FRAP unless certain conditions are met. Of course, nobody would accept that argument as stated, so Bek has to argue, without substantiation, that the slow-moving vehicle law provides that right only on multi-lane roads. That's the pickle into which Bek's ideological dogma has forced him. He really should be questioning his own ideological dogma, whatever it may happen to be.

I'm not omitting anything about safe overtaking.

Again, John -

you've stated in several media over several decades that bicyclists should share the road by operating FRAP.

its' in your book, you mention it in your interviews.

When was that interview with David Fiedler when you stated that, and I'm quoting now


However, the cyclist should understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both drivers.

how would a man on a horse share a two lane, 60 mph highway, john? no obligation to operate FRAP safely to facilitate overtaking?

john forester has long argued the duties of slowly driven vehicles are to be operate FRAP to facilitate overtaking, that bicyclists have the obligation as slowly driven vehicles to follow the laws and that includes the duty to ride FRAP to facilitate overtaking, according the the rules of the road in all 50 states, wether specifically enumerated for bicyclists or not.

and a position a man on a horse or a bicyclist should facilitate overtaking on a two lane road does not contradict those rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Indeed, it is reasonable to conclude this is an expected behavior, and could be argued that failure to consider safe overtaking could make a rider become reckless in a deliberate disregard for others reasonable expectations.

So, John, when was that interview with David Fiedler?

I'm not omitting anything about safe overtaking.

Again, John -

you've stated in several media over several decades that bicyclists should share the road by operating FRAP.

its' in your book, you mention it in your interviews.

When was that interview with David Fiedler when you stated that, and I'm quoting now



how would a man on a horse share a two lane, 60 mph highway, john? no obligation to operate FRAP safely to facilitate overtaking?

john forester has long argued the duties of slowly driven vehicles are to be operate FRAP to facilitate overtaking, that bicyclists have the obligation as slowly driven vehicles to follow the laws and that includes the duty to ride FRAP to facilitate overtaking, according the the rules of the road in all 50 states, wether specifically enumerated for bicyclists or not.

and a position a man on a horse or a bicyclist should facilitate overtaking on a two lane road does not contradict those rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Indeed, it is reasonable to conclude this is an expected behavior, and could be argued that failure to consider safe overtaking could make a rider become reckless in a deliberate disregard for others reasonable expectations.

So, John, when was that interview with David Fiedler?

Bek, perhaps an interview with a journalist would be a big event for you, something you would remember, but it is not so for me. If the time is convenient when telephoned, I answer the questions without making a big even of it, without entering the year, month, day, hour, and minute in a record of my activities. I suspect that Fiedler, since his business appears to be interviews, has an accurate record; why don't you ask him?

And, Bek, you have again deliberately lied about my statements by making a partial and selective quotation. I the management of this forum were paying attention and doing the duty that they say they accept, they would banish you for repeated lying.

Bek, you now argue that my position involves "failure to consider safe overtaking". That's another lie. I explicitly consider the conditions under which cyclist lateral position facilitates safe overtaking, and I recommend that the cyclist ride FRAP only when that position is required to make safe overtaking possible and not when that position does not provide that facilitation.

And Bek lies again by stating my position as being simply "to follow the laws". He knows full well, because he has argued plentifully about this subject, that my position is that cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, a class of laws that does not include the rules for riders of bicycles. The rules for riders of bicycles were created, and revised, by motorists to suit their idea that cyclists should always operate FRAP regardless of other laws and of safety. That historic fact ought to be sufficient for cyclists to suspect error, even though Bek doesn't have that suspicion.

That's another lie. I explicitly consider the conditions under which cyclist lateral position facilitates safe overtaking, and I recommend that the cyclist ride FRAP only when that position is required to make safe overtaking possible and not when that position does not provide that facilitation.....

john perhaps doesn't realize that when he's describing the act of operating a vehicle as far right as is practicable. operating safely right, taking or sharing the lane as is necessary to facilitate overtaking only when safe, IS FRAP.

:roflmao:

Vehicles operating only as far to the right as is safe, and not one inch further, and having this position vary depending on traffic and road conditions, is the very embodiment of FRAP.

John is endorsing the very same traffic concept of FRAP for bicycles, when he acridly restates his belief that cyclists ride safely right, to faciltate overtaking, by
I explicitly consider the conditions under which cyclist lateral position facilitates safe overtaking, and I recommend that the cyclist ride FRAP only when that position is required to make safe overtaking possible and not when that position does not provide that facilitation.


FRAP, john. you are describing operating FRAP, like you have long claimed, in your books and interviews, that cyclists have a duty, to facilitate overtaking.



my position is that cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, a class of laws that does not include the rules for riders of bicycles

no wonder this EC stuff has lost all relevance -

who's going to buy into such a far afield theory about traffic laws, that insiststs bicyclists must break the law?

I think John may be confused, if he's making claims bicyclists should facilitate overtaking, but also making contradictory and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary.

Facilitating overtaking safely by bicyclists and other slowly moving vehicles has been a long standing and reasonable aspect of traffic laws.

john forester has written about in his books and commented upon bicyclists having the duty to facilitate overtaking, by operating as far to the right as is practicable, in recent interviews.

Whoa there. Just because a vehicle is narrow and/or slow does not mean it is easier to facilitate overtaking on roads where split operation is unsafe. If split operation is safe there is no reason to be blocking overtaking traffic.

Woah, there brontide. You are the only one introducing UN-SAFE passing into the equation.

nowhere does riding FRAP mean a cyclist compromise their safety. didn't we go discuss this already-

if it isn't safe, it isn't practicable.

it's a duty vehicles have when slowly driven. even more so when narrow and slowly driven, as it is easier to facilitate that safe passing we demand as road users.


Woah, there brontide. You are the only one introducing UN-SAFE passing into the equation.

nowhere does riding FRAP mean a cyclist compromise their safety. didn't we go discuss this already-

if it isn't safe, it isn't practicable.

Contradictions. It is only easier for a narrow vehicle to facilitate overtaking if you compromise it's safety, that is a fact. Lets go over the two scenarios here.

1) The lane is wide enough to allow split travel: The narrow vehicle is not blocking traffic in the first place. So there is not easier or harder, the bike isn't blocking the normal flow of traffic in the first place.

2) The lane is not wide enough to split: The narrow vehicle must ride far enough left to force a lane change in overtaking traffic. In this case the bike can *not* facilitate overtaking without compromising their safety.

I really don't know why I bother; you will no doubt ignore the substance to this post and just end up saying something that is completely divergent to my point, probably contradicting yourself again.

wrong. Safety is NOT compromised by operating safely right.

there is widespread duty to safely operate as far to the right as practicable to allow smooth, partial lane passes of narrow, slowly driven vehicles.

like a man on a horse, a vehicle slowly driven does not have an absolute claim to any position on a two lane road; that vehicle operator must operate as far to the right as is safe to facilitate passing.

Bicyclists, a man on a horseback, and a man pushing a wheelbarrow all have a duty to not unnecessarily endanger traffic wishing to overtake, by operating as far to the right as is safe on two lane roads.

a man with a wheelbarrow, a man on a horse, and a man on a bike are all not allowed to unecessarily take to the center of a 60mph, two lane rural highway and not move right to benefit faster traffic.

suggestions these vehicles have no duty to faciltate passing on a two lane road is an absurd notion.

NOW, only bicyclists commonly have a statutory and explicit exception to take lanes too narrow to share; bicyclists and bicyclists alone have the right to take a lane too narrow to share safely.fighting to remove cyclists specific rights to take lanes too narrow to be safely shared is a fight to restrict cyclists rights.

absent those explicit statutory allowances, bicyclists do not have the explicit right to avoid right turns, substandard lane width, etc.

bicyclists must frap, there is no unsafe operation implied in frap. its as if you and john think practicable means possible, which it doesn't.

this is a long standing and commonly held duty of slowly driven vehicles, wether specifically enumerated for bikes or general traffic. but only bikes have many exceptions under law for full lane use as a narrow, slowly driven vehicle.

AND LIKE JOHN SAID, in a recent interview,


owever, the cyclist should understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both drivers.

facilitating overtaking when safe is synonymous with operating FRAP.

.

wrong. Safety is NOT compromised by operating safely right.

a man with a wheelbarrow, a man on a horse, and a man on a bike are all not allowed to unecessarily take to the center of a 60mph, two lane rural highway and not move right to benefit faster traffic.

bicyclists must frap, there is no unsafe operation implied in frap. its as if you and john think practicable means possible, which it doesn't.

facilitating overtaking when safe is synonymous with operating FRAP.

Contradiction, you keep wanting to have it both ways. The center of the lane is absolutely the proper place for a cyclist absent a bike lane or wide enough lane to split. Moving further right only endangers the cyclist from drivers who pass too close. The only safe way to pass the cyclist is to leave the travel lane when passing and the center line is FRAP and is safe for both the cyclist and the overtaking vehicle.


there is widespread duty to safely operate as far to the right as practicable to allow smooth, partial lane passes of narrow, slowly driven vehicles.

googling for "partial lane passing" only seems to hit your posts. Either you can pass side-by-side safely or the overtaking vehicle has to leave the travel lane, the law does not recognize this partial pass of which you speak. Do you have any legal documentation for this "partial passing"?

. Do you have any legal documentation for this "partial passing"?

legal documentation on the long standing, common and statutory duties of vehicles to operate as far to the right as practicable to facilitate overtaking, you mean?

hilarious bluff.

here's what the California DMV says about bicycling and passing.


When passing a bicyclist in the travel lane ensure enough width for the bicyclist, typically 3 feet. Do not squeeze a bicyclist off the road.

Bicyclists may occupy the center of the lane when conditions such as a narrow lane or road hazard make it unsafe to ride in a position that may provide room for a vehicle to pass. With any slow-moving vehicle, drivers should follow at a safe distance. When it is safe the bicyclists should move to a position that allows vehicles to pass. Remember, bicyclists are entitled to share the road with other drivers.

Bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as vehicle and motorcycle drivers.

Respect the right-of-way of bicyclists because they are entitled to share the road with other drivers

of course, in california cyclists specifically have the right to substandard lanes. in North Carolina, a state with no bikes frap law, bicyclists entertain no such allowances.

john perhaps doesn't realize that when he's describing the act of operating a vehicle as far right as is practicable. operating safely right, taking or sharing the lane as is necessary to facilitate overtaking only when safe, IS FRAP.

:roflmao:

Vehicles operating only as far to the right as is safe, and not one inch further, and having this position vary depending on traffic and road conditions, is the very embodiment of FRAP.

John is endorsing the very same traffic concept of FRAP for bicycles, when he acridly restates his belief that cyclists ride safely right, to faciltate overtaking, by


FRAP, john. you are describing operating FRAP, like you have long claimed, in your books and interviews, that cyclists have a duty, to facilitate overtaking.




no wonder this EC stuff has lost all relevance -

who's going to buy into such a far afield theory about traffic laws, that insiststs bicyclists must break the law?

I think John may be confused, if he's making claims bicyclists should facilitate overtaking, but also making contradictory and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary.

Facilitating overtaking safely by bicyclists and other slowly moving vehicles has been a long standing and reasonable aspect of traffic laws.

john forester has written about in his books and commented upon bicyclists having the duty to facilitate overtaking, by operating as far to the right as is practicable, in recent interviews.

Bek is mixing together the concept of as far right as practicable and the concept of facilitating safe overtaking; these are not the same thing at all. Mixing together? I say deliberately mixing these together to suit his ideology that cycling ought to be considered popular with the motoring public. Anyway, the word practicable, either in its common meaning or as it is used in traffic law, pertains only to the practicality of doing something considering safety and difficulty and reasonability for the person doing that something. Therefore, in traffic law, it is based on the smoothness of road surface, ability to see hazards ahead, interference by other beings, strength required, and such conditions. It has never been connected to how others see that operation or how it may, or may not, interfere with their operation.

Facilitating overtaking is entirely different; it is directed entirely at the operation of others, not directly at the operation of the facilitator. Furthermore, our discussions consider only facilitating overtaking that is done in a safe and lawful manner. Facilitating safe overtaking has nothing directly to do with the condition of the road surface for bicycling. Safe overtaking involves variables such as speeds, traffic density, number of lanes, width of outside lane, sight distances, none of which are part of practicable.

It is only by confusing the reader through mixing these two different concepts that Bek is enabled to present his false picture of my position regarding the overtaking issue.

not the same at all???

John, don't try to deny it,

you yourself argued to the NUCTLO, the national committee that sets traffic laws, that the SMV-FRAP law was to facilitate overtaking!

so, john foresters' mind at one time too, saw the connection between facilitating overtaking and duties of slowly driven vehicles to FRAP..


Such shifting sophistry to attempt to deny what one has argued in the past!!!

not the same at all???

John, don't try to deny it,

you yourself argued to the NUCTLO, the national committee that sets traffic laws, that the SMV-FRAP law was to facilitate overtaking!

so, john foresters' mind at one time too, saw the connection between facilitating overtaking and duties of slowly driven vehicles to FRAP..


Such shifting sophistry to attempt to deny what one has argued in the past!!!

Yes, indeed, I argued that the purpose of the cyclist FRAP laws was not to make cycling safe, as was commonly being broadcast, and still is the common superstition, but the purpose of these laws was to facilitate safe overtaking. I still say so, because that is true.

You, Bek, are arguing the motorists' position that to start out by requiring cyclists to ride FRAP, unless some other law applies, is so much easier and provides a subservient cycling population that makes motoring more convenient. The problem with that motorists' argument, and with your thoughts, Bek, is that not every example of FRAP facilitates safe overtaking. In some cases it does, but in other cases it does not, and the vehicular cycling position takes account of that difference. I can't help it, Bek, if your ideology so blinds you to this rather obvious fact of traffic operation.

John forester promoted to the NUCTLO that the general SMV-FRAP law was to facilitate overtaking.

.......certainly under these general SMV-FRAP laws, john also would consider cyclists duties to facilitate overtaking and operate FRAP when slowly driven, as he has stated in numerous media and in his books and interviews. and in this thread just above.

why the argument?

Cyclists should ride safely right to facilitate overtaking, as you stated in an interview with David Fiedler.

that is, to operate as far to the right as is practicable so as to facilitate overtaking by faster vehicles. just like other vehicles, as a man on a horse or pushing a wheelbarrow should not unthinkingly take a position far to the left of a lane unless he must for his safety on a two lane road, but should operate to the right, as far to the right as practicable.

Wheelbarrow operators, horsemen and bicyclists all have a long standing, common duty as well as a statutory one, to operate as far to the right as practicable - most crucially on two lane roads and commonly accepted in what I would believe to be all American jurisdictions - to facilitate overtaking. This is also codified in the language of the UVC and most state vehicle codes.

I've been reading this thread and trying to figure out what the different interpretations FRAP and facilitating safely overtaking are between Bek and John F. Bek seems to believe that facilitating safe overtaking ALWAYS involves FRAP and thus FRAP and facilitating safely overtaking are essentially the same thing. John F., on the other hand, asserts they are not the same, which leads me to believe John F.'s position is that it is not ALWAYS necessary to ride FRAP to facilitate safe overtaking and in fact there may be situations in which FRAP does not in fact facilitate safe overtaking but makes it less safe. I'm not trying to put words in either person's mouth here, I'm just saying what I understand to be the assertions of each in this thread so please feel free to politely correct this summary of your positions. So, have I fairly summarized your positions?

No, i doubt you understand my position. This thread isn't about my position.

This thread is about a quote from an author on biking about cyclists, being slow and narrow, needing to facilitate overtaking like other slow moving narrow vehicles.

The thread is about that quote, and the force of law regarding bicyclists or other slowly driven, narrow vehicles and the duties to operate as far to the right as practicable to facilitate overtaking, by operating as far to the right as is safe in the presence of faster traffic wishing to overtake.

For example, horsemen or wheelbarrow operators, or bicyclists.

I feel FRAP includes a far left position of even a wide lane if needed for a cyclists safety. So, if you didn't think I considered this, you may not understand my position on traffic law.

this thread is about JOHN's - the cycling *ahem* "authority's"- stated, quoted and published position on road sharing duties by bicyclists, and how it meshes with traffic law. Not mine.

No, i doubt you understand my position. This thread isn't about my position.

This thread is about a quote from an author on biking about cyclists, being slow and narrow, needing to facilitate overtaking like other slow moving narrow vehicles.

The thread is about that quote, and the force of law regarding bicyclists or other slowly driven, narrow vehicles and the duties to operate as far to the right as practicable to facilitate overtaking, by operating as far to the right as is safe in the presence of faster traffic wishing to overtake.

For example, horsemen or wheelbarrow operators, or bicyclists.

I feel FRAP includes a far left position of even a wide lane if needed for a cyclists safety. So, if you didn't think I considered this, you may not understand my position on traffic law.

this thread is about JOHN's - the cycling *ahem* "authority's"- stated, quoted and published position on road sharing duties by bicyclists, and how it meshes with traffic law. Not mine.

Well, if that is the case then it seems the purpose of this thread, as you see it, is to denigrate John F. while completely ignoring what he has to say in response. A thread with a purpose like that can't possibly lead to any meaningful discussion, so I won't be checking the thread further since it would be a waste of my time. To John F.: this person Bek is behaving like a troll and seems to be completely uninterested in rational dialog. I would stop responding to anything he posts since dialog with Bek seems to be a complete waste of time.

a john forester quote on bicyclists duties to share the road and operate FRAP to facilitate overtaking, in an interview with About.com's David Fiedler on bicycling.



from the interview with john at about.com (http://bicycling.about.com/od/thebikelife/a/forester.htm)

Are you in high school?

Seriously, how is this productive at all?

discussing cycling and cycling advice by a erstwhile respected cycling author?

is it productive? I don't know. I've been asking john to clarify his interpretation of the laws, when this interview was, used his interpretation to frame an example of slowly moving vehicles sharing the roads like wheelbarrows, horsemen, and bicyclists.

This thread is a disscussion on john forester the cycling authors interpretation of cyclists duties to facilitate overtaking by operate FRAP like any other slowly driven vehicles.

I would have expected more cooperation from john, as his statements regarding FRAP, facilitating passing and overtaking are what are framing this thread topic.

this is a discussion of cyclists duties under law and how a *cough* authority in cycling has recently described cyclists duties to share the road.

are you in high school, sudobike? do you have anything productive to say about the duties of cyclists to facilitate overtaking?

Do you understand cyclists have a duty to facilitate overtaking by operating FRAP when safe and that, perhaps most crucially on two lane roads, the duty to facilitate overtaking persists?

I've been reading this thread and trying to figure out what the different interpretations FRAP and facilitating safely overtaking are between Bek and John F. Bek seems to believe that facilitating safe overtaking ALWAYS involves FRAP and thus FRAP and facilitating safely overtaking are essentially the same thing. John F., on the other hand, asserts they are not the same, which leads me to believe John F.'s position is that it is not ALWAYS necessary to ride FRAP to facilitate safe overtaking and in fact there may be situations in which FRAP does not in fact facilitate safe overtaking but makes it less safe. I'm not trying to put words in either person's mouth here, I'm just saying what I understand to be the assertions of each in this thread so please feel free to politely correct this summary of your positions. So, have I fairly summarized your positions?

You have accurately summarized my position, without discussing the details of when FRAP facilitates safe overtaking and when it does not. It is also my view that for the great majority of roads the standard slow-moving vehicle law states the position reasonably well for both two-track and single-track vehicles. The exception is the rare case of the single-track vehicle and the outside through lane so wide that it is safe for a two-track vehicle and a single-track vehicle to operate side by side.

Bek writes that he disagrees with my view, but he also very strongly advocates laws that are based on these engineering facts, which both complicates his argumentation and puzzles us. The difference, as I understand it, is between our concepts of cyclist. This takes some explanation. American traffic law first declares that cyclists have the status of drivers of vehicles. Then it degraded that status by requiring cyclists to ride FRAP, and then to use bikeways that enforce FRAP. However, the engineering facts forced the lawmakers to insert exceptions into both the FRAP and the bikeway laws because pure FRAP wouldn't allow cycling to be done. The American public loves this situation, because it believes that only FRAP is safe and operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is difficult and dangerous. Its belief is so strong that it believes the impossible, that FRAP and bikeways make cycling safe for people who won't obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Bek advocates the popular view, praising FRAP and bikeways, presumably because he believes (as so many additional others have stated time after time) that the popular view attracts motorists into taking up bicycle transportation. Vehicular cyclists, such as myself, believe that the whole FRAP and bikeway business, based on supposed cyclist-inferiority with motorist-superiority, is bad for cyclists. "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles."

There are emotions on both sides. Vehicular cyclists oppose the governmental program of FRAP and bikeways because it provides the legal power to prevent cyclists from obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, with the secondary reason that treating cyclists badly is not likely to increase the amount of cycling done. FRAP and bikeways advocates hate vehicular cyclists because, so they say, vehicular cycling has never attracted motorists into bicycle transportation while, so they say, FRAP and bikeways do so. Vehicular cyclists are upset by governments' actions, but FRAP and bikeways advocates are very strongly emotionally motivated, as we see with Bek, because vehicular cyclists are the only principled opposition to their dream of a great transfer from motoring to bicycle transportation produced by FRAP and bikeways.

wow....continued obtuse misstatements about traffic laws, and continued attempts to deny the statutory duty of slowly driven vehicles in most states to FRAP to share two lane roads. "opposing the governmental program of FRAP and bikeways...." :rolleyes: NOT related to this discussion.

Vehicular cyclists oppose the law and the common duty of slowly driven vehicles to FRAP? no wonder the VC camp lacks any credibility - insisting cyclists must break the law to ride bikes like they do :rolleyes:

but wait, reasonableness resides somewhere in that camp, if only they keep their wits about them!


The drivers who must comply with the statute are given the choice of lateral position on the roadway, the two options being: "in the right-hand lane for traffic" or "as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb." It is reasonable to conclude that "the right-hand lane for traffic" means that two or more lanes are available for traffic in that direction (if this is not the assumption, the phrase would have no relevance). Therefore, while the cyclist has the choice, he is lawful if occupying the right-hand lane for traffic if there are two or more lanes for traffic in his direction, and is required, on road with only one lane for traffic in his direction, to ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge.

quite reasonable dontchyathink? any other interpretation would be nonsensical.

slowly driven, narrow vehicles have the duty to facilitate overtaking. argued for by john forester to the committee that defines the uniform traffic statute standard. john forester, quoted in his book, at his website and in interviews that bicyclists have a duty to facilitate overtaking like other vehicles.

which are required under SMV-FRAP laws to share two lane roads by operating FRAP.


Bicyclists, wheelbarrow operators, horsemen, must share two lane roads under every reiteration of states' SMV-FRAP laws to facilitate overtaking. no vehicle EXCEPT bikes have a specific right to lanes too narrow to be safely shared, unlike johns version of the laws of the states.



its very hilarious that john has ascribed the duties of slowly driven vehicles and bicyclists in his books, but when pressed, offers up unreasonable fantasies about two lane roads having both right hand and left hand lanes for same direction traffic, reprehensible notions that bicyclists would be better off without our specific rights to the road and rank, amateur suffragism that bicyclists have to near constantly break the law to drive a bike like a vehicle!


....Bikes, of course have more rights to a full lane than any other slowly driven vehicle under bikes ride frap laws, and bike frap laws provide more legal protections for cyclists. Additionally, bicyclists operating safely right to share two lane roads with faster traffic wishing to overtake expressly DO NOT violate any rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Bicyclists share this duty with other narrow, slowly driven vehicles like wheelbarrow operators or horsemen, but bikes and only bikes have more specific enumerated rights in most states, to lanes not safe to share and other conditions not granted other slowly driven vehicles.

are you in high school, sudobike? do you have anything productive to say about the duties of cyclists to facilitate overtaking?


Yes.


Do you understand cyclists have a duty to facilitate overtaking by operating FRAP when safe and that, perhaps most crucially on two lane roads, the duty to facilitate overtaking persists?

According to etiquette as well as 21202, providing safety isn't compromised, yes, of course. According to 21654, no.

keep in mind that slowly driven vehicles in the state of california are required to operate FRAP on two lane roads, pursuant to CVC 21654.

CVC 21202 is the more permissive safe sharing law for bicyclists.

keep in mind that slowly driven vehicles in the state of california are required to operate FRAP on two lane roads, pursuant to CVC 21654.

No.

EDIT: However, I believe they are still required to use turnouts and exit the roadway to allow traffic to pass when there are more than 5 vehicles waiting to pass on a 2 lane road, per 21656, if that's what you mean. As you can see, we have a separate law to facilitate passing on 2 lane highways.


21656 (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21656.htm). On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

Amended Ch. 448, Stats. 1965. Effective September 17, 1965.


CVC 21202 is the more permissive safe sharing law for bicyclists.

In practice, probably. (IMO)

You are so adamant in your unreasonable (as per JF, EC p 274) interpretation that two lane roads have both left hand lane and right hand lanes for thru traffic.

it sounds like you're on a bus being driven by Abbott and Costello.

21656 applies ONLY on roads passing is otherwise unsafe, after the vehicle has operated FRAP pursuant to CVC 21654 and the vehicle comes up on an improved or otherwise safe spot to turn out to the right out of the travel lane altogther to allow a lineup of vehicles to pass.

21656 is a turn out to the right-leave the roadway law, far more specific in intent than the general and omnipresent duty along two lane roads of slowly driven vehicles to FRAP to facilitate passing in California.

a man pushing a wheelbarrow is required to operate FRAP on a two lane road in California, as is a horseman or a bicyclist. none of these slowly driven vehicles has an absolute right to continue in any lateral position along two lane roads in California without due consideration of faster traffic wishing to overtake.

John Forester, of course, has been quoted in a recent interview in support of this interpretation. bikes (and vehicular cyclists) have a duty to facilitate overtaking.....


The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both drivers.

All snipped


Bek continues with his claim (can't really call it an argument, for there is no supporting factual basis) that the law requires that slow drivers on typical two-lane roads must operate FRAP to facilitate overtaking lest some faster driver approaches. That was always the motorists' argument about bicycle traffic. However, the slow-moving vehicle law requires either use of the right-hand lane available for traffic or FRAP, leaving the choice up to the driver as long as lanes are marked. Engineering consideration, well known to Bek, for he argues for the same consideration, shows that for typical two-lane roads FRAP does not increase the opportunities for safe overtaking more than just using the lane does, because the opportunities for safe overtaking are defined by sight distances and opposite-direction traffic. Therefore, Bek's argument that FRAP is necessary on two-lane roads to facilitate safe overtaking is false.

Bek's noisy argument that typical lanes of typical two-lane roads are too narrow for safe side-by-side sharing by cyclists and motorists, when applied to the discriminatory anti-cyclist law, conflicts absolutely with his equally noisy argument that this engineering fact does not exist when applied to the slow-moving vehicle law. Engineering facts are engineering facts, no matter which law considers them or is based on them.

I didn't say 'all snipped'" can't even rebut??

john, YOU YOURSELF state in your books what I am describing as cyclists duties to share two lane roads, facilitate passing, and the only reasonable interpretation of 'right hand lane of traffic or frap".


It is reasonable to conclude that "the right-hand lane for traffic" means that two or more lanes are available for traffic in that direction (if this is not the assumption, the phrase would have no relevance).

if you have left the camp of reasonableness, that is not a sign the camp of reason has shifted boundaries.

foisting unreasonable, unsupportable and fringe beliefs about bicycling advocacy, that have been previously inferred by erstwhile cycling authorities as unreasonable, IS the very embodiment of unreasonable, radical beliefs extremely unlikely to gain traction in a courtroom.


Unsupportable, fringe, radical beliefs that are sure to drive bicycling deeper back into the dark ages have no place in 21st century cycling advocacy.

People that advance such a contrary, shifty version of what they themselves once considered the only rational and commonsense interpretation of traffic laws -as it well is, excepting the drivers of the Abbott and Costello Coach Lines, LTD , seem curious and even slightly treacherous. The arguments have shifted akin to a person selling their home team up the river, making bets against the FC.


vc=sovereign citizens???? :roflmao: only obeying THEIR version of traffic laws as they apply to bicyclists???

..... that typical lanes of typical two-lane roads are too narrow for safe side-by-side sharing by cyclists and motorists, when applied to the discriminatory anti-cyclist law, conflicts absolutely ........ that this engineering fact does not exist when applied to the slow-moving vehicle law. Engineering facts are engineering facts, no matter which law considers them or is based on them.

engineering facts are engineering facts, and there's laws that give cyclists more rights to lanes not safe to share?

and that's a problem? you think the bike laws discriminate because they allow bicyclists more rights to take the lane. There's a reason for the common bike-specific language about lanes not safe to share in bike specific laws, to give cyclists rights to the lane other slow moving vehicles do not possess.


good grief. john's gripe about there being differences between the two laws illustrates exactly why there are more permissive bicycle road sharing statutes, to allow bicyclists more rights to take the lane.



what acrimonious skew.

engineering facts are engineering facts, and there's laws that give cyclists more rights to lanes not safe to share?

and that's a problem? you think the bike laws discriminate because they allow bicyclists more rights to take the lane. There's a reason for the common bike-specific language about lanes not safe to share in bike specific laws, to give cyclists rights to the lane other slow moving vehicles do not possess.

good grief. john's gripe about there being differences between the two laws illustrates exactly why there are more permissive bicycle road sharing statutes, to allow bicyclists more rights to take the lane.

what acrimonious skew.

Bek's argument is that the FRAP law with its exceptions create rights for cyclists that do not exist under the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The FRAP law removes rights, but its exceptions give back more than is taken. Bek has presented this argument without any legal support and with only his own dramatic verbal argument. The right that Bek claims to be created for the cyclist, over and above the rights granted by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, by the FRAP exceptions, is the right to occupy the full width of a lane that is too narrow to share. However, this right exists in the standard rules; drivers of vehicles are assumed to occupy a lane, where lanes are marked. The only exception is the FRAP law, which holds that cyclists are not entitled to occupy a lane, but to use only the practicable right-hand edge of the right-hand lane and become second-class road users. Think about it: no FRAP law means no FRAP legal requirement.

Bek claims that the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles generally require cyclists to ride FRAP. The law that he so claims is the California slow-moving vehicle law (CVC 21654) , which requires drivers moving slowly to use "the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge." Obviously, on roads which have no lanes the FRAP requirement applies; these are low-traffic, low-speed residential urban roads and a few very low-traffic rural roads. These really are not significant when considering general traffic operations. Bek claims that two-lane roads do not possess a "right-lane for traffic", and, therefore, that CVC 21654 requires cyclists on two-lane roads to ride FRAP. The definition of a laned roadway includes two-lane roadways "A road is a "laned roadway" when it is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic. (UVC 1-133)" Obviously, when looking or traveling along the roadway, one lane is the right-hand lane and the other is the left-hand lane. Without a shred of evidence, Bek claims that this is not so, that only multi-lane roads can have a right-hand lane.

Bek's claim that two-lane roads do not have a right-hand lane enables him to argue that the CVC 21654 requires cyclists to always ride FRAP on two-lane roads (we are ignoring the few two-lane roads with wide lanes) while the exceptions to the FRAP law allow cyclists to occupy the right-hand lane. Bek's argument depends completely on the claim that two-lane roads do not have right-hand lanes, which is, I offer, rather absurd. It is not in keeping with the words themselves, while it would have been easy to use the appropriate phrasing if Bek's limited definition had been intended.

In short, Bek's defends the FRAP law, which was created by motorists, and also the bikeways which were created by motorists to enforce FRAP. Throughout, his defenses are no more than saying that what the motorists created for bicycle traffic is wonderful for cyclists. In short, no substantive evidence, only praise for governments' carrying out of motorists' desires. Oh, yes, the general public has the same beliefs in these matters as do motorists, if for no other reason than that most of the voting public are also motorists. The only opposition comes from those cyclists who have discovered that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles."

That's not the total explanation. Bek is obviously one of those who believe that doing what the public desires about bicycle transportation is the most effective way to persuade motorists to take up bicycle transportation. Therefore, opposing the public desire about bicycle transportation is expressing opposition to the powerfully emotional dream of converting from an automobile-dominated system to a bicycle-dominated system. That's why Bek, and others of similar opinion, are so strongly opposed to cyclists claiming their rights as drivers of vehicles by working for repeal of the FRAP and bikeway laws.

john, your new fangled, fringe interpretation has no legal backing, lacks common sense, is unreasonable, and fails to provide any compelling argument. Stop bluffing, stop fighting to restrict cyclists with your flawed ideas about SMV-FRAP laws.

Any notion that two lane roads have both right hand lanes and left hand lanes for same direction traffic is absolutely nonsensical.

"THERE'S A BUS COMING RIGHT AT US IN THE LEFT LANE, LOU!" comes to mind in a skit involving Abbott and Costello.



It is reasonable to conclude that "the right-hand lane for traffic" means that two or more lanes are available for traffic in that direction (if this is not the assumption, the phrase would have no relevance).

suggestions to the contrary are wholly unreasonable and irrelevant.

You are so adamant in your unreasonable (as per JF, EC p 274) interpretation that two lane roads have both left hand lane and right hand lanes for thru traffic.

Prove otherwise.


it sounds like you're on a bus being driven by Abbott and Costello.

:rolleyes:


21656 applies ONLY on roads passing is otherwise unsafe, after the vehicle has operated FRAP pursuant to CVC 21654 and the vehicle comes up on an improved or otherwise safe spot to turn out to the right out of the travel lane altogther to allow a lineup of vehicles to pass.

Exactly. So if a bicycle is riding in the center of the rightmost thru lane per 21654, and there is no way for a car to safely pass, the cyclist is legally obligated to exit the roadway (or assume the voluntary FRAP position to create a safe passing situation, if possible) when more than 5 cars are waiting to pass.

As I said, we already have a law that ensures safe, cooperative passing on 2 lane highways. So yes, cyclists do have a statutory obligation to facilitate passing, via 21654 (use right lane where available) and 21656 (leave the roadway to allow passing when safe, if there is no other way for a car to safely pass) even without considering 21202.


a man pushing a wheelbarrow is required to operate FRAP on a two lane road in California,

I'm pretty sure a man pushing a wheelbarrow is a pedestrian, and has different applicable laws.


as is a horseman or a bicyclist. none of these slowly driven vehicles has an absolute right to continue in any lateral position along two lane roads in California without due consideration of faster traffic wishing to overtake.

Correct, due to 21202. If that did not exist, then yes, they would still have to give consideration via 21656, unless they chose to ride FRAP and that created a safe passing situation. Pretty easy stuff.

that, sudo bike, is so much muddled reasoning I'm not even going to break it down other than to say you've made numerous logical errors in your claims just above.

as examples, horsemen are not regulated by CVC 21202, cyclists have duties underCVC 21202, not 21654. and now it's "voluntary FRAP" for slow moving vehicles???? :roflmao:

don't let reality hold that unabashed sophistry back, young man! :rolleyes:


there is no need for me to PROVE the commonsense, the only rational conclusion to be drawn, and regulated by state traffic statute, about vehicles being required to operate on the right half of roads except when passing, so there are no 'left hand lanes' on the half of the road generally reserved for opposing traffic.

Claims to the contrary are ludicrous fatuity.

you and john have the burden to prove otherwise.

Sophistry and semantics, even more egregious and brazen, in light of john himself having ascribed in print the only reasonable conclusion, do not prove the contrary.

out to lunch, left the camp of reason, into fringe, unsupported and wacky bluffs.

"THERE'S A BUS COMING DIRECTLY TOWARDS US IN THE LEFT LANE, LOU!!!!"

:roflmao:

john, your new fangled, fringe interpretation has no legal backing, lacks common sense, is unreasonable, and fails to provide any compelling argument. Stop bluffing, stop fighting to restrict cyclists with your flawed ideas about SMV-FRAP laws.

Any notion that two lane roads have both right hand lanes and left hand lanes for same direction traffic is absolutely nonsensical.

"THERE'S A BUS COMING RIGHT AT US IN THE LEFT LANE, LOU!" comes to mind in a skit involving Abbott and Costello.


suggestions to the contrary are wholly unreasonable and irrelevant.

Bek, you are misstating the slow-moving vehicle statute, which does not say that it limits itself to roads with two or more lanes for same direction traffic. It simply says right-hand lane available for traffic.

Bek, you are arguing that the SMV law requires, on two-lane roads, that the only overtaking that is allowed is that which takes place using only the right-hand lane, made possible by having the slower vehicle proceeed FRAP. That's your argument, when analyzed. This is obviously impossible for most vehicles. It is generally dangerous when the slower vehicle is a bicycle, because most two-lane roads do not have lanes sufficiently wide for safe side-by-side sharing.

The law specifically permits, even expects, the use of the left-hand lane for overtaking. Therefore, the law specifically considers both lanes of a two-lane highway to be available for traffic in one direction. The limitation is that the right-hand lane may be used at all times, while the left-hand lane may be used only for certain purposes, one of them being overtaking when conditions make that safe.

Bek has persisted for months, years, in presenting such obviously defective arguments for supporting the governments' major actions regarding bicycle traffic, these being cyclist-restricting traffic laws and bikeways. His arguments have boiled down to arguing that these must be right because governments' have done them. Bek has never presented evidence of actual prevention of car-bike collisions or greater traveling convenience for cyclists (although a few facilities do provide some).

One can only conclude that Bek expends all his effort and volubility for the purpose of defending the seventy-year-old (or more) American view of cyclists as second-class roadway users who are unable to operate as drivers of vehicles and therefore need motorist-created bikeways. Bek is one of those who believe that this American system of bicycle traffic will persuade many motorists to switch a large proportion of trips from motor to bicycle transport, while vehicular cycling will not do so. After all, this has been their publiv argument for decades; they can hardly deny that. What's the evidence. While vehicular cycling has never been governmental or societal policy, but rather an underground activity, it is correct that it hasn't produced a big switch from motor to bicycle transport. On the other side, the cyclist-inferiority view has been American governmental and societal policy for seventy years or more, and bikeways have been American governmental and societal policy for thirty-five years, and in this time, with all the governmental and societal forces behind them, they haven't produced that switch either.

"THERE'S A BUS HEADING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THE LEFT HAND LANE, LOU!!!!"

Two lane roads do not have left hand lanes for traffic, pursuant to 'drive on right half of highway' laws common to all states.

Such aggrandizing fatuity to continue to claim the contrary.

regardless, john....this thread is about a quote of yours about bicyclists facilitating passing when safe.


However, the cyclist should understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both drivers.

"THERE'S A BUS HEADING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THE LEFT HAND LANE, LOU!!!!"

Two lane roads do not have left hand lanes for traffic, pursuant to 'drive on right half of highway' laws common to all states.

Such aggrandizing fatuity to continue to claim the contrary.

regardless, john....this thread is about a quote of yours about bicyclists facilitating passing when safe.
http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by john forester
However, the cyclist should understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both drivers.



I stand by that statement. But Bek keeps complaining about it. Well, Bek, what is your complaint about it? Please inform us of the reason for your discontent.

i'm not discontent, i'm using your quote to illustrate cyclists duties under law. what is YOUR complaint?

some of my disagreement is with you misstating traffic laws with wildly unsupportable claims that slowly driven vehicles have no duty to share two lane roads operating FRAP and that FRAP only applies on unlaned roads for slowly driven vehicles. There are NO 'left hand lanes' on two lane roads, arguments suggesting this are fatuous.

How would a man on a horse share a two lane, 60mph highway? How would a bicyclist?

Both would by operating as far to the right as is practicable, to safely share the road.

i agree that john describes cyclists duties to FRAP on roads when safe.

i'm not discontent, i'm using your quote to illustrate cyclists duties under law. what is YOUR complaint?

some of my disagreement is with you misstating traffic laws with wildly unsupportable claims that slowly driven vehicles have no duty to share two lane roads operating FRAP and that FRAP only applies on unlaned roads for slowly driven vehicles. There are NO 'left hand lanes' on two lane roads, arguments suggesting this are fatuous.

How would a man on a horse share a two lane, 60mph highway? How would a bicyclist?

Both would by operating as far to the right as is practicable, to safely share the road.

i agree that john describes cyclists duties to FRAP on roads when safe.

The point that Bek keeps trying to avoid saying, that is except when he wants to say it, is that operating FRAP may, or may not, facilitate safe overtaking, and that there are more roads, and more significant roads, on which FRAP does not facilitate safe overtaking than which do. Bek keeps making the motorists' argument, that is except when he opposes it, that FRAP is a wonderful way of ensuring that motorists have every possible chance for overtaking, whether it be dangerous or safe. That's what motorists want to produce, with both FRAP laws and bikeways, because they can't be bothered to think about the engineering facts of overtaking.

.....operating FRAP may, or may not, facilitate safe overtaking, and that there are more roads, and more significant roads, on which FRAP does not facilitate safe overtaking than which do....


john, that's right, that's FRAP, buddy. that's the very nature of practicability you have mentioned to me before you wouldn't be able explain in a courtroom.

and that's why BIKES FRAP laws allow cyclists in most states to expressly take lanes too narrow to be safely shared.

Since this difficulty on definitions seems to persist, of an inability to adequately explain FRAP, perhaps helping the public understand their rights and responsibilities about this biking stuff should just be left to people that can.

that, sudo bike, is so much muddled reasoning I'm not even going to break it down other than to say you've made numerous logical errors in your claims just above.

Shocking. Bek, sidestepping? Whodathunkit.


as examples, horsemen are not regulated by CVC 21202, cyclists have duties underCVC 21202, not 21654.

And?


and now it's "voluntary FRAP" for slow moving vehicles???? :roflmao:

For cyclists? Because of 21202, no, it isn't voluntary. Under 21654? Only inasmuch as you must use the right lane...


don't let reality hold that unabashed sophistry back, young man! :rolleyes:

I find this especially amusing in light of the context of your post.


there is no need for me to PROVE the commonsense, [snip]

And thus goes your credibility.


Claims to the contrary are ludicrous fatuity.

Again, shocking.


you and john have the burden to prove otherwise.


You've made the claim that cyclists have a statutory duty to ride FRAP under 21654. You have the burden of proof.


Sophistry and semantics, even more egregious and brazen, in light of john himself having ascribed in print the only reasonable conclusion, do not prove the contrary.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. :p


out to lunch, left the camp of reason, into fringe, unsupported and wacky bluffs.

More ad hominem. Par for the course.


"THERE'S A BUS COMING DIRECTLY TOWARDS US IN THE LEFT LANE, LOU!!!!"

???

The law specifically permits, even expects, the use of the left-hand lane for overtaking. Therefore, the law specifically considers both lanes of a two-lane highway to be available for traffic in one direction. The limitation is that the right-hand lane may be used at all times, while the left-hand lane may be used only for certain purposes, one of them being overtaking when conditions make that safe.

Exactly.

Even in common vernacular, what do we call a country highway with one lane each direction? A 2-lane highway. Which would make them left and right respectively. QED. :D

a single lane each direction gets you a right hand and a left hand lane?

a wildly unsupportable, unreasonable notion about two lane roads.

john himself even thought it significant enough to call that notion unreasonable in in his cycling books.

"THERE'S A BUS COMING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THIS LEFT LANE OF TRAFFIC, LOU!!"

All states have "right half of roadway" laws, which predicate the other half of the road as authorized for oncoming traffic, providing a single lane in each direction on two lane roads.

There are no right hand lanes for slower vehicles to occupy while faster traffic proceeds in the 'left hand' lane on a two lane road. that would be considered passing in the oncoming traffic lane, crossing into the half of the road authorized for opposite direction traffic, and which is allowed for use only for passing and expressly provided for under the same right half of road laws which, amazingly :rolleyes: also requires slow vehicles operate to the right to facilitate overtaking.

Suggestions to the contrary would get laughed out of any courtroom.

a single lane each direction gets you a right hand and a left hand lane?

a wildly unsupportable, unreasonable notion about two lane roads.

john himself even thought it significant enough to call that notion unreasonable in in his cycling books.

"THERE'S A BUS COMING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THIS LEFT LANE OF TRAFFIC, LOU!!"

All states have "right half of roadway" laws, which predicate the other half of the road as authorized for oncoming traffic, providing a single lane in each direction on two lane roads.

There are no right hand lanes for slower vehicles to occupy while faster traffic proceeds in the 'left hand' lane on a two lane road. that would be considered passing in the oncoming traffic lane, crossing into the half of the road authorized for opposite direction traffic, and which is allowed for use only for passing and expressly provided for under the same right half of road laws which, amazingly :rolleyes: also requires slow vehicles operate to the right to facilitate overtaking.

Suggestions to the contrary would get laughed out of any courtroom.

Bek now claims that in my cycling books I have written that two-lane roads have only one lane, or at least do not have a right-hand and a left-hand lane. Bek, that's a great big flaming lie. Indeed, Bek, until your introduced your most peculiar argument, there was no reason for any one else to spend the effort to work out the number of lanes in a two-lane roadway.

Bek now produces another peculiar argument, saying that, on a two-lane road, the left-hand lane is not to be used by faster traffic to pass slower traffic, but is only to be used by faster traffic to overtake slower traffic. Well, passing and overtaking are two words for the same act.

Bek has got into this absurd argumentation because he wants to prove, by some kind of semantic manipulation, that the typical slow-moving vehicle law, which requires use of the right-hand lane available for traffic or the FRAP position, prohibits normal use of the right-hand lane of a two-lane road and requires FRAP only.

In short, Bek is expending his time and effort to vigorously and vociferously advocate the motorist-superiority view that cyclists are an inferior class of road users whose prime duty is to clear the way for the real traffic.