oh, its reasonable to conclude like you have long held, john, that vehicles have duties to share two lane roads.
that's in print, isn't it?Originally Posted by john forester
Suggestions to the contrary, that SMV-FRAP duties somehow do not apply anytime on two lane roads, where facilitating safe overtaking is MOST crucial to maximizing traffic safety , are absurd.
absurd.
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-09-11 at 11:45 PM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
Are you, Bek, one of those ideologues who believe that whatever is in print was written by the hand of God? As I have written, upon more careful analysis of many factors I have changed my mind about this matter. But this is not a matter of saying, as you appear to be arguing, that any opinion is as good as any other. It is more like progress in engineering or science, where more careful consideration of better evidence produces a later result that is better than that earlier stated. I have provided substantial reasons why my current opinion is more accurate than my former opinion. If you don't like this, that's just too bad.
..It sounds like you have left the camp of reasonableness.
I don't like it, nor do I like arguments about bicyclists rights based on unreasonable interpretations of traffic statute. Repealing bike specific protections would also be a negative for cyclists, so It's not just too bad.
Bike advocacy based on groundless claims that bicyclists
1) don't have to ride FRAP to safely share the road on two lane roads, wether under BIKES-FRAP or SMV-FRAP laws; and
2) would be better off without the broadly enumerated array of rights to take the lane under BIKES-FRAP laws, because bicyclists then supposedly would not have to share any laned roadway, simply take the rightmost lane and that's that
is advocacy that is haplessly or duplicitously misleading american bicyclists.
Advocacy that uses those as a basis for their advocacy platform steers bicycling in a hazardous trajectory. And I'm going to voice the call to the American cyclist to avoid advocacy that is hazardous, just like educating bicyclists they have the right to avoid hazardous road conditions under FRAP laws.
I've made it my deal to combat fallacious bicycling advocacy that negatively serves american bicyclists.
Sorry we have to have a difference of opinion on this, too bad you've left the peloton of reasonable understanding of traffic laws like you had earlier ridden in.
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-10-11 at 02:49 PM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
Reasonableness? Defined by what standard, Bek? Here's my description of the difference between our views. You choose to continue the long-standing American tradition regarding bicycle traffic because, in your opinion, it will attract more cyclists than the other view. That tradition is one of subservience to motorists, of obeying the traffic laws for riders of bicycles, written by motorists to empower their superiority. The other view states that the proper laws for cyclists are the laws for drivers of vehicles, excluding the laws for riders of bicycles, because motorists have seen to it that their laws treat all drivers fairly. This view is not popular, but it is held by those who recognize that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles."
I don't mind that these two schools exist, for I have lived with both schools for seventy years. I, and others like me, object to the spurious arguments that the laws and facilities created by motorists for cyclists, which of course were created to benefit motorists, have somehow magically transformed themselves into beings that make cycling safer and better.
Of course, Bek, I don't care what you, personally, think, but your arguments so fit the motorists' position that the public is made to feel that it is a public duty to cycle in the manner that the motorists desire. That becomes a public duty only in a cyclist-inferiority, motorist-superiority society, which I wish we did not have. The better public duty is to treat all drivers, of whatever kind of vehicle, as equal under the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
......None of that vacuousness lends your camps' 'new' interpretation of traffic laws any legitimacy whatsoever.
slowly driven vehicles, as john forester has long held, have had duties to share two lane roads by facilitating overtaking, and that laws that read 'right hand lane or as close as practicable' of course, reasonably have the first condition applicable only on roads that have more than one traffic lane for same direction travel.
otherwise, the phrase would have no relevancy.
suggestions to the contrary are indeed, illogical and have no relevancy.
How apalling that cyclists rights are now getting sold down the river with these unreasonable and unsupportable interpretations of traffic law.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
Quit bellyaching, Bek. Get up and do some real brain work. Demonstrate that your arguments are better than those I have advanced. Until you do that, your words are not even hot air.
You mean the interpretation that most DOT's have as well? Yeah, I guess we are out in left field with our unsupported interpretation of the code.
Weight (April 2010) 200lb -> Goal (Nov 2010) 145lb Achieved -> (Aug 2011) 132lb 10%BF
2010 Fuji Absolute 3.0
2002 Steel LeMond Tourlamet
john, I've debunked your unsupportable and fringe position, using the weight of law, as well as quotes from your own published works.
You went from reasonable interpretations of traffic law to a wild and unsupportable position on traffic law.
reasonable to unreasonable. I even used quotes of your own, scrutizining your radical position with your own analysis of traffic laws in your published works.
There is a group of bicyclists hazardous to american bicyclists road rights, selling a faulty version of cyclists rights in a hapless or duplicitous effort that aims to take away cyclists rights.
Platforms built on false assumptions don't float for long.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
Are you talking about states traffic codes, Brontide?
Coz' thats' where FRAP resides, for all vehicles. Like the North Carolina DOT, which states bicyclists duties under North Carolina FRAP law-
"Riding on the Right
When riding on a roadway, a bicyclist must ride in
the same direction as other traffic. Also, the bicyclist
must travel in the right-hand lane and should (shall) ride
as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of
the highway. [§20-146(a)]
You, john forester and the rest of the "bikes don't have to share two lane roads" bicycle drivers club ARE out in left field with your unsupported interpretations of traffic law.
Of course, in no way does FRAP predicate unsafe road use, safe sharing is a predicate in vehicles operating FRAP.
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-11-11 at 07:34 AM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
Bek, you have never provided legal argument or legal opinion to the question of the slow-moving vehicle law. That is, you have never argued the meaning of the law as it appears in the statute, according to standard legal principles; neither have you provided an appellate opinion supporting your argument. In short your claims about legal force are entirely false. Like I said before, provide the legal support or cease claiming that you have it. Furthermore, in your answer to Brontide's posting you don't provide the law, but only what some official motorist says that the law is.
You also accuse me of running a "duplicitous effort that aims to take away cyclists' rights." It should be obvious that we vehicular cyclists are aiming for the exact opposite, to ensure that cyclists are allowed to exercise the full rights of drivers of vehicles, instead of having them reduced by the anti-cyclist discriminatory laws that you so strongly advocate, laws created by motorists to make motoring more convenient.
Yes, indeed, we vehicular cyclists oppose the American superstition and policy regarding bicycle traffic, which has for more than seventy years reflected the motorist-superiority, cyclist-inferiority superstition. And we, although only I say it here, are proud of fighting for the better cause of cyclist equality instead of the current cyclist-inferiority status.
john, I provided official DOT interpretation from North Carolina, a state with no bike frap law, and its official, transportation departments interpretation of laws regulating slow moving bikes to drive as far to the right as practicable on ALL roads, not just unlaned ones.
i need no legal "proof" to clarify that slow moving vehicles have a duty to FRAP to facilitate overtaking on a two lane road. This is accepted and long standing duty of drivers of slowly driven vehicles, a part of the uniform vehicle code, and a common duty.
you need to provide some proof for your wildly unsubstantiated claims about traffic laws. Mine are backed by the weight of law according to the reasonable, common and accepted definitions for types of laned roadways. YOUR claims about traffic laws are entirely false and lack any proof, only sophistry and dogma.
when a traffic statute delineates between 'right hand lane available for traffic or frap' that statute, in all states ,will be interpreted, not as john so wildly hopes, but as is standard and reasonable for that phrase.
indeed, john forester himself, when he was more reasonable, agreed with the common and accepted definition of UVC SMV-FRAP law, that 'right hand lane available for traffic' referred to a road with two or more lanes for same direction travel. Indeed, if this was not the intent, the phrase would have no relevance.
only reasonable conclusion about that legal definition. any others are far-fetched and unsupportable.
john forester, you are now making unreasonable claims to the contrary. Those far-fetched, unsupportable, and unreasonable arguments are being used in a dangerous fight to take away cyclists rights to take the lane in california and other states.
Cyclists with unreasonable positions about traffic laws, that seek to take away cyclists legal protections, make it obvious there's a cadre of 'bicycle drivers' intent to haplessly or duplicitously restrict cyclists rights and take away our legal protections.
yes, the bicycle drivers coalition, with their unsupportable, entirely nonsensical and unreasonable notions about traffic statutes, make it obvious they are aiming to cripple bicyclists rights.
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-11-11 at 06:46 PM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
No, you cited a NC DOT brochure which has no legal standing and is not an official statement of the traffic laws of that state. The official statement of those laws is contained in the state's vehicle code. Furthermore you misquoted the brochure by adding '(shall)' where the DOT only had the word 'should.' These words are not synonymous, especially in a legal context where 'shall' is an indication of a mandatory or required action while 'should' is generally applied to recommendations. In particular, the brochure you cited earlier in this thread from the NC DOT had a list of specific actions that were required of bicyclists which did *not* include riding as FRAP. That page also indicated that cyclists *should* ride as FRAP and also that they *should* ride courteously. Both of these are frequently reasonable ideas, but neither one is a statutory requirement and they are not enforceable if the letter of the official vehicle code has not been violated.
The state of North Carolina and its Department of Transportation holds cyclists to the duties as i have quoted and described, and have done so going back for at least four decades in my research.
I've clarified 'should/shall' because you continue to obtusely deny this phrase is being used by NCDOT to describe a statutory duty, and you are incorrect.
Cyclists in North Carolina can choose a position not as far to the right as practicable ONLY when Passing another vehicle moving in the same direction [§20-146(a)(1)] • Avoiding a dangerous obstruction [§20-146(a)(2)] • Riding on a one-way street [§20-146(a)(4)] • Preparing for a left turn. Otherwise, bicyclists in North Carolina have a clear duty to operate FRAP.
North Carolina duties of cyclists under SMV laws there exemplifies the case that traffic laws are going to be interpreted as is common and accepted.
Contrary to the fringe bicycle drivers, what with their unreasonable, illogical interpretation of traffic laws.
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-11-11 at 07:58 PM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
Caught you out in another lie, Bek. Here are the words of the NC statutes you referenced.
(a) Upon all highways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the highway except as follows:
(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;
(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway; provided, any person so doing shall yield the right‑of‑way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;
(3) Upon a highway divided into three marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon; or
(4) Upon a highway designated and signposted for one‑way traffic.
Being required to use the right half of the highway is not being required to travel as close to the right-hand edge as practicable.
You claim that the weight of law holds that the phrase "right-hand lane for traffic' applies only to multi-lane roads and does not apply to two-lane roads. We are entitled to know the statute or the appellate opinion that provides the support that you claim exists. Until you provide this information, your claims are nothing but hot air.
entitled to know? how about, so commonsense a contrary interpretation has never been ruled against as it is so ludicrous and unsupported fringe belief about two lane roads having multiple same direction lanes for traffic.
Suggestions to the contrary would be funny, like a comedy sketch, if it weren't for this comedy of errors being used to fight and take away cyclists legal protections to the lane in many circumstances.
"take the LEFT lane"
"but there's traffic coming our way in it"
"The LEFT LANE, take the LEFT LANE, let the slow drivers use the right lane"
"But there traffic coming our way in it!"
"I SAID THE LEFT LANE!"
L U D I C R O U S, egregious and wholly unsupportable interpretation of traffic law.
quit wasting the forums time, john. Regardless, i have been correctly referring to NC's SMV-FRAP law throughout this thread. you have referenced the "right half of roadway" law, but you are right, one of the NC statutes you reference prohibits vehicles from traveling over the center line except for passing ..... further clarification there aren't 'right hand' and 'left hand' lanes for traffic on two lane roads. the right half of two lane roads is reserved for opposing traffic, it is not the 'left hand lane' on a two lane road.
quite commonsense, really. I have read of it described as reasonable.
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-12-11 at 09:47 AM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
Bek wrote the following: "Cyclists in North Carolina can choose a position not as far to the right as practicable ONLY when Passing another vehicle moving in the same direction [§20-146(a)(1)] • Avoiding a dangerous obstruction [§20-146(a)(2)] • Riding on a one-way street [§20-146(a)(4)] • Preparing for a left turn. Otherwise, bicyclists in North Carolina have a clear duty to operate FRAP."
Forester provided the following quotations of those statutes:
"Caught you out in another lie, Bek. Here are the words of the NC statutes you referenced.
(a) Upon all highways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the highway except as follows:
(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;
(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway; provided, any person so doing shall yield the right‑of‑way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;
(3) Upon a highway divided into three marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon; or
(4) Upon a highway designated and signposted for one‑way traffic.
Being required to use the right half of the highway is not being required to travel as close to the right-hand edge as practicable. "
To which Bek has just replied:
Bek specifically referred to the NC Vehicle Code 20-146 and specific subsections as requiring FRAP. The words of the statute, posted by me, show that that law does not require FRAP.
With respect to my view that the phrase "right-hand lane available for traffic" applies to both two-lane roads and multi-lane roads, Bek wrote: "john, I've debunked your unsupportable and fringe position, using the weight of law".
To which I replied: "We are entitled to know the statute or the appellate opinion that provides the support that you claim exists."
But Beck jeers at the idea that we are entitled to know the "weight of law" that, he claims, supports his view. Here is his jeering statement:
So Bek first argues that we are not entitled to know the legal support that he claims for his view, and then he goes on to lie about the issue in the jeering phrase "fringe belief about two lane roads having multiple same direction lanes for traffic." That has never been the issue, and has never been the argument, because it states a contradiction.
I have provided an analysis of the wording of the statute, the conditions under which it was written, and the ease of stating the contrary should that meaning have been intended. I think that this analysis, of the type that is used when analyzing statutes, would be likely to prevail were a court required to issue an opinion on the issue. Certainly, the argumentations that Bek has provided would not even be considered relevant, though, perhaps, there might exist some grounds for holding Bek's view.
-john forgot to include the portion of NC 20-146 which covers operating FRAP..
john, why are you rancorously and obtusely trying to claim North Carolina statute 20-146 doesn't require FRAP?
the NC law 'drive on right half of roadway' 20-146 statute expressly contains a SMV-FRAP provision...... is your argument so weak to stoop so low?
... sophistry is boundless, apparently. It's like a bad Abbott and Costello radio show.....
Bud Abbott : "take the LEFT lane"
Lou Costello : "but there's traffic coming our way in it"
Abbott : "The LEFT LANE, take the LEFT LANE, let the slow drivers use the right lane"
Costello: "But there traffic coming our way in it!"
Abbott: "I SAID THE LEFT LANE!"
Costello : "THERE'S A BUS COMING TOWARDS US IN THE LEFT LANE!!!"
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-12-11 at 11:19 PM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
Bek stated that particular sections of NC traffic law required FRAP. I provided the exact wording of those exact sections to show that they did not require FRAP, but only driving on the right-hand half of the roadway.
Bek now chastizes me for avoiding consideration of a different section of NC traffic law (not one that he originally referenced) that, he claims, requires FRAP. That section is the general slow-moving vehicle law that requires slow drivers to use the right-hand lane for through traffic or be as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge. The word "through" removes right-turn-only lanes from consideration, an improvement to the older form, probably due to my work.
This provides no new information about the validity of Bek's argument that the phrase "right-hand lane available for [through] traffic" applies only to multi-lane roads and not to two-lane roads. Although Bek has claimed that his argument is supported by legal opinions, Bek has never provided information as to what that legal opinion actually is. I conclude that Bek does not know of such legal support as he claims to have.
john, you keep trying to pull the wool over the forums' eyes, and failing miserably at it.
North Carolina assuredly has a SMV-FRAP law and requires FRAP from all vehicles at times in North Carolina, on two lane roads.
NC also has a Department of Transportation that has consistently enumerated bicyclists duties in North Carolina, over the last four decades, that bicyclists must use the right lane AND operate FRAP (as they are a narrow, slowly driven vehicle).
this is not open to dispute. That is the directive of the department of transportation of North Carolina, interpreting the laws of their roads.
SMV FRAP laws in NC require cyclists operate FRAP on all roads in South Carolina. Bicyclists there have no permissions to take lanes too narrow to share, just implied, indistinct practicability at all times. Cyclists in NC would be far better off with BIKES-FRAP laws reflecting the UVC bikes frap law, that grants much more rights to the lane than general SMV-FRAP laws.
i strongly suspect the NC SMV-FRAP law would become a statute from a compelling authority in court decisions in other states.
Other states unwise enough to drop BIKES-FRAP laws would wind up with traffic law interpreted similar to how the NC DOT defines vehicle duties and bicyclist duties in that state.
john sophistically neglected to quote the entire statute in his last posts.
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-15-11 at 08:40 PM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
I quoted the exact statutes to which Bek referred. I can't help it if Bek makes such errors that mislead the readers. When Bek stated that he was discussing another statute, then I looked up that one and discussed it.
But notice, Bek has given up relying on legal opinion for his claims about widespread FRAP. It is reasonable to conclude that he has found no such legal support. Instead, Bek is now relying on a pamphlet or such produced by a state department of transportation, to which he has attached the warning: "Other states unwise enough to drop BIKES-FRAP laws would wind up with traffic law interpreted similar to how the NC DOT defines vehicle duties and bicyclist duties in that state." The NCDOT statement has no legal force, because it is not an interpretation of the statute supported by legal analysis. It is no more than the typical statement of motorists' inaccurate beliefs of what the law is, and, as we have had plenty of evidence, the typical motorist's view of bicycle traffic law is sadly deficient.
I was consistently referring to NC 20-146, the same statute john incompletely quoted in an attempt to deceive, even stooping to call me a liar about the singular statute NC 20-146.
Four decades of consistent interpretation by a state Department of Transportation of their state's traffic laws is a heck of a lot more than a pamphlet.
"THERE'S A BUS HEADING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THE LEFT LANE, LOU"
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-16-11 at 06:35 AM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
Bek provided a list of statute section numbers that, he claimed, erroneously, required FRAP. Now he calls me deceitful for not discussing the sections that he did not list.I was consistently referring to NC 20-146, the same statute john incompletely quoted in an attempt to deceive, even stooping to call me a liar about the singular statute NC 20-146.
Four decades of consistent interpretation by a state Department of Transportation of their state's traffic laws is a heck of a lot more than a pamphlet.
"THERE'S A BUS HEADING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THE LEFT LANE, LOU"
Now he claims it extremely important that NCDOT has four decades of declaring that cyclists must ride FRAP as if they were not drivers of vehicles. As I have repeatedly explained, that has been the motorists' view of American policy regarding bicycle traffic for at least seventy years; if NCDOT did not adopt that policy until forty years ago, which is what Bek appears to claim, the more credit to them. If, indeed, Bek's four decades is accurate, NCDOT might well have adopted that policy as part of the beginning of the bikeway era. Either way, duration does not create legal truth. The law is not what interested government agencies find suitable; it is the wording of the statutes and the interpretation of those statutes by the courts. American law has, for seventy years, been two-faced about bicycle traffic. First it gave cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, and then it prohibited them from acting as drivers of vehicles. That creates an irreconcilable conflict, with motorists liking the prohibitory aspect, while well-informed cyclists preferring to "act and be treated as drivers of vehicles." The fact that NCDOT has chosen to emphasize the motorists' side of the irreconcilable conflict is no news to any of us; the opposite would be astounding news.
What is peculiar is that bicycle advocates, such as Bek, vigorously and vociferously advocate the motorists' view. Why? Obviously, for various reasons, they desperately want to be on the popular side, no matter the harm to lawful, competent cyclists.
hmm. a singular statute, NC 20-146. the standard 'drive on right half of roadway, smv frap' law similarly worded in many states.
It is deceitful and misleading to partially quote a singular statute while repeatedly, angrily bluffing it does not contain its main directive.
a clear sign of sophistry. anyway -
As to duties of cyclists to share roads safely.....
unsupportable, unreasonable skew about discrimination shrouds an incredibly hazardous advocacy trajectory that will surrender cyclists rights and subject us to much stricter operating requirements.
"Advocacy" that aims to take away cyclists rights is hazardous to the American Road Bicyclist.
"THERE'S A BUS HEADED STRAIGHT FOR US IN THIS LEFT LANE, LOU!!"
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-17-11 at 08:05 AM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote