Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-25-07, 08:37 AM   #51
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul L.
Seeing as lane filtering and passing within the same lane are not legal in Arizona except for motorcycles with each other and not cars are WOLs really VC in Arizona? This seems to be a bit of a paradox I thought about recently when people talked about WOLs being VC. It occured to me that the "Same Road Same Rules" philosophy does not apply to WOLs. Any thoughts?
It seems that the following are true:
  • WOLs are not vehicular.
  • Lane-sharing on a laned roadway is not vehicular.
  • "Same Road Same Rules" does not apply to bicyclists in a WOL.

WOLs result in very different treatment for bicyclists than for drivers of other vehicles. According to the vehicular cycling princple, "Cyclists fare best...," cyclists don't fare best if there's a WOL.

There are specific laws prohibiting lane-sharing. It is not permitted by the vehicular rules of the road (unless covered by special exceptions to the general rule). In all states with the sole exception of California, motorcyclists are prohibited from sharing a lane with any other vehicle except another motorcycle.

Bicyclists, on the other hand, are required to share a WOL in many states. Mandatory lane-sharing laws appear to apply only to bicyclists and not to drivers of any other kind of vehicle. Some states have laws that specifically grant motorcyclists full use of the lane but don't grant the same right to bicyclists.

---------

Example of a mandatory lane-sharing law / California

21202. California Vehicle Code
(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

A bicyclist is prohibited from taking the lane in WOL in many cases in states with laws like this, since a WOL is not substandard width. Apparently, a fair number of states have mandatory lane-sharing laws (for bicyclists only), although I've only checked a few states so far. Such a law is in the UVC. Of the states I checked, only North Carolina appeared not to have such a law.

---------
Example of a law prohibiting lane-sharing (for motorcycles) 2005 OREGON VEHICLE CODE

814.240 Motorcycle or moped unlawful passing; penalty. (1) A motorcycle operator or moped operator commits the offense of motorcycle or moped unlawful passing in a lane with a vehicle if the operator does any of the following:
(a) Overtakes and passes in the same lane occupied by the vehicle the operator is overtaking, unless the vehicle being passed is a motorcycle or a moped...
Note that the law says nothing about the width of the lane. Lane-sharing between a motorcycist and another vehicle (not a motorcycle) is ILLEGAL, regardless of the width of the lane.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/814.html

---------
According to the following article, every state except California has a law prohibiting lane-sharing (except of course, for bicycles, which are required to share lanes in many cases).

Lane Splitting – Is it Legal, Is it Safe? (7/1/2005). Quote: "From what I can tell, the only state in the US that allows lane splitting is California. Why is it legal in California you may ask? Because it’s not illegal! Texas seems to be tinkering with the idea and Washington had a bill that would make lane splitting legal in their state, however it got held up in legislature..."

--------------

Lane-sharing on a laned roadway is not vehicular.
WOLs threaten bicyclists' right to take the lane.

Last edited by JRA; 03-25-07 at 05:21 PM.
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 05:08 PM   #52
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Posts: 4,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
Give me an example of non two-wheeled vehicles sharing lanes legally.
It's pretty common and perfectly legal in California that when approaching an intersection, you can use the right portion of the lane if you're turning right, and filter up to the front next to the other traffic in the same lane to do so. That's not exactly the same as traveling side-by-side for a stretch, but it is an example of cars sharing lanes legally.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 11:19 PM   #53
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
It's pretty common and perfectly legal in California that when approaching an intersection, you can use the right portion of the lane if you're turning right, and filter up to the front next to the other traffic in the same lane to do so. That's not exactly the same as traveling side-by-side for a stretch, but it is an example of cars sharing lanes legally.
Bike/car lane sharing is NOT "traveling side-by-side for a stretch". If they're traveling side-by-side, then the cyclist is moving the same speed as the motorist, and is not obligated to share.

It is not illegal to temporarily share a lane while passing, and that's what motorists do when they are passing cyclists in WOLs. It's also what through motorists do when they pass traffic slowing or stopped waiting to turn right in a temporarily shared wide straight-or-right lane at an intersection approach.

I disagree with JRA that it's "not vehicular". It's standard vehicular behavior for faster traffic passing slow moving vehicles. In fact, drivers of slow moving motor vehicles are allowed to straddle a shoulder in order to allow faster traffic to pass them within the temporarily shared lane.

It's a mistake to define "vehicular" strictly in terms of vehicles capable of maintaining normal vehicular speeds. Slow moving vehicles are vehicular too, and their actions and behavior, as well as the actions of drivers who need to pass them, are all standard vehicular stuff.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-07, 08:12 AM   #54
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It is not illegal to temporarily share a lane while passing...
Yes it is according to the rules of the road for vehicles on a laned roadway, with few exceptions. The major exceptions are: 1. it's legal to pass a bicyclist and 2. in California it's not illegal for a motorcyclist to pass motorist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
and that's what motorists do when they are passing cyclists in WOLs.
Yes. It's legal to pass a bicyclist. That's because bicycists are treated by different rules in a WOL. Same Roads, Different Rules for a Bicyclist in a WOL


Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It's also what through motorists do when they pass traffic slowing or stopped waiting to turn right in a temporarily shared wide straight-or-right lane at an intersection approach.
If the right-turner has started to make their turn, it's probably legal but that's just another special exception to the general rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I disagree with JRA that it's "not vehicular".
Your mind is apparently clouded by VC dogma and superstition.

Let me explain again:

1. "Vehicular" means "according to the vehicular rules of the road.
2. Lane-sharing on a laned roadway is generally not permitted by the vehicular rules of the road and, consequently, is not vehicular.
3. Bicycles in a WOL are not treated according to the vehicular rules that apply to other vehicles. WOLs are not vehicular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It's standard vehicular behavior for faster traffic passing slow moving vehicles.
Except on a laned roadway. We are talking about laned roadways. What happens elsewhere is pretty much irrelevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
In fact, drivers of slow moving motor vehicles are allowed to straddle a shoulder in order to allow faster traffic to pass them within the temporarily shared lane.
Horse hockey! If a vehicle is straddling a shoulder, it isn't within a lane.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It's a mistake to define "vehicular" strictly in terms of vehicles capable of maintaining normal vehicular speeds.
Show me where anyone made the mistake to which you refer. Please supply a link to the post, an accurate quote and then explain, in 10000 words or more, why you think the alledged mistake is relevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Slow moving vehicles are vehicular too...
Unless they are bicycles in a WOL. In that case the bicyclist is required to do something that no driver of any other vehicle is ever required to do: share the lane.

WOLs mean "Same Roads, Different Rules For Bicyclists."

Last edited by JRA; 03-26-07 at 09:11 AM.
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-07, 12:10 AM   #55
Bruce Rosar
Senior Member
 
Bruce Rosar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Carolina, USA
Bikes: Road, Mtn, Tandem
Posts: 760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul L.
... are [you] saying rules that work for a car and a car do not apply to a car and a bicycle/motorcycle because of vehicle sizes?
I was talking about the effect of the physical widths of marked lanes and vehicles. Other than the rule which limits motorcylists to two side by side within a marked lane, there are no N.C. rules restricting lane sharing. However, physical restrictions still exist; the vehicles involved have to be able to travel safely within the confines of the marked lane. While marked travel lanes are conventionally not wide enough for two wide vehicles to share, a wide vehicle can sometimes share with a narrow, and a narrow can usually share with one or more other narrow vehicles.
__________________
Humantransport.org: Advocacy on behalf of humans traveling under their own power
Bruce Rosar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-07, 08:18 AM   #56
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Posts: 4,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And motorcycles don't exactly ride side-by-side, either. You are supposed to ride in staggard formation.

JRA is right. Sharing a lane is not a normal thing to do for vehicles. The only problem with his argument, in my opinion, is that unless cars are going bicycle speed, they're passing, not sharing. There really aren't any normal circumstances where vehicles ride side-by-side for long periods of time in the same lane.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-07, 02:08 PM   #57
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA
Yes it is according to the rules of the road for vehicles on a laned roadway, with few exceptions. The major exceptions are: 1. it's legal to pass a bicyclist and 2. in California it's not illegal for a motorcyclist to pass motorist.
There is no CA law that makes it explicitly legal for a motorcyclist to pass a motorist within the same lane (that there is such a law is a common misconception). The reason it is legal is because there is no law that makes it illegal for two vehicles to be in the same lane side-by-side at the same time. That's why it's not illegal for motorcyclists to pass motorists. But in the relatively rare cases where the lane is wide enough for two cars to fit, it's also not illegal there either. On my commute there is a right-or-straight lane that is wide enough to be shared. It's only a couple of blocks from the police station, and I often see police cars side-by-side with others cars sharing the lane. When the light turns green, both lines of cars within the lane move simultaneously, and each line within the lane can have 10 or more cars in it at times.

Quote:
Yes. It's legal to pass a bicyclist. That's because bicycists are treated by different rules in a WOL. Same Roads, Different Rules for a Bicyclist in a WOL
Again, there is no CA rule that make it explicitly legal for motorists to pass bicyclists within a lane. If it's safe and reasonable, a driver of any vehicle can legally pass any other vehicle in the same lane. It just happens to not be reasonable very often when both vehicles are cars.

Quote:
If the right-turner has started to make their turn, it's probably legal but that's just another special exception to the general rule.
There is no law that makes exceptions for this at right-turns as your statement infers ("it's probably legal but that's just another special exception"). It's legal to pass within a lane whether or not one is turning right. But, right-turners are required to drive "as far right as practicable", even if they have their own lane, presumably to make this work.


Turning Upon a Highway

22100.
...
a) Right Turns. Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway



Quote:
Your mind is apparently clouded by VC dogma and superstition.
My mind has formed opinions about the CA laws based on reading the CA laws.

Your mind is apparently clouded by fantastic laws and rules that you only imagine exist.

Quote:
Let me explain again:

1. "Vehicular" means "according to the vehicular rules of the road.
2. Lane-sharing on a laned roadway is generally not permitted by the vehicular rules of the road and, consequently, is not vehicular.
3. Bicycles in a WOL are not treated according to the vehicular rules that apply to other vehicles. WOLs are not vehicular.
1 - I agree.
2 - is false (at least in CA). Lane-sharing is no more allowed or required for cyclists than it is for drivers of slow moving vehicles. One 2-lane roads, for example, cyclists and drivers of slow moving vehicles are required to operate as far right as practicable. The only difference is on multi-lane roads, where drivers of slow moving vehicles are restricted to the right-hand lane, and cyclists are restricted to "as far right as practicable", unless the lane is too narrow to share.
3 - is false (because 2 is false)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It's standard vehicular behavior for faster traffic passing slow moving vehicles.
Except on a laned roadway. We are talking about laned roadways. What happens elsewhere is pretty much irrelevant.
I am talking about laned roadways, like highway 1, and mountain highways, for example. On these roadways it's standard practice for drivers of slower vehicle (like trucks and VW buses), to move over to the "as far right as practicable" position on the roadway, to allow others to pass sharing the lane.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
In fact, drivers of slow moving motor vehicles are allowed to straddle a shoulder in order to allow faster traffic to pass them within the temporarily shared lane.
Horse hockey! If a vehicle is straddling a shoulder, it isn't within a lane.
It's partially within the lane, more so than a bicyclist typically uses of a lane, and shares it within another vehicle. But even if there is no shoulder, drivers of slow moving vehicles are required to drive as far right as practicable (on 2-lane) roads to share the lane as much as is practicable with faster passers (see 21654 cited below).

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It's a mistake to define "vehicular" strictly in terms of vehicles capable of maintaining normal vehicular speeds.
Show me where anyone made the mistake to which you refer. Please supply a link to the post, an accurate quote and then explain, in 10000 words or more, why you think the alledged mistake is relevant.
No one has explicitly defined "vehicular" in that manner so far as I know. However, that seems to be the way many people seem to interpret it. Or, maybe they do not know about the laws that apply to all drivers of slow moving vehicles, and how the cyclist-specific ones are mostly just clarifications of the general rules as they apply to cyclists.

Quote:
Unless they are bicycles in a WOL. In that case the bicyclist is required to do something that no driver of any other vehicle is ever required to do: share the lane.
Sharing lanes is something that no driver of any other vehicle is ever required to do? False. On 2-lane roads, all drivers of slow moving vehicles are required to share the lane and drive as far right as practicable in the presence of faster traffic.


Slow-Moving Vehicles

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.


On 2-lane roads that is effectively no different than the rule for bicyclists.

Last edited by Helmet Head; 03-27-07 at 03:35 PM.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-07, 02:11 PM   #58
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
And motorcycles don't exactly ride side-by-side, either. You are supposed to ride in staggard formation.

JRA is right. Sharing a lane is not a normal thing to do for vehicles. The only problem with his argument, in my opinion, is that unless cars are going bicycle speed, they're passing, not sharing. There really aren't any normal circumstances where vehicles ride side-by-side for long periods of time in the same lane.
Whether it's a motorcycle/motorcycle, motorcycle/car, car/car, or bike/car, no one operates side-by-side except bike/bike. In all other cases one is passing the other. It's a general vehicular rule for sharing lanes during passing when safe and reasonable to do so. Bikes are no different.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-07, 03:01 PM   #59
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It's a general vehicular rule for sharing lanes during passing when safe and reasonable to do so. Bikes are no different.
Which is NEVER for motor vehicles! OK for motor vehicles to pass each other in the same lane? Who the heck do you think you are you kidding; besides yourself?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-07, 03:34 PM   #60
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Which is NEVER for motor vehicles! OK for motor vehicles to pass each other in the same lane? Who the heck do you think you are you kidding; besides yourself?
Never? I'm not kidding. In CA there is no law that makes it illegal for two vehicles to use the same marked lane at the same time, as long as it is safe and reasonable to do so. It just so happens that marked lanes are rarely wide enough for 2 cars to share like this, but it does happen. Read #57.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-07, 04:33 PM   #61
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA
It's a paradox.

The existance of a WOL may mean that is illegal for a bicyclist to take the lane. This may set a precedent that could be applied to all lanes.

WOL's support the notion that bicyclists should be treated by different rules from the rules that apply to drivers of other vehicles.

Drivers of other vehicles are generally not required to share a lane while bicyclists, in any state that has a "ride right" law with a "lane too narrow to share" exception, are required to share a WOL.

It's discrimination, I tell ya. Why do VC-ists support something that encourages discrimination against bicyclists? It's a puzzlement.

It could be argued that, on a laned roadway, lane sharing is not vehicular (based on the special legal definition of "vehicular").
In whose imagination?

Hay, man.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-07, 07:47 PM   #62
rando
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's a man made of straw!

I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain

I'd unravel any riddle
For any individ'le
In trouble or in pain

(Dorothy)
With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain

(Scarecrow)
Oh, I would tell you why
The ocean's near the shore
I could think of things I never thunk before
And then I'd sit and think some more

I would not be just a nuffin'
My head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-07, 07:58 PM   #63
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
It's pretty common and perfectly legal in California that when approaching an intersection, you can use the right portion of the lane if you're turning right, and filter up to the front next to the other traffic in the same lane to do so. That's not exactly the same as traveling side-by-side for a stretch, but it is an example of cars sharing lanes legally.
What you describe is fairly common although I've never seen it on a well-defined 'laned roadway'. It's common on roadways when there's either a fog line or a shoulder that ends prior to the intersection leaving a wide area (not really a "lane") to the right of either a center line or a lane line. That's really more of a place where lanes are undefined than a laned roadway.

I agree, passing on the right to make a right turn at in intersection with a very wide right lane (even if part of it may actually be the shoulder) is pretty much legal. Whether it's perfectly legal might be open to debate. As I mentioned in a previous, I actually have seen a motorist ticketed for just such a move (for the record, I was in Iowa at the time; the incident was quite entertaining; the motorist was sure that what he did was legal; the cop had a very different opinion).

I've never seen a well-defined lane, even a WOL, where it would be safe for a car to pass another car (unless they were Isetta's or something (an Isetta is closer to a motorized tricycle than a car)).
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-07, 08:03 PM   #64
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
There is no CA law...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
There is no CA rule...
California is the exception that proves the rule.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
My mind has formed opinions about the CA laws based on reading the CA laws.
California is not the norm (I know people who will tell you, only half-joking, that California is a foreign country).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
2 - is false (at least in CA).
Perhaps you mean it's false only in California. Elsewhere 2 is true; lane sharing on a laned roadway is not according to the vehicular rules of the road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
3 - is false (because 2 is false)
Except that 2 is true.

Let me summarize the next exchange between us:
HH - Is not.
JRA - Is so.
HH - Is not.
JRA - Is so.
Rinse, repeat.

It's kind of pointless, don't ya think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I am talking about laned roadways, like highway 1, and mountain highways, for example. On these roadways it's standard practice for drivers of slower vehicle (like trucks and VW buses), to move over to the "as far right as practicable" position on the roadway, to allow others to pass sharing the lane.
I don't think you're are talking about a laned roadway with well-defined lanes, as is found generally only in urban areas. A mountain highway is not likely to be such a roadway. A laned roadway is where people "drive in lanes" and passing on the right is quite legal and acceptable. "Pass on the left" is not the predominant rule on a laned roadway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
On 2-lane roads, all drivers of slow moving vehicles are required to share the lane and drive as far right as practicable in the presence of faster traffic.
A two lane road is not a laned roadway. It's a two lane road. Yea, it has lanes (one in each direction) but it doesn't have lanes designated for the exclusive use of one vehicle at a time. Bicyclists are the only road users required by law to share a lane on a laned roadway.

BTW, California has a mandatory lane-sharing law that applies only to bicyclists. When you "take" a WOL in California (and many other states), you are violating the law. The threat to bicyclists' right to take the lane is a definate risk of the installation of WOLs.

The lobsters may not notice, but the water is getting hotter.

Last edited by JRA; 03-27-07 at 08:30 PM.
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-07, 08:09 PM   #65
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
In whose imagination?

Hay, man.
Hey, LBM, what's up?

In my imagination, of course. Admittedly the discussion here is of little practical use. But it does bring into question the "logic" that is the basis of VC doctrine. It's usefull sometimes to look at basic premises and not simply accept a concept because "that's the way it's always been taught."

As it turns out "VC" may not be all that vehicular and "Same Roads, Same Rules" may be nothing but a slogan.
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-07, 01:48 AM   #66
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA
California is the exception that proves the rule.
Perhaps "lane sharing" is not the best term for it. How about "shared-lane passing", meaning: the use of unused space within a lane occupied by a vehicle in order to pass that vehicle?

The fact that most if not all other states have laws that prohibit the specific behavior of motorcyclists passing cars within a lane, because that specific motorcyclist behavior has been deemed unsafe, does not mean the longstanding history of a lack of any specific rules prohibiting shared-lane passing is somehow invalidated. It is that history that makes shared-lane passing "vehicular", notwithstanding the relatively recent discriminatory laws against motorcyclists in this respect.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-07, 06:43 AM   #67
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA
...Admittedly the discussion here is of little practical use....

As it turns out "VC" may not be all that vehicular and "Same Roads, Same Rules" may be nothing but a slogan.
"Same Roads, Same Rights, Same Rules," it's really more than a slogan, it's a principle that many cyclists adhere to and value as a means of validating and protecting their status as valid road users. To these cyclists, "Same Roads, Same Rights, Same Rules" is a practical foundation for their cycling.

It appears to me your contention that WOL's are "non-vehicular" and threaten the VC principle of legally taking a lane is an overly-contrived distraction, not a real argument at all.

I don't say that to be disrepectful, but it just appears that way to me.
__________________
No worries

Last edited by LittleBigMan; 03-28-07 at 06:48 AM.
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-07, 08:19 AM   #68
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
its also a slippery, snappy slogan to

1) limit the inherent differences between bikes and cars, despite their obvious differences.
2)quoted to me personally out the car window by more than one ragin' cager,
3) used by zelous VC advocates locally to proposition preventing bikes from passing cars in congested traffic.

some zealous VC whacks want us to get stuck in traffic because of that "same rights, same rules" nonsense.

pithy, anti-bicycling slogan in my opinion.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-07, 08:29 AM   #69
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
its also a slippery, snappy slogan to

1) limit the inherent differences between bikes and cars, despite their obvious differences.
2)quoted to me personally out the car window by more than one ragin' cager,
3) used by zelous VC advocates locally to proposition preventing bikes from passing cars in congested traffic.

some zealous VC whacks want us to get stuck in traffic because of that "same rights, same rules" nonsense.

pithy, anti-bicycling slogan in my opinion.
But you said you could ride VC in a bike lane on the road. How can you do that if you aren't following the same basic rules as the rest of traffic, with the same rights, on the same road?
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-07, 08:37 AM   #70
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
everyone can ride VC in a classed lane on a road. its a basic tenet of riding a bike in a striped lane.

Despite it passing muster at first glance, I think the 'same rules, same rights' nonsense is secretly anti-bicycling propaganda pushed by the foresteresque zealots that want less bikes on the roads and bicyclists to get stuck in traffic jams.

learn to ride a bike like a bike, people. you're NOT a car.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-07, 09:07 AM   #71
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
Despite it passing muster at first glance, I think the 'same rules, same rights' nonsense is secretly anti-bicycling propaganda pushed by the foresteresque zealots that want less bikes on the roads and bicyclists to get stuck in traffic jams. [/i]
I wonder why I never thought if that.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-07, 09:13 AM   #72
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
theres' a local VC chestbeater up north here, going off in our local BBS about how a 3' safe passing law would also serve to prevent bikes from passing cars. A pathetic anti-bicycling stance masquerading under the 'same roads, same rules' shiznaz.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-07, 09:18 AM   #73
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
theres' a local VC chestbeater up north here, going off in our local BBS about how a 3' safe passing law would also serve to prevent bikes from passing cars. A pathetic anti-bicycling stance masquerading under the 'same roads, same rules' shiznaz.
Just curious Bekologist, does the local VC chestbeater have the initials DS?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-07, 09:52 AM   #74
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
spot on, ILTB!

(there's actually a couple of 'wanna get bikes stuck in traffic with a safe passing law) - its like a cancer!
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-07, 10:11 AM   #75
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
theres' a local VC chestbeater up north here, going off in our local BBS about how a 3' safe passing law would also serve to prevent bikes from passing cars. A pathetic anti-bicycling stance masquerading under the 'same roads, same rules' shiznaz.
It's interesting how you lump people who disagree with you into the same group, then paint the entire group the same color as a few chosen members you enjoy ridiculing, as if "guilt by association" with an accused person was conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. The effect is to cause people to distance themselves from the accused person(s) and abandon any resemblence to them out of fear of criticism.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:07 AM.