Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 106
  1. #51
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    Senior Member JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age."- John Forester
    "Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English..."- Forester defending obfuscation.
    "Motorist propaganda, continued for sixty years, is what has put cyclists on sidewalks." - Forester, sociologist in his own mind
    "'There are no rules of the road on MUPs.' -John Forester" - Helmet Head quoting 'The Great One'

  2. #52
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  3. #53
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  4. #54
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    Senior Member JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age."- John Forester
    "Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English..."- Forester defending obfuscation.
    "Motorist propaganda, continued for sixty years, is what has put cyclists on sidewalks." - Forester, sociologist in his own mind
    "'There are no rules of the road on MUPs.' -John Forester" - Helmet Head quoting 'The Great One'

  5. #55
    Senior Member Bruce Rosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    My Bikes
    Road, Mtn, Tandem
    Posts
    760
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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

  6. #56
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  7. #57
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

    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.

    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



    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.

    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 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 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.

    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.

  8. #58
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  9. #59
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,565
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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?

  10. #60
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  11. #61
    Sumanitu taka owaci LittleBigMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    8,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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

  12. #62
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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

  13. #63
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    Senior Member JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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)).
    "It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age."- John Forester
    "Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English..."- Forester defending obfuscation.
    "Motorist propaganda, continued for sixty years, is what has put cyclists on sidewalks." - Forester, sociologist in his own mind
    "'There are no rules of the road on MUPs.' -John Forester" - Helmet Head quoting 'The Great One'

  14. #64
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    Senior Member JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age."- John Forester
    "Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English..."- Forester defending obfuscation.
    "Motorist propaganda, continued for sixty years, is what has put cyclists on sidewalks." - Forester, sociologist in his own mind
    "'There are no rules of the road on MUPs.' -John Forester" - Helmet Head quoting 'The Great One'

  15. #65
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    Senior Member JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age."- John Forester
    "Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English..."- Forester defending obfuscation.
    "Motorist propaganda, continued for sixty years, is what has put cyclists on sidewalks." - Forester, sociologist in his own mind
    "'There are no rules of the road on MUPs.' -John Forester" - Helmet Head quoting 'The Great One'

  16. #66
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  17. #67
    Sumanitu taka owaci LittleBigMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    8,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    Last edited by LittleBigMan; 03-28-07 at 06:48 AM.
    No worries

  18. #68
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  19. #69
    Sumanitu taka owaci LittleBigMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    8,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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

  20. #70
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  21. #71
    Sumanitu taka owaci LittleBigMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    8,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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

  22. #72
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  23. #73
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,565
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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?

  24. #74
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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!
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  25. #75
    Sumanitu taka owaci LittleBigMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    8,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •