Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 449
  1. #151
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Blue Order states his purpose: '... for purposes of refuting your claim regarding discriminatory "traffic laws" hatched by motorists (and not presented to refute your now revised “traffic laws related to traffic movements.")' Yes, the context has always been the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which cover traffic movements.
    That's not what you stated. If that's the context you wanted, that's the context you should have stated.

    I had remarked that in the days of the high wheeler, articles in the cycling press urged their members to get off the sidewalks, which were the paved areas and therefore smoother, because riding among pedestrians jeopardized the public acceptance of cycling. To which Blue Order replied: "The high wheeler was dead by the time the bicycle craze of the 1890s hit." That falls rather flat as a rebuttal to my statement, being made either from ignorance or as dissimulation. I know the dates of the high wheeler, and I meant exactly what I wrote. (See Effective Cycling, 6th ed, pgs 421-2 for a discussion of the history of my family in those days) My source for the statement that the cycling press carried articles urging cyclists to get off the sidewalk is a private collection of papers (not owned by me) concerning the early days of the League of American Wheelmen, and that is just one of the items that I remember. However, here is Andrew Ritchie's comment about cycling conditions in the 1870s: "Riders were fined for often trivial reasons, although most of them accepted a fine for footpath riding as an occupational hazard." (King of the Road, pg 84)
    It wasn't a rebuttal to anything. It was a comment.

    The source for Blue Order's claim that bike lanes were a very early development,
    Get over yourself. You can't even read, apparently; I never made any such claim.


    during the 1890s bicycle craze, for the benefit of cyclists, not a discrimination, is as follows: "Sometimes they [some large cities] paved strips adjacent to the curbs on either side of the street to provide some smooth surfaces ... " (Robert A. Smith, The Social History of the Bicycle, pg 216.) Although at least part of the motive was to get cyclists off the sidewalks, which had a long history, as discussed above. In any case, there is no physical, social, or traffic connection between these long-gone facilities and the bicycle lanes invented by motorists of 1970 to clear the roadways of bicycle traffic for the convenience of motorists, none of whom, most probably, knew of these events of 70 years before. Indeed, I had not remembered Smith's statement from when I read his book many years ago.
    I never said there was a connection. If you think I did, quote me. Or maybe you should throw up a wall of obfuscation, like your disciple does, when his shaky claims fall apart.

    And I rather dispute Blue Order's claim, apparently based on Smith's book, that the traffic law rules of the road started with laws regarding bicycling rather than with Eno's traffic code for New York City of 1903, which, as I reported earlier, is considered by may authorities, including the Institute of Traffic and Transportation Engineers, to be the first traffic code. There is a very great difference between a collection of laws from different places enacted to fix particular problems, such as cycling on the sidewalk, and a well thought out code that is designed to make traffic flow safely and effectively. That was Eno's contribution, and it was a new concept.
    NYC revised it's collection of traffic laws into a coherent code in 1897. It's right there in Smith's book, Page 202, if you don't want to take my word for it. I quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert A. Smith
    The only real solution for how to cut down on accidents in heavy traffic was a revision of the rules of the road. this was finally done in New York City in 1897, when its aldermen produced a new traffic code. More complicated than that used to control horse traffic, the system became the foundation for the automobile ordinances of the present. Most important, pedestrians were to be given the right-of-way. Maximum speed was fixed at five miles per hour for horses, eight for bicycles. All vehicles had to show a white light from thirty minutes before sunset until a half hour after sunrise. Cyclists were not permitted to coast on city streets, and they had to have their feet on the pedals and both hands on the handlebars at all times. Cyclists had to mount and dismount on the right-hand side of the street and had to sound their bells before passing. The law stipulated that bells could not be more than three inches in diameter. This last can be seen as a faltering step toward noise abatement that succeeding generations did not see fit to follow. Trick riding, like reckless driving at a later date, was expressly forbidden on the city streets. A generation of automobilists would probably find nothing seriously wrong with these provisions, but they came under instant attack from horsemen.

  2. #152
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    First, Al made an assertion about how he interpeted it, and Blue Order challenged him on logical grounds. We refuted that argument such that Blue Order conceded (though apparently he's still clinging to his position based on your "plain language" argument).
    FFS, you're as hard-headed as your hero, and just as incapable of reading as he is

    I am not "clinging to my position based on Brian's 'plain language' argument."

    I said, once more, that I was just about to post that you had me convinced, when I read Brian's post re: inclusive and exclusive Or. Brian's post was absolutely correct on the law; the courts do their best to avoid interpretations which would lead to nonsensical results, which is exactly what you and Al are putting forth-- an interpretation that leads to nonsensical results. Pull your head out sometime and read something other than your own BS. Read some court cases that discuss the meaning of the word "or." I have done that, you have OBVIOUSLY not done that. End of. They all state clearly that "or" is a disjunctive word, which is the same thing Brian said last night in regards to "exclusive or." When he posted that, I realized why what you argue makes sense from a logical perspective, but is still wrong as a legal argument.

    If you still don't believe that you're wrong, I'll post a quote from a treatise on statutory interpretation, which discusses the use of the "disjunctive or."

  3. #153
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Let's take Al's lead and consider a bar owner who wants to enforce two requirements:
    • You must wear a shirts, AND
    • You must wear shoes.

    Otherwise you will be thrown out.

    What should the sign say, in common English language?
    • To be allowed in the bar, you must wear a shirt AND you must wear shoes.
    • Anyone not wearing a shirt OR not wearing shoes will be thrown out.
    • Anyone shirtless OR shoeless will be thrown out.
    All are correct and logical, per "plain language", yes?

    Now let's say you want to write a law that says in order for cyclists to be in the lane they:
    • Must be at or above the speed limit, AND
    • Must be at or above the speed of traffic.
    Otherwise, they must keep right.


    How do you word such a law? Consider:
    • To be allowed in the lane, cyclists must be at or above speed limit AND at or above speed of traffic.
    • Any cyclist not at or above speed limit OR not at or above speed of traffic must keep right.
    • Any cyclist below speed limit OR below speed of traffic must keep right.
    This is how they worded, and is what they intended. There is no reasonable alternative interpretation. You say it seems a bit contradictory. How so?

    If they wanted to say you could be doing either one, they would have used AND, not OR with respect to the restrictions.
    • Anyone shirtless AND shoeless will be thrown out (means if you have a shirt but no shoes, or shoes but no shirt, you can be in the bar).
    • Anyone cyclist below speed limit AND below speed of traffic must keep right (means cyclist below speed limit but at speed of traffic, or below speed of traffic but at speed limit, is okay in the lane).
    Nobody reads your wall of words but you, HH. Like I told your hero JF, get over yourself.

  4. #154
    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 Blue Order
    FFS, you're as hard-headed as your hero, and just as incapable of reading as he is

    I am not "clinging to my position based on Brian's 'plain language' argument."

    I said, once more, that I was just about to post that you had me convinced, when I read Brian's post re: inclusive and exclusive Or. Brian's post was absolutely correct on the law; the courts do their best to avoid interpretations which would lead to nonsensical results, which is exactly what you and Al are putting forth-- an interpretation that leads to nonsensical results. Pull your head out sometime and read something other than your own BS. Read some court cases that discuss the meaning of the word "or." I have done that, you have OBVIOUSLY not done that. End of. They all state clearly that "or" is a disjunctive word, which is the same thing Brian said last night in regards to "exclusive or." When he posted that, I realized why what you argue makes sense from a logical perspective, but is still wrong as a legal argument.

    If you still don't believe that you're wrong, I'll post a quote from a treatise on statutory interpretation, which discusses the use of the "disjunctive or."
    Now your argument is based on the premise that the result of my logical interpretation of the law is nonsensical.

    Why is it a nonsensical result?

    If they want to prohibit cyclists from riding in the lane unless they are moving at or faster than the speed limit AND are not moving slower than the speed of traffic, the way I'm interpreting the law, logically, it says exactly that. What's nonsensical about it?


    Nobody reads your wall of words but you, HH.
    No wonder you don't get what I'm saying.

  5. #155
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zeytoun
    As in, interpreting the OR disjunctively leading to the riduculous idea that a bicyclist would be legally required to stay right even when traffic is slower then the bicyclist.
    This is EXACTLY why HH's argument would lose in every court in the land.

  6. #156
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Now your argument is based on the premise that the result of my logical interpretation of the law is nonsensical.

    Why is it a nonsensical result?
    Numerous people have told you why.

    If they want to prohibit cyclists from riding in the lane unless they are moving at or faster than the speed limit AND are not moving slower than the speed of traffic, the way I'm interpreting the law, logically, it says exactly that. What's nonsensical about it?
    You've already been told, no need to repeat it.



    No wonder you don't get what I'm saying.
    You can't possibly believe that anybody has the time or interest to read your fawning monuments to your intellect. Get over yourself. "Get what you're saying"? You're as arrogant as Forester. At least your condescension isn't as nasty as Forester's; it's your saving grace. Nevertheless, it's still condescension. You're wrong on the law, end of.

  7. #157
    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 Blue Order
    Numerous people have told you why.
    Only Zeytoun even came close. He said: "However, interpreted disjunctively, this would also mean that the cyclist would have to keep right, even when going as fast as/faster than traffic, if he is going less then the posted speed limit."

    He also claimed judges would laugh this out of court. Why? This is simply putting a legal rubber stamp on how the vast majority of cyclists ride anyway, and how motorists expect them to ride.

    Cyclists who are willing to take the lane, actually put themselves in front of motor traffic, even if they can keep up with the flow of traffic, are very rare. That thinking that doing this is inherently dangerous... what if traffic suddenly speeds up! ... is not a nonsensical result.

    Their reason to make the situation where a cyclist is moving at or faster than the speed limit AND keeping up with traffic a unique exception is because if both conditions are true (perhaps on a downhill with a low speed limit), traffic is unlikely to suddenly speed up (they're already at or above the speed limit) putting the cyclist in dreaded danger.

    I honestly don't understand why you guys think this is not exactly what the legislature wanted, or why you think a judge would not uphold this interpretation. I don't see why you think it's an inherently nonsensical result.

  8. #158
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Only Zeytoun even came close. He said: "However, interpreted disjunctively, this would also mean that the cyclist would have to keep right, even when going as fast as/faster than traffic, if he is going less then the posted speed limit."
    That's exactly why. It leads to a nonsensical result. Brian said the same thing. I said the same thing. The result is nonsensical-- absent ANY indication from the legislature that they intended to keep bicycles out of the "traffic lanes" even when they are traveling at the same speed as other traffic, no court is going to accept that interpretation. Only if the legislature makes it clear in the legislative language or history or that it intends exactly that nonsensical result, will the court accept an interpretation that leads to a nonsensical result. Obviously, one would be hard-pressed to find such legislative pronouncements.

    He also claimed judges would laugh this out of court. Why? This is simply putting a legal rubber stamp on how the vast majority of cyclists ride anyway, and how motorists expect them to ride.
    Because courts have no patience for nonsense.


    I honestly don't understand why you guys think this is not exactly what the legislature wanted, or why you think a judge would not uphold this interpretation.
    See above.

    I don't see why you think it's an inherently nonsensical result.
    A cyclist must ride at the speed limit, even if all other traffic is riding at a lower speed. That is a nonsensical result.

    A cyclist must ride at the flow of traffic, even if the flow of traffic is 40 MPH above the posted speed limit. That is a nonsensical result.

  9. #159
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order

    NYC revised it's collection of traffic laws into a coherent code in 1897. It's right there in Smith's book, Page 202, if you don't want to take my word for it. I quote:
    That's very interesting. However, William Phelps Eno is credited with the first real traffic code, in many articles. He wrote: "Reform in our Street Traffic is Urgently Needed" in 1900, and he wrote "Rules of the Road" in 1903, which was adopted by NYC. I presume that Eno's first publication indicates that whatever was done in 1897 didn't work very well. In matters of traffic engineering, even just the history of traffic engineering, I think that I would give greater credibility to the unchallenged (so far as I know) conclusions of the professionals in the field than I would give to writers of popular social history.

  10. #160
    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
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    John,

    when's your book going back into print? never? seems like it'd be tough to get a publishing house to back such an odious, inaccurate, pedantic book nowadays, particularily if one of the vetting editors rode a bicycle.

    Publishing houses much prefer snappy, well written ,consise, non-dogmatic books like Robert Hurst's than your pedantic writings.

    I bet it'd be tough to float another edition, eh?
    Last edited by Bekologist; 04-18-07 at 10:05 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  11. #161
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    That's very interesting. However, William Phelps Eno is credited with the first real traffic code, in many articles. He wrote: "Reform in our Street Traffic is Urgently Needed" in 1900, and he wrote "Rules of the Road" in 1903, which was adopted by NYC. I presume that Eno's first publication indicates that whatever was done in 1897 didn't work very well. In matters of traffic engineering, even just the history of traffic engineering, I think that I would give greater credibility to the unchallenged (so far as I know) conclusions of the professionals in the field than I would give to writers of popular social history.
    By 1903, automobiles were beginning to appear on the roads. That would be reason enough to revise the traffic codes, don't you think?

    I suspect that the Society of Traffic Engineers is perhaps "autocentric"? If so, then their pointing to a 1903 statute as "the first" Traffic Code might make some sense, if it was the first to address their field of expertise.

    Incidentally, Smith is (or perhaps was?) a Professor of History at Cal State San Bernardino, so he's not simply a "writer" of a "popular social history."

  12. #162
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    If you still don't believe that you're wrong, I'll post a quote from a treatise on statutory interpretation, which discusses the use of the "disjunctive or."
    From Statutes and Statutory Construction, by Norman J. Singer:

    21:14 Conjunctive and disjunctive words

    Where two or more requirements are provided in a section and it is in the legislative intent that all of the requirements must be fulfilled in order to comply with the statute, the conjunctive "and" should be used. Statutory phrases separated by the word "and" are usually interpreted in the conjunctive. Where a failure to comply with any requirement imposes liability, the disjunctive "or" should be used. Generally, courts presume that "or" is used disjunctively unless there is clear legislative intent to the contrary.

  13. #163
    Senior Member Brian Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Near Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
    Posts
    9,485
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When talking about a computer program, talk to a computer programmer.

    When talking about a law, talk to a lawyer.

    I'm just say'n...
    Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
    "If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

  14. #164
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here's another intepretation consistent with Al's and mine:

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Schimek, Phd
    "In Missouri, cyclists must be both going faster than traffic and going the posted speed limit in order to be permitted to leave the right edge. "

    http://www.bicycledriving.com/trafficlaw.htm#appendix


    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    A cyclist must ride at the speed limit, even if all other traffic is riding at a lower speed. That is a nonsensical result.

    A cyclist must ride at the flow of traffic, even if the flow of traffic is 40 MPH above the posted speed limit. That is a nonsensical result.
    It's nonsensical only to a sensible bicyclist who understands proper bicycle operation in traffic. To a yahoo one notch from believing bikes should be ridden against traffic, it's not nonsensical at all.

    Brian, here's how the lawyers interpreted it:

    "When operating at less than the posted speed or traffic flow, generally ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe."

    http://mobikefed.org/statutes.html

    To add insult to injury, in 1998 there was a bill introduced to add this 2nd section to the Missouri Law 307.190 in question:

    2. Whenever a usable path for bicycles practical for sustained riding for transportation purposes has been officially designated adjacent to a street or highway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the street or highway.

    http://www.house.mo.gov/bills98/bilt...98/HB1112I.htm

    Apparently, it did not pass.

  15. #165
    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
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    how does ANY of this sophistic banter have ANYTHING to do with John foresters vehicular cycling movement and Robert Hurst's realistic treatments of cycling?
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  16. #166
    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 Bekologist
    how does ANY of this sophistic banter have ANYTHING to do with John foresters vehicular cycling movement and Robert Hurst's realistic treatments of cycling?
    No one seems to be interested in that topic. Oh well.

  17. #167
    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
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I thought YOU wanted to talk books and authors, mr. head.

    John Forester- antiquated, inaccurate, scientifically baseless, odious, tedious, misleading.

    Robert Hurst- concise, well written, sharp analysis of traffic cycling, good history of bicycling in america.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  18. #168
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The End!
    "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

  19. #169
    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 Bekologist
    Robert Hurst- concise, well written, sharp analysis of traffic cycling, good history of bicycling in america.
    You neglected to mention that Hurst doesn't understand vehicular cycling but criticizes it anyway. For example, he thinks vehicular cycling advocates are hypocrites for advocating riding according to the letter of the law (which we don't advocate), and then don't follow the letter of the law themselves, which we do more than he seems to realize, or is able to realize, given his apparent lack of knowledge about the law in the first place. When I described a vehicular way that I dealt with a particular intersection traffic situation yesterday, which involved changing lanes right before I got to the intersection, he thought it was "yet another" (in his mind) example of VC hypocrisy:

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertHurst
    It is illegal to change lanes within 100' of an intersection.

    R.
    (it is NOT illegal to change lanes within 100' of an intersection, or even IN an intersection).


    One of the misconceptions that people have about traffic law is that it is illegal to change lanes in an intersection. Quite often, it isn't. (Check what the law actually says in your state). One of the laws here in Arizona requires that a driver not pass another vehicle (left of the center line) either within 100 feet of an intersection, or while passing through one. Over the years, people started remembering this as a prohibition on changing lanes, rather than crossing the center line. These are two separate things.


    http://www.roadtripamerica.com/Defen...ing/Rule55.htm

  20. #170
    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
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    you vehicular cyclists advocate breaking the law? interesting.....


    yesterday, were you driving your car, and pretending it was a bicycle again, mr. head?
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  21. #171
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Here's another intepretation consistent with Al's and mine:
    And where did he-- or you-- you get your law degrees?

    Nothing wrong at all with lay people discussing the law, but you have no expertise, and you're arrogantly claiming that you're right on how to interpret the law, and lawyers, courts, and judges are wrong on how to interpret the law.

    It's nonsensical only to a sensible bicyclist who understands proper bicycle operation in traffic. To a yahoo one notch from believing bikes should be ridden against traffic, it's not nonsensical at all.
    It's nonsensical to courts, which is why your argument will never fly in court. The only place your argument flies, in fact, is on an internet forum with other non-lawyers.

    Brian, here's how the lawyers interpreted it:

    [I]"When operating at less than the posted speed or traffic flow, generally ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe."
    Now if you apply legal analysis to that, you'll realize that it refutes the position you've taken.

  22. #172
    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 Blue Order
    And where did he-- or you-- you get your law degrees?

    Nothing wrong at all with lay people discussing the law, but you have no expertise, and you're arrogantly claiming that you're right on how to interpret the law, and lawyers, courts, and judges are wrong on how to interpret the law.
    I never made such a claim. My claim is I don't believe lawyers, courts, and judges would interpret it like you did.

    It's nonsensical to courts, which is why your argument will never fly in court. The only place your argument flies, in fact, is on an internet forum with other non-lawyers.

    Now if you apply legal analysis to that, you'll realize that it refutes the position you've taken.
    You've produced no reason that your interpretation is the one that would be used in court.
    And if you had argued your "nonsensical result" current position from the beginning, instead of saying Al's interpretation was simply wrong or illogical, you might have some credibility on this point.

    Original (ridiculous) argument:
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    I should point out that it says "or," not "and." That means if you're traveling at the posted speed limit, or if you're traveling as fast as traffic, you don't have to ride to the right. You can choose one or the other, and as long as you're in compliance with one of those, you can take the lane.
    Latest version:
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    It's nonsensical to courts,
    Last edited by Helmet Head; 04-19-07 at 03:55 PM.

  23. #173
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    You neglected to mention that Hurst doesn't understand vehicular cycling but criticizes it anyway. For example, he thinks vehicular cycling advocates are hypocrites for advocating riding according to the letter of the law (which we don't advocate), and then don't follow the letter of the law themselves, which we do more than he seems to realize, or is able to realize, given his apparent lack of knowledge about the law in the first place. When I described a vehicular way that I dealt with a particular intersection traffic situation yesterday, which involved changing lanes right before I got to the intersection, he thought it was "yet another" (in his mind) example of VC hypocrisy:

    (it is NOT illegal to change lanes within 100' of an intersection, or even IN an intersection).


    One of the misconceptions that people have about traffic law is that it is illegal to change lanes in an intersection. Quite often, it isn't. (Check what the law actually says in your state). One of the laws here in Arizona requires that a driver not pass another vehicle (left of the center line) either within 100 feet of an intersection, or while passing through one. Over the years, people started remembering this as a prohibition on changing lanes, rather than crossing the center line. These are two separate things.


    http://www.roadtripamerica.com/Defen...ing/Rule55.htm
    Not so fast there, Helmet. While this move may be technically legal in California it is nonetheless a clear violation of common sense driving principles, defensive driving principles, and your own beloved VC principles, mainly the principle of riding in a predictable fashion. It can be extremely disorienting (i.e. non-predictable) when a driver changes lanes within an intersection; if it's not illegal, it probably should be. So yes, your bragging about changing lanes in an intersection at speed is a fine example of a VC preacher's hypocrisy. VC dogma is armchair philosophy geared at de-legitimizing bike lanes. It's no wonder that it doesn't hold up while actually cycling in traffic.

    Robert

  24. #174
    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 RobertHurst
    Not so fast there, Helmet. While this move may be technically legal in California it is nonetheless a clear violation of common sense driving principles, defensive driving principles, and your own beloved VC principles, mainly the principle of riding in a predictable fashion. It can be extremely disorienting (i.e. non-predictable) when a driver changes lanes within an intersection; if it's not illegal, it probably should be. So yes, your bragging about changing lanes in an intersection at speed is a fine example of a VC preacher's hypocrisy. VC dogma is armchair philosophy geared at de-legitimizing bike lanes. It's no wonder that it doesn't hold up while actually cycling in traffic.

    Robert
    Filtering forward in available space among cars stopped at a red light, including changing lanes from the lane-sharing right side of the left lane to the lane-sharing left side of the right lane (assuming the space is there and it's safe and reasonable to do), is common vehicular behavior for drivers of motorcycles as well as bicycles in every state and country I've ever been to.

  25. #175
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Filtering forward in available space among cars stopped at a red light, including changing lanes from the lane-sharing right side of the left lane to the lane-sharing left side of the right lane (assuming the space is there and it's safe and reasonable to do), is common vehicular behavior for drivers of motorcycles as well as bicycles in every state and country I've ever been to.
    Such behavior may be common, because it is useful and convenient for cyclists, but it is considered "vehicular" only by those with a desperate need to be labeled "vehicular cyclists."

    Filtering around cars at a red light is decidedly non-VC. What you did in your story, change lanes within an intersection at speed, is decidedly non-VC. Just because self-described Vehicular Cyclists do these things does not make these things any more "vehicular." It just makes their preaching more hypocritical.

    Robert

Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •