Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 449
  1. #176
    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
    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."
    Once again you imply you have some definition of "vehicular" in mind when used in the term "vehicular cycling", but you won't reveal what it is. I have long wondered what such a definition would look like that would be compatible with all of your apparent expectations for it.

    If being consistent with the vehicular rules of the road and being consistent with common behavior by drivers of vehicles all over the world does not determine what "vehicular" is, than what does? Let us know. What's the big secret?

    You can't have it both ways. You can't contend this is vehicular and that is not without revealing the standard by which you are making these determinations. But that is what you do in your book, and that is what you're doing here.

    Filtering around cars at a red light is decidedly non-VC.
    And I say it's decidedly non-XYZ. Each is a meaningless statement when the intended meaning of the respective term is not known. You say it's non-VC. By what standard? What is the definition of "VC/non-VC" you are using when you make this assertion? Please, spell it out.

    What you did in your story, change lanes within an intersection at speed, is decidedly non-VC.
    Again, it cannot be decidely anything until you define what you mean by that anything.

    And not that it matters, but I changed lanes about one car length prior to the intersection, not within an intersection, and, it was moving from the right side of the left lane (that I was not sharing) to the left side of the right lane (in order to briefly share with a right turner who was far right and I was quickly passing since I was accelerating and he was crawling to make his right turn). In similar situations except with a wider right lane, I've seen drivers of cars do the same thing, but I guess that could be "non-VC" too as long as you're making up definitions as we go along here.

    Just because self-described Vehicular Cyclists do these things does not make these things any more "vehicular."
    If that were the reason claimed for what makes it "vehicular", that would be absurd. But that is not what is claimed (the claim is that it's perfectly legal and drivers of motorcycles and even cars do it, and that's why it's "vehicular"), and, so, your argument is a strawman.

    It just makes their preaching more hypocritical.

    Robert
    Did your girlfriend leave you for a vehicular cyclist or something? I just can't figure out where all this irrational animosity is coming from.
    Last edited by Helmet Head; 04-19-07 at 06:57 PM.

  2. #177
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    I never made such a claim. My claim is I don't believe lawyers, courts, and judges would interpret it like you did.
    Unbelieveable. I posted a quote from a text on statutory construction. What more do you need? How about this: I don't believe that programmers program code the way you claim they do. Like that?

    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.
    I have expertise. You don't. Furthermore, I posted the text on stat construction. Those two are reason enough.

    Original (ridiculous) argument:


    Latest version:
    Unbelieveable. There was NOTHING contradictory in those two quotes. Get your head out, you're WRONG HH. YOU ARE W-R-O-N-G.

    If you don't believe you're wrong, ask one of the lawyers who post here. If you won't ask them, shut it. You're wrong. End of.

  3. #178
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MO Traffic Code
    Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe...
    I think the confusion here is because meeting the "requirements" in this law means staying to the right. This is a restrictive law (not a real law term, I just made it up if you care) as opposed to a freeing law (again, my term). The freeing law in this case would read:

    Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at (or greater than) the posted speed and faster than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall not be required to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe.

    In this rephrasing of the law, I changed all of the negatives to positives and vice versa. It still reads the same way as HH and Noisebeam have been arguing and this new form fits nicer into the text quoted by Blue Order (which isn't saying what he thinks it's saying), specifically the bolded section. In this reversed version of the law, to be legally left, you must comply with both requirements. In the originally form, failure to comply with any requirement means riding to the right.

  4. #179
    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 joejack951
    I think the confusion here is because meeting the "requirements" in this law means staying to the right. This is a restrictive law (not a real law term, I just made it up if you care) as opposed to a freeing law (again, my term). The freeing law in this case would read:

    Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at (or greater than) the posted speed and faster than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall not be required to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe.

    In this rephrasing of the law, I changed all of the negatives to positives and vice versa. It still reads the same way as HH and Noisebeam have been arguing and this new form fits nicer into the text quoted by Blue Order (which isn't saying what he thinks it's saying).
    I had a post composed that was 10 times as long what you just wrote trying to say the same thing. I deleted it because it was too convoluted.

    Thank you, JJ, thank you.

    In short, I did not see how the Singer thing applied to this law as written for the reasons provided by JJ. But I do agree it applies to JJ's rewrite.

  5. #180
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertHurst
    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."
    Here's one. I regularly encounter the USPS doing their job on my way home from work. The lanes on the roads I'm riding as so narrow that even a cyclist cannot pass the mail truck (with adequate clearance) without going over the solid yellow line. Is doing this (which I do about once a week) non-vehicular since it is breaking the letter of the law?

  6. #181
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    I think the confusion here is because meeting the "requirements" in this law means staying to the right. This is a restrictive law (not a real law term, I just made it up if you care) as opposed to a freeing law (again, my term). The freeing law in this case would read:

    Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at (or greater than) the posted speed and faster than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall not be required to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe.

    In this rephrasing of the law, I changed all of the negatives to positives and vice versa. It still reads the same way as HH and Noisebeam have been arguing and this new form fits nicer into the text quoted by Blue Order (which isn't saying what he thinks it's saying), specifically the bolded section. In this reversed version of the law, to be legally left, you must comply with both requirements. In the originally form, failure to comply with any requirement means riding to the right.
    You know nothing about statutory construction. I do. You're wrong.

  7. #182
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    I had a post composed that was 10 times as long what you just wrote trying to say the same thing. I deleted it because it was too convoluted.

    Thank you, JJ, thank you.

    In short, I did not see how the Singer thing applied to this law as written for the reasons provided by JJ. But I do agree it applies to JJ's rewrite.
    HH, you don't know what you're talking about. Nothing new there.

    Ask a lawyer, or just fold up your tent and go home, because you're simply to afraid to have your argument exposed as a fallacy by asking an expert.

    You know nothing about the law, and you think because you can type code into a computer, you can't possibly be wrong.

    Well, you're wrong. Get used to hearing it.

  8. #183
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    You know nothing about statutory construction. I do. You're wrong.
    Where am I wrong? If by applying the passage you quoted to the law we have been discussing makes me auotmatically wrong, then I guess that's how it has to be.

    The law, as written, is ridiculous. There are many other ridiculous laws on the books as well. Somebody made a mistake with this law and the only way to interpret it favorably for cyclists is to swap one word out for another. That's not interpretting though; that's changing the meaning of the law. If I could go around swapping out "or" for "and" and vice versa any time I saw fit, the world could be a much better place for me.

  9. #184
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Blue Order, with respect to the law we are discussing, what are the "requirements to be fulfilled" and what is "comply[ing] with the statute?"

  10. #185
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    Where am I wrong? If by applying the passage you quoted to the law we have been discussing makes me auotmatically wrong, then I guess that's how it has to be.

    The law, as written, is ridiculous. There are many other ridiculous laws on the books as well. Somebody made a mistake with this law and the only way to interpret it favorably for cyclists is to swap one word out for another. That's not interpretting though; that's changing the meaning of the law. If I could go around swapping out "or" for "and" and vice versa any time I saw fit, the world could be a much better place for me.
    You are wrong because you don't know jack about statutory construction. I do. Get it?

    I will say this, although you VC JABs won't believe it: When a law is poorly written, the courts still have to interpret its meaning, and they WILL NOT give it an interpretation that leads to nonsensical outcomes UNLESS the legislature EXPLICITLY said it intended that nonsensical outcome.

    Now you and Hard Head can either ask a lawyer if that's what courts do, or not. But if you don't ask a lawyer, it's because you're both afraid to have an expert tell you you're wrong.

  11. #186
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    Blue Order, with respect to the law we are discussing, what are the "requirements to be fulfilled" and what is "comply[ing] with the statute?"
    The cyclist has a choice:

    1) the cyclist can ride at the speed limit

    or

    2) the cyclist can ride with the flow of traffic.

    The law does NOT require the cyclist to do both. It's one, or the other. If the cyclist can't do either, the cyclist must ride to the right.

  12. #187
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    You are wrong because you don't know jack about statutory construction. I do. Get it?
    I didn't think one needed a law degree to be able to interpret the rules of the road. Maybe I'm wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    I will say this, although you VC JABs won't believe it: When a law is poorly written, the courts still have to interpret its meaning, and they WILL NOT give it an interpretation that leads to nonsensical outcomes UNLESS the legislature EXPLICITLY said it intended that nonsensical outcome.
    What does "VC" have to do with this? So do you agree that this law is poorly written and that the only way to interpret it logically is to change it's wording? That's what I'm arguing and that's what I think you are denying by arguing that the law means something different than what it's really saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    Now you and Hard Head can either ask a lawyer if that's what courts do, or not. But if you don't ask a lawyer, it's because you're both afraid to have an expert tell you you're wrong.
    In this debate, I don't give a crap what courts do. You are arguing that the law means something other than what it says. Just because courts would change it's meaning to make it logical means nothing to me. I've never said that they wouldn't.

  13. #188
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    The cyclist has a choice:

    1) the cyclist can ride at the speed limit

    or

    2) the cyclist can ride with the flow of traffic.

    The law does NOT require the cyclist to do both. It's one, or the other. If the cyclist can't do either, the cyclist must ride to the right.
    Can you be more specific? Break the law down like this:

    Requirement A = ???
    Requirement B = ???
    Complying with the law = ???

  14. #189
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    Can you be more specific? Break the law down like this:

    Requirement A = ???
    Requirement B = ???
    Complying with the law = ???
    We went through that the other day. I'm not going through it again.

    1) I've already stated that if it's laid out as a simple equation, HH's interpretation makes sense.

    2) Brian has already stated that there are two types of "or."

    3) I've already stated that yes, Brian is right, and the courts use the "exclusive or" that I'm using, and not the "inclusive or" that HH is using.

    4) HH disputes that, knowing full well that I'm not just making this stuff up.

    5) I've already challenged him to ask Caloso, or that other BF lawyer in Florida, whose name escapes me at the moment, if he won't just accept my word on it.

    6) I'm not going through it again. The ink is all but dry on my law degree, and then I take the bar. If you and HH think you know more about statutory construction than I do, continue to believe so. This debate with HH has become an extremely juvenile exercise in refusing to acknowledge one's own lack of expertise. It's the equivalent of me offering an explanation of computer programming that is absolutely backwards from how programming is done, and insisting I'm right, and refusing to admit that I don't know as much about programming as HH does. I know you're new to the argument, so I won't apply that to you. But I'm not going to go through it all over again with somebody else who doesn't know the law but thinks he does.

  15. #190
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    I've already stated that yes, Brian is right, and the courts use the "exclusive or" that I'm using, and not the "inclusive or" that HH is using.
    The word "or" can have different meanings depending on how it's used in a sentence. It can be exclusive or inclusive, but that depends on sentence structure, not on who's reading it.

    For instance, "Give me all the berries that are red or blue" does not mean the same thing as "Give me all the red berries or all the blue berries." Same word, different meaning based on sentence structure. The law we are discussing is written in the former form. The law wants cyclists to be going both at or above the speed limit and at or above the speed of traffic to be allowed to ride not at the right edge of the road.

    "Or's" in Boolean logic only mean something different than what one is used to if someone is only used to applying the word "or" in a certain context. Once one realizes that the word can be used in different ways, both ways make sense. You seem to want to believe that "law" and "computer programming" have their own special logic. They don't.

  16. #191
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    The word "or" can have different meanings depending on how it's used in a sentence. It can be exclusive or inclusive, but that depends on sentence structure, not on who's reading it.

    For instance, "Give me all the berries that are red or blue" does not mean the same thing as "Give me all the red berries or all the blue berries." Same word, different meaning based on sentence structure. The law we are discussing is written in the former form. The law wants cyclists to be going both at or above the speed limit and at or above the speed of traffic to be allowed to ride not at the right edge of the road.

    "Or's" in Boolean logic only mean something different than what one is used to if someone is only used to applying the word "or" in a certain context. Once one realizes that the word can be used in different ways, both ways make sense. You seem to want to believe that "law" and "computer programming" have their own special logic. They don't.
    Well, I guess you and the other non-lawyer are right, and all of the lawyers, courts, and legal scholars are wrong then.

  17. #192
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    The law wants cyclists to be going both at or above the speed limit and at or above the speed of traffic to be allowed to ride not at the right edge of the road.
    Because the legislature wanted cyclists to be riding at 40 MPH on a road (posted speed limit) when all other traffic is moving at 20 MPH.

  18. #193
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    I didn't think one needed a law degree to be able to interpret the rules of the road. Maybe I'm wrong.
    Not as long as you're following the rules of statutory construction. If you're not following the rules of statutory construction, then you're way out of your league.



    What does "VC" have to do with this? So do you agree that this law is poorly written and that the only way to interpret it logically is to change it's wording? That's what I'm arguing and that's what I think you are denying by arguing that the law means something different than what it's really saying.
    I think that law is poorly written. Surprise. It happens more than you'd realize. Here's another surprise for you: If laws were clear and unambiguous, we wouldn't need panels of judges to decide what the legislature meant when it wrote the law.



    In this debate, I don't give a crap what courts do. You are arguing that the law means something other than what it says. Just because courts would change it's meaning to make it logical means nothing to me. I've never said that they wouldn't.
    It should mean something to you, because your interpretation of the law is not how the courts would interpret the law.

  19. #194
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    Not as long as you're following the rules of statutory construction. If you're not following the rules of statutory construction, then you're way out of your league.

    I think that law is poorly written. Surprise. It happens more than you'd realize. Here's another surprise for you: If laws were clear and unambiguous, we wouldn't need panels of judges to decide what the legislature meant when it wrote the law.

    It should mean something to you, because your interpretation of the law is not how the courts would interpret the law.
    Here's my issue. I realize there is sometimes a difference between spoken words and the actual meaning of those words. The common phrase "I could care less" is a good example I think. If you look at that phrase in an "official" sense, it means what it says. If you interpret it in terms of common usage, it means that opposite. Not knowing exactly what statutory construction entails, I can only assume that issues like this are what it address. Hopefully I can find some condensed reading on the subject.

    How is the law poorly written? It's not ambiguous aside from the "as near to the right side of the roadway as safe" part which we are not debating. If you think it's poorly written simply because the real meaning of the words is ridiculous, then we are in agreement. But that's not the case as far as I can tell.

    I'm glad the courts would interpret the law in a meaningful way, and not at face value. At this moment, no court in MO has an issue with how I'm riding so it doesn't matter to me as part of this debate.

  20. #195
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    Here's my issue. I realize there is sometimes a difference between spoken words and the actual meaning of those words. The common phrase "I could care less" is a good example I think. If you look at that phrase in an "official" sense, it means what it says. If you interpret it in terms of common usage, it means that opposite. Not knowing exactly what statutory construction entails, I can only assume that issues like this are what it address. Hopefully I can find some condensed reading on the subject.
    There are undoubtedly condensed works on the subject. It is a complex subject, however; the work I quoted from is in 8 volumes. Lawyers argue every day over what words mean, what courts meant, what the legislature meant. Even on the highest court, you have some of the best legal minds in the country unable to agree on what the law is.

    If it were just a simple matter of reading a statute (although that can obviously be done sometimes, and is the court's first approach), then nobody would ever need courts or lawyers. Everybody would agree on what was meant. Obviously, just reading a statute isn't enough, then.

    How is the law poorly written? It's not ambiguous aside from the "as near to the right side of the roadway as safe" part which we are not debating. If you think it's poorly written simply because the real meaning of the words is ridiculous, then we are in agreement. But that's not the case as far as I can tell.
    That's exactly why i think it's poorly written-- because it lends itself to a ridiculous interpretation. A well-written statute should be clear, unambiguous, and not capable of being interpreted in a way that leads to ridiculous results.

    I'm glad the courts would interpret the law in a meaningful way, and not at face value. At this moment, no court in MO has an issue with how I'm riding so it doesn't matter to me as part of this debate.
    Yes, I'm glad too. Listen, courts don't always get it right either, which is why there's appellate review, but I think in general, they try to come up with reasonable results. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Of course, the side that wins would probably hold the view that the result was reasonable, even though you and I might look at it and wonder how the court could possibly have decided so foolishly.

  21. #196
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I posted the question here:

    Legal Question

  22. #197
    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
    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
    By the way, you've claimed before that VC was defined in your book.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertHurst
    VC defined (not by you but by me) and explained: p. 61 onward. Also in the Introduction.
    There is no clear definition of VC in your book. Not on p. 61 onward. Not in the introduction. There is nothing in your book that would allow anyone to complete the following sentence:

    Robert's definition of vehicular-cycling is _____________________.

    You write about VC as if the definition is obvious, but you never actually define it.

    You do write vague stuff like this tidbit from p. 61, in a chapter entitled "vehicular cycling": "Just by obeying traditional traffic-law principles and riding predictably, a bicyclist will eliminate a large portion of the danger of urban cycling". From that one might infer that you define vc as "obeying traditional traffic-law principles and riding predictably", but you're not clear on it. Again, allow me to contrast your misrepresentation of VC with the fair approach of Forester critic Jeffrey Hiles, who actually quotes those he critiques:

    Quote Originally Posted by Hiles quoting Forester
    There is much more to the vehicular-cycling principle than only obeying the traffic laws for drivers. The vehicular-style cyclist not only acts outwardly like a driver, he knows inwardly that he is one. Instead of feeling like a trespasser on roads owned by cars he feels like just another driver with a slightly different vehicle, one who is participating and cooperation in the organized mutual effort to get to desired destinations with the least trouble (Forester, 1994, p. 3).
    http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles...ening/ch4.html

    There is not a hint in your book about the fact that there is much more to VC than only obeying the traffic laws. In fact, you constantly make comments that reflect your apparent interpretion (though you never clearly define it) of VC to mean strict adherence to the letter of the law, period, like in this excerpt from p. 62:

    Evidence of this failure [with the VC principle] is provided in the fact that few experienced cyclists, even those who are vocal proponents of vehicular-cycling dogma [thank you very little for that slam], apply it consistently in their everyday travels. Instead, they use it whenever it suits their purpose and discard it when doesn't. They're not very above using an off-street bike path if it's headed in the right direction.
    That Forester, Goodridge, Galen, Joejack, Daily Commute, Al or I or any other "vocal proponents of vehicular-cycling dogma" are not above using a bike path is evidence of how vehicular cycling is a failure? How so? You don't explain it, apparently assuming it's obvious. Hint: it's not, again, primarily stemming from the fact that you never clearly defined what you meant by VC in the first place, and the definition you imply is not consistent with any that I recognize as used by any VC proponents, or even by Forester critics such as Hiles.

    You continue:

    They roll through stop signs, treat red lights like yield signs, and filter past lines of stopped cars in traffic jams and at intersections. Not very vehicular of them.
    I've never seen a red light treated like a yield sign (except for right turns) by a vehicular cyclist. What is your source for this (most if not all of the basis for your opinion about vehicular cyclists and vehicular cycling is conspicuously and unprofessionally unsourced). Other than that, basically you're saying that vehicular cyclists acting like typical drivers of motorcycles indicates that VC has "big problems" (your words, top of p. 62). How is that nonvehicular? How is that a failure?

    On p. 62 there is also some fantastic gibberish about what you call "neo-vehicularlists", but still nothing that makes it clear what you believe vehicular cycling to mean, except whatever it is, you have have great disdain for it.

    There is another very revealing comment on p. 63:

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hurst
    Decades ago, the vehicular-cycling ideologue had high hopes for their cause: they hoped that cyclists would be granted not only equal rights, but also equal respect, on America's roadways, that cyclists would be able to cruise any city thoroughfare alongside -- or, to be more accurate, in front of -- cars and trucks, and that the whole concept of separate facilities would wither and die from lack of usefulness. The dream has failed to materialize. America is further from a vehicular-cycling utopia that it was twenty-five years ago.
    The number of errors in those few dozen words are astounding. Among the most blatant:

    • For most practical purposes, cyclists have been granted equal rights to drivers of vehicles, subject to the same or very similar restrictions as are all drivers of slow moving vehicles (i.e., equal), in all 50 states. There is room for improvement, of course, but basically one can practice VC just about anywhere in the U.S. today.
    • There were no "hopes" for respect: it was recognized that the respect was already there from the start (as it still is). In EC on p. 300 Forester writes: "The basic thesis for all traffic cycling is this: If you make the motorist believe you are a vehicle, the motorist will treat you correctly without thinking about it, but if you get the motorist thinking you are different you will be subjected to the motorist's version of your rights. This is also true of traffic engineers and bicycle advocates who emphasize the difference between motorists and cyclists. Those people are more dangerous than the rare maniacs who try to run you off the road."
      Indeed, the people that emphasize the difference between motorists and cyclists were more dangerous than the rare maniacs decades ago, and they still are in this millenium. It's very sad that you and your fans apparently do not recognize this.
    • The contention that "vehicular-cycling ideologues" hoped to be able to cruise in front of cars and trucks - without any qualification for appropriateness of situation to do so - is yet another indication of how much you misunderstand VC. The basic VC riding position - when faster same direction is present, between intersections, the lane is wide enough to be safely shared, and it is safe and reasonable to do so - is "about 3 feet to the right of passing traffic". Always was, always will be. The ability to take the lane in all other conditions has always been there, and still is. Are you not aware of any of this? If you are aware of all of it, then why make these silly statements in your book?
    • I don't know of any "VC idealogue", including Forester, a champion of useful bike paths, who ever hoped "the whole concept of separate facilities would wither and die from lack of usefulness". Again, this claim about vehicular cyclists is unsourced. One can only assume you made it up as you were typing, perhaps trying to meet the publisher's deadline?
    • America already was as close to a VC utopia 25 years ago as one could reasonably hope for, and it still is today. That's the point! Sure, there are too many potholes, and some signal detectors don't detect us, a few laws in a few states are unfair to cyclists, and now and then someone honks, but the difference between reality 25 years ago, reality today, and a "VC utopia" is, for all practical purposes, marginal at most.


    The "dream" that you say failed to materialize, was never a dream. It was recognition of reality. Here then, here today. The only issue is whether it will still be here tomorrow.

  23. #198
    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)
    been working up to that diatribe a long time, eh, mr. head?

    I think Robert's got the dogmatic VC pegged pretty darn accurately.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  24. #199
    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
    Once again you imply you have some definition of "vehicular" in mind when used in the term "vehicular cycling", but you won't reveal what it is. I have long wondered what such a definition would look like that would be compatible with all of your apparent expectations for it.
    I am simply using Forester's own definition, which defines 'vehicular cycling' in terms of a few basic principles. If you're not riding according to those principles, you're not 'vehicular cycling.' Of course one of the most prominent of these principles is to ride in a predictable fashion (in the eyes of nearby road users). Correct? Yes, correct. Changing lanes within an intersection, or very close to an intersection, or multiple times while approaching an intersection, clearly runs counter to this basic principle. Such lane-changing for the sake of expedience is classic aggressive driving, and is not a behavior that I appreciate in my fellow road users. Merging into a lane that is already occupied by other traffic clearly runs counter to this principle as well. If not technically illegal, it is a stupid, impatient move that causes confusion with other road users. It is not something that is seen as 'vehicular' to other road users, nor will it foster the idea that cyclists are drivers of vehicles with the same rights and responsibilities as motorists. To convey that notion to your fellow vehicle-drivers you would have waited patiently in a lane behind the last car in that lane, not aggressively changed lanes on top of other vehicles in the intersection.

    Here's how you originally described this sequence:

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    I'm northbound on Regents, 4 lanes + bike lanes.
    Signal up ahead is red, there are about 7 or 8 cars stopped in the right lane, 2 in the left lane. There are cars behind me, but they have to slow for the light, so I'm in the right lane, not the bike lane. It is tempting to merge into the bike lane and pass on the right. Of course, I don't...

    I look back over my left shoulder and merge into the left lane. From that improved vantage point I can see that the first car at the red light in the right lane is positioned to go straight, while the next 4 or 5 cars are all either flashing right or right biased as if they plan to turn right at the light. As I approach the back of the 2nd car in line in the left lane, the light turns green. I'm still rolling, and they're about to go, so I look back over my right shoulder, merge to the right side of the left lane, look back again, and merge to the left side of the left lane, in a lane-sharing position to the left of the right turners. As I pass the 2nd car in line in the right lane (the 1st one turning right), I look back over my right shoulder and merge right, behind the first car who is now accelerating straight through the intersection.

    Merging to the right side of the left lane then to the left side of the right lane, while cars occupied both...To me that sounds like a fancy way to say you impatiently split lanes at the red light, then got lucky when the car you assumed was going to turn right actually did turn right. Don't get me wrong, I do this stuff all day long while in messenger mode, but I don't claim it's 'vehicular cycling.' I understand that lane-splitting is one of the riskiest things I do in traffic. Not only was your passing unnecessary, unpredictable, and non-vehicular in a Foresterian sense, but it sounds like you must have come up beside the left lane cars on their right after the light turned green, violating another cardinal principle of VC. Not only did you pass this traffic on the right, but you did it in the door zone -- there are door zones on both sides of any vehicles stopped in traffic -- between lanes while vehicles other than yours were occupying both. In doing all this furious lane-changing you had to divert your eyes and look back four times, when you could have just cruised patiently in a single lane with eyes forward, 'visible and predictable.' While pedaling in the left lane you were apparently not aware of the possibility of drivers in the right lane stuck behind those right-turners who might try to bust quickly into the left lane to get around -- just as you did. These drivers have a very hard time noticing when cyclists are passing on their left; they have to see you in their mirror or by looking over their shoulder. I wrote a new paragraph about passing lines of stop-and-go traffic for my new edition.

    It seems to me you violated any number of hallowed VC principles and defensive driving principles while taking advantage of your bicycle's peculiar properties to ride in a somewhat reckless fashion, just to save a few seconds. Welcome to the club!

    As for 'filtering'...You claim, as many self-described VCers do, that filtering forward through stopped traffic at red lights is still consistent with 'vehicular cycling.' As long as there is plenty of space to do it safely you say. Well, I feel that I require almost zero space to filter forward safely at red lights. I can snake around just about any traffic jam, no matter how tangled, and find my way to the front. Is all filtering 'vehicular' or only when you do it? Is filtering on the right side of stopped traffic 'vehicular?' Is filtering through door zones 'vehicular?' Is filtering past moving traffic 'vehicular?' If filtering is not always 'vehicular,' please describe when it is 'vehicular' and when it is not.

    Robert
    Last edited by RobertHurst; 04-20-07 at 02:43 AM.

  25. #200
    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
    By the way, you've claimed before that VC was defined in your book.


    There is no clear definition of VC in your book. Not on p. 61 onward. Not in the introduction. There is nothing in your book that would allow anyone to complete the following sentence:

    Robert's definition of vehicular-cycling is _____________________.

    You write about VC as if the definition is obvious, but you never actually define it.

    You do write vague stuff like this tidbit from p. 61, in a chapter entitled "vehicular cycling": "Just by obeying traditional traffic-law principles and riding predictably, a bicyclist will eliminate a large portion of the danger of urban cycling". From that one might infer that you define vc as "obeying traditional traffic-law principles and riding predictably", but you're not clear on it. Again, allow me to contrast your misrepresentation of VC with the fair approach of Forester critic Jeffrey Hiles, who actually quotes those he critiques:



    http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles...ening/ch4.html

    There is not a hint in your book about the fact that there is much more to VC than only obeying the traffic laws. In fact, you constantly make comments that reflect your apparent interpretion (though you never clearly define it) of VC to mean strict adherence to the letter of the law, period, like in this excerpt from p. 62:



    That Forester, Goodridge, Galen, Joejack, Daily Commute, Al or I or any other "vocal proponents of vehicular-cycling dogma" are not above using a bike path is evidence of how vehicular cycling is a failure? How so? You don't explain it, apparently assuming it's obvious. Hint: it's not, again, primarily stemming from the fact that you never clearly defined what you meant by VC in the first place, and the definition you imply is not consistent with any that I recognize as used by any VC proponents, or even by Forester critics such as Hiles.

    You continue:



    I've never seen a red light treated like a yield sign (except for right turns) by a vehicular cyclist. What is your source for this (most if not all of the basis for your opinion about vehicular cyclists and vehicular cycling is conspicuously and unprofessionally unsourced). Other than that, basically you're saying that vehicular cyclists acting like typical drivers of motorcycles indicates that VC has "big problems" (your words, top of p. 62). How is that nonvehicular? How is that a failure?

    On p. 62 there is also some fantastic gibberish about what you call "neo-vehicularlists", but still nothing that makes it clear what you believe vehicular cycling to mean, except whatever it is, you have have great disdain for it.

    There is another very revealing comment on p. 63:



    The number of errors in those few dozen words are astounding. Among the most blatant:

    • For most practical purposes, cyclists have been granted equal rights to drivers of vehicles, subject to the same or very similar restrictions as are all drivers of slow moving vehicles (i.e., equal), in all 50 states. There is room for improvement, of course, but basically one can practice VC just about anywhere in the U.S. today.
    • There were no "hopes" for respect: it was recognized that the respect was already there from the start (as it still is). In EC on p. 300 Forester writes: "The basic thesis for all traffic cycling is this: If you make the motorist believe you are a vehicle, the motorist will treat you correctly without thinking about it, but if you get the motorist thinking you are different you will be subjected to the motorist's version of your rights. This is also true of traffic engineers and bicycle advocates who emphasize the difference between motorists and cyclists. Those people are more dangerous than the rare maniacs who try to run you off the road."
      Indeed, the people that emphasize the difference between motorists and cyclists were more dangerous than the rare maniacs decades ago, and they still are in this millenium. It's very sad that you and your fans apparently do not recognize this.
    • The contention that "vehicular-cycling ideologues" hoped to be able to cruise in front of cars and trucks - without any qualification for appropriateness of situation to do so - is yet another indication of how much you misunderstand VC. The basic VC riding position - when faster same direction is present, between intersections, the lane is wide enough to be safely shared, and it is safe and reasonable to do so - is "about 3 feet to the right of passing traffic". Always was, always will be. The ability to take the lane in all other conditions has always been there, and still is. Are you not aware of any of this? If you are aware of all of it, then why make these silly statements in your book?
    • I don't know of any "VC idealogue", including Forester, a champion of useful bike paths, who ever hoped "the whole concept of separate facilities would wither and die from lack of usefulness". Again, this claim about vehicular cyclists is unsourced. One can only assume you made it up as you were typing, perhaps trying to meet the publisher's deadline?
    • America already was as close to a VC utopia 25 years ago as one could reasonably hope for, and it still is today. That's the point! Sure, there are too many potholes, and some signal detectors don't detect us, a few laws in a few states are unfair to cyclists, and now and then someone honks, but the difference between reality 25 years ago, reality today, and a "VC utopia" is, for all practical purposes, marginal at most.


    The "dream" that you say failed to materialize, was never a dream. It was recognition of reality. Here then, here today. The only issue is whether it will still be here tomorrow.

    Isn't this post recycled from another equally mind-numbing thread? And didn't I already answer it there? If you can't come up with new material, why should I.

    R.

Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •