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


Go Back   > > >

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

View Poll Results: Do you consider your riding style to be vehicular cycling, generally
Yes 21 70.00%
No 9 30.00%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-09-07, 10:16 PM   #26
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA
John Forester, that great champion of "cyclists fare best..." opposed attempting to change California law to define a bicycle as a vehicle. "Why?" you ask. Well, if a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey (oh, the horror of it!). That's right. Despite the fact that Foresterites have "Same Roads, Same Rules" as a slogan, the great Forester himself opposes actually requiring bicyclists to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey. Go figure. So much for the internal consistancy of VC-ism.
Pretty close.

If a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to CERTAIN other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of MOTOR vehicles must obey (like no racing and no tailgating).

Defining a bicycle as a vehicle technically makes racing your buddy to the top of the local hill illegal. That makes sense if you and your buddy are racing Ford vs. Chevy, but not if Trek vs. Specialized, or your horses 9 to 5 vs. Annie pulling buggies.

Truly, in states like CA we have the best of both worlds. We have the same rights and responsibilities that apply of drivers of all types of vehicles, but not those rights and responsibilities that apply ONLY to drivers of MOTOR vehicles.

Do you seriously have a problem with that?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-07, 11:57 PM   #27
zeytoun
Non-Custom Member
Thread Starter
 
zeytoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Bikes: 1975-1980 SR road bike
Posts: 1,613
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Do you seriously have a problem with that?
Only that I now can't place the granny on the 3-speed who beat me up Texas street under citizen's arrest for racing.

Quote:
Hey, that reminds me of a trick I saw performed at a sideshow at the Kutztown, PA county fair over 40 years ago.
Are you sure it wasn't Thailand?

Quote:
I hope I didn't catch the gay or the HIV too
zeytoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 12:36 AM   #28
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Truly, in states like CA we have the best of both worlds. We have the same rights and responsibilities that apply of drivers of all types of vehicles, but not those rights and responsibilities that apply ONLY to drivers of MOTOR vehicles.

Do you seriously have a problem with that?
It sounds an aweful lot like special treatment if you ask me. Which should be something all cyclists strive against when it comes to our rights to the road.
If cyclists are afforded special rights that would lead to animosity from motorists.

Is it not easier and better for motorists to understand that we (cyclists) must obey the same rules while on the road instead of them having to take note of our special rights and laws?

And special rights for a bicycle tend to lead to the belief that a bicycle is an inferior vehicle.
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 04:10 AM   #29
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
It sounds an aweful lot like special treatment if you ask me. Which should be something all cyclists strive against when it comes to our rights to the road.
You forget which tiny slice of the cycling population Forester really represents. Priority must be given to protecting Forester's cycling club associates from any fear, no matter how remote, of any limitation on their right to paceline and/or conduct a race on public roads, whenever and wherever they choose.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 04:10 AM   #30
The other Inane
Senior Member
 
The other Inane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Brisvegas
Bikes: Fixed Gear and Cannondaler R4000
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
And special rights for a bicycle tend to lead to the belief that a bicycle is an inferior vehicle.
I like a lot of the "special" rules for bikes in the road rules where I live. I think they acknowledge that in some ways bicycles are superior vehicles

Buses, motorcycles, taxi's, trucks and even cars with more than a certain number of occupants have special rules and exemptions for using the road, so why not bikes?

When riding I am not a "pedestrian on wheels" or a motor vehicle, I am a cyclist on a bike (that is also legally a vehicle) .... and I ride like one.
The other Inane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 06:08 AM   #31
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
You can have the wooden nickel, but only if you can pick it up without stopping and dismounting from your slow-moving vehicle.
Piece of cake, white girl.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 06:17 AM   #32
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Pretty close.

If a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to CERTAIN other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of MOTOR vehicles must obey (like no racing and no tailgating).

Defining a bicycle as a vehicle technically makes racing your buddy to the top of the local hill illegal. That makes sense if you and your buddy are racing Ford vs. Chevy, but not if Trek vs. Specialized, or your horses 9 to 5 vs. Annie pulling buggies.

Truly, in states like CA we have the best of both worlds. We have the same rights and responsibilities that apply of drivers of all types of vehicles, but not those rights and responsibilities that apply ONLY to drivers of MOTOR vehicles.

Do you seriously have a problem with that?
No...as long you you don't try to export your BS VC politics anywhere outside of California, I could care less if you sleep in the bed you made. You want special treatment, like any other dependent class. The inferiority complex is yours, so next time you think about spreading that BS to others, you are going to get called on it - Pot-Kettle-Black.

Interesting that after all the blather from you and Forester about 'transportational' cycling...it turns out your biggest concerns about being considered a vehicle have to do with racing. Hear that sucking sound of your credibility going down the toilet?
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 07:38 AM   #33
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,970
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 890 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
It sounds an aweful lot like special treatment if you ask me. Which should be something all cyclists strive against when it comes to our rights to the road.
If cyclists are afforded special rights that would lead to animosity from motorists.

Is it not easier and better for motorists to understand that we (cyclists) must obey the same rules while on the road instead of them having to take note of our special rights and laws?

And special rights for a bicycle tend to lead to the belief that a bicycle is an inferior vehicle.
Why not special rights for cyclists? We are a non polluting, low impact, highly efficient form of personal transport that is in reality somewhat fragile when compared to the other vehicles on the road. Motorcycles and hybrid cars get certain "special treatment" when it comes to car pool lanes. Pedestrians get preferential treatment when it comes to ROW, why shouldn't cyclists get special treatment?

The typical argument is that motorists pay taxes and fees for the roads... but that is not true when it comes to the surface streets that cyclists use... those roads are paid for by all of us that pay taxes, and the licenses are because motorists are driving a heavy powerful vehicle. So why not laws that give preferential treatment to cyclists... especially in light of the energy issues that we are facing now and in the future.

Why not "3 foot laws," "stopsigns as yield laws" and "vulnerable road user laws" to give cyclists a certain advantage similar to that advanatage that hybrid drivers get in car pool lanes.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 09:57 AM   #34
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 420 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejack951
I rode on a sidewalk yesterday on my way to go get water ice. It's the only way to get between two neighborhoods on the way there without going onto the less pleasant arterials (it was rush hour and I felt like taking the quieter, longer route). I also rode on a MUP as part of the same route. I did "take the lane" through the neighborhoods though, at about 10mph.
My understanding is that Rando is truely non vehicluar in style. He chooses sidewalk even when the road is pleasant (except for lack of shade), such as this example of a lightly traveled low speed limit road with very wide lanes.
Google Map Link to 14th Street between 52nd and Priest
Sidewalk bicycling

This is not at all meant as a negative comment about him. I very much appreciate the honesty and the reasoning.

The only thing I am curious about is if he uses the sidewalk on same road on colder days or when the sun is down.

Al
noisebeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 10:37 AM   #35
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
Why not special rights for cyclists? We are a non polluting, low impact, highly efficient form of personal transport that is in reality somewhat fragile when compared to the other vehicles on the road. Motorcycles and hybrid cars get certain "special treatment" when it comes to car pool lanes. Pedestrians get preferential treatment when it comes to ROW, why shouldn't cyclists get special treatment?

The typical argument is that motorists pay taxes and fees for the roads... but that is not true when it comes to the surface streets that cyclists use... those roads are paid for by all of us that pay taxes, and the licenses are because motorists are driving a heavy powerful vehicle. So why not laws that give preferential treatment to cyclists... especially in light of the energy issues that we are facing now and in the future.

Why not "3 foot laws," "stopsigns as yield laws" and "vulnerable road user laws" to give cyclists a certain advantage similar to that advanatage that hybrid drivers get in car pool lanes.

In the context of California and considering a bicycle a vehicle, how do you think black folks, for example, would have tolerated laws that gave them the same rights and responsibilities as others, but refused stipulate that they were equal human beings?

Special privileges do not mean equality. You wanna have equal footing with other vehicles, you need to first be considered a vehicle. Anything less is lip service to shut you up and get you out of the way of the 'real' vehicles...which is what HH & JF allegedly oppose in principle but not in deed.

Once you are a vehicle, laws and regs concerning different classes of vehicles will give you the special treatment you seek.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 10:43 AM   #36
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
It sounds an aweful lot like special treatment if you ask me. Which should be something all cyclists strive against when it comes to our rights to the road.
If cyclists are afforded special rights that would lead to animosity from motorists.

Is it not easier and better for motorists to understand that we (cyclists) must obey the same rules while on the road instead of them having to take note of our special rights and laws?

And special rights for a bicycle tend to lead to the belief that a bicycle is an inferior vehicle.
You're close. It's special treatment, special treatment of MOTOR vehicles.
Before motor vehicles, it was not against the rules to "tailgate" and race on the roads.
The MOTORs made those practices dangerous, and, so, they are rightly prohibited, for drivers of MOTOR vehicles.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 10:54 AM   #37
rando
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by noisebeam
My understanding is that Rando is truely non vehicluar in style. He chooses sidewalk even when the road is pleasant (except for lack of shade), such as this example of a lightly traveled low speed limit road with very wide lanes.
Google Map Link to 14th Street between 52nd and Priest
Sidewalk bicycling

This is not at all meant as a negative comment about him. I very much appreciate the honesty and the reasoning.

The only thing I am curious about is if he uses the sidewalk on same road on colder days or when the sun is down.

Al
Yes, I do!
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 11:00 AM   #38
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,970
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 890 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
In the context of California and considering a bicycle a vehicle, how do you think black folks, for example, would have tolerated laws that gave them the same rights and responsibilities as others, but refused stipulate that they were equal human beings?

Special privileges do not mean equality. You wanna have equal footing with other vehicles, you need to first be considered a vehicle. Anything less is lip service to shut you up and get you out of the way of the 'real' vehicles...which is what HH & JF allegedly oppose in principle but not in deed.

Once you are a vehicle, laws and regs concerning different classes of vehicles will give you the special treatment you seek.
I don't want to go down the black and white debate... frankly because bicycles are not equal to MOTORvehicles... the weight is different, the speed is different, the load carrying is different, and we are talking human powered verses motor powered... the differences far outweigh the need to be equal. Therefore we should be beyond equality... and in fact should be treated differently.

I really don't want equality, I want to be special. I don't use 4 wheels or gasoline, I AM different and want to be treated differently. If I want equality, I could just jump in a MOTOR vehicle and be equal.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 11:11 AM   #39
LCI_Brian
Senior Member
 
LCI_Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the hills of Orange, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA
John Forester, that great champion of "cyclists fare best..." opposed attempting to change California law to define a bicycle as a vehicle. "Why?" you ask. Well, if a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey (oh, the horror of it!). That's right. Despite the fact that Foresterites have "Same Roads, Same Rules" as a slogan, the great Forester himself opposes actually requiring bicyclists to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey. Go figure. So much for the internal consistancy of VC-ism.
In California, the traffic laws make a distinction between vehicles (meaning motor vehicles according to the legal definition) and drivers. The movement laws usually start off with "the driver of a vehicle must....", while the laws dealing with physical characteristics of the vehicle (turn signals, lighting, seat belts, etc.) leave out the reference to "driver" and refer only to the vehicle itself. A bicycle is not a vehicle in California, which is a good thing because that means we're exempt from having things like seatbelts and big headlights permanently attached to our bikes. (There are separate laws dealing with bicycle lighting requirements when riding at night.) But "bicyclists have the same rights and duties as the driver of a vehicle", so they are subject to the same movement laws as other drivers - which is the essence of the "same roads, same rules, same rights" saying.
LCI_Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 11:12 AM   #40
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
I really don't want equality, I want to be special. I don't use 4 wheels or gasoline, I AM different and want to be treated differently. If I want equality, I could just jump in a MOTOR vehicle and be equal.
Well if all you want is to be special, come my friend, join me on the short bus!
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 11:19 AM   #41
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Personally, I think we are talking about a difference without a distinction. It is not about how the vehicle is defined. It is about how the law is applied. No more, no less.
__________________
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
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 11:26 AM   #42
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
since vehicular cyclists like mossy john and helmet head have clarifed that vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes, on bike paths, on shoulders of high speed roads, ETC,

then YES, of course I ride vehicularily. all the semantics surrounding this 'vehicular' debate is largely internet posturing about minuatae.


I've been taking the lane since 1976. I ride vehicularily, and I also support bike infrastructure. Even mossy john has admitted vehicular bicyclists CAN RIDE VEHICULARILY IN A BIKE LANE.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 11:43 AM   #43
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
Hear that sucking sound of your credibility going down the toilet?
Careful, this is almost exactly what I got reported for saying...





randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 11:44 AM   #44
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Personally, I think we are talking about a difference without a distinction. It is not about how the vehicle is defined. It is about how the law is applied. No more, no less.
Agreed. The law applies to operators, not to vehicles anyway.

And if cyclists have the same general rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers (but not necessarily all the specific extra responsibilities that apply only to drivers of certain types vehicles), what's the problem?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 11:45 AM   #45
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
Why not special rights for cyclists? We are a non polluting, low impact, highly efficient form of personal transport that is in reality somewhat fragile when compared to the other vehicles on the road. Motorcycles and hybrid cars get certain "special treatment" when it comes to car pool lanes. Pedestrians get preferential treatment when it comes to ROW, why shouldn't cyclists get special treatment?
Motorists also get to use all those special limited access 'non-motorized vehicles prohibited' roads.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 12:05 PM   #46
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,970
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 890 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randya
Motorists also get to use all those special limited access 'non-motorized vehicles prohibited' roads.
Exactly... We have no access to limited access freeways... therefore we should get preferential treatment on regular surface streets.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 04:07 PM   #47
wheel
Senior Member
 
wheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Crystal MN
Bikes:
Posts: 2,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I voted no, I am not much of a label person, nor as I satated really get VC....
wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 04:20 PM   #48
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
You're close. It's special treatment, special treatment of MOTOR vehicles.
Before motor vehicles, it was not against the rules to "tailgate" and race on the roads.
The MOTORs made those practices dangerous, and, so, they are rightly prohibited, for drivers of MOTOR vehicles.
Dude, you seriously can't compare 100 years ago to today, that is totally asenine. Before motor vehicles there was no such thing as a tailgate and racing took place on tracks, not the roads... for the most part. But then again, 80 years ago I was allowed to beat my wife with a stick if I felt I had good reason.
The roads today are designed with motor traffic in mind first, that makes them the main user of the roads.

I find it humerous that you have posted several times, "same roads, same rules" yet are all happy and giddy that you don't have to abide by that statement.
There is a word for people like that
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 05:12 PM   #49
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA
John Forester, that great champion of "cyclists fare best..." opposed attempting to change California law to define a bicycle as a vehicle. "Why?" you ask. Well, if a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey (oh, the horror of it!). That's right. Despite the fact that Foresterites have "Same Roads, Same Rules" as a slogan, the great Forester himself opposes actually requiring bicyclists to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey. Go figure. So much for the internal consistancy of VC-ism.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson

We sure don't need any more hobgoblins than we already have.
JRA, your statement demonstrates that you are either completely ignorant of what went on, or are a compulsive liar. I don't know which, but they are both ugly. For example, had that change been made, cyclists would be limited to knobby mountain-bike tires because normal road tires would be prohibited. That has nothing whatever to do with the rules of the road concerning traffic operations, but it was just one of the many things that would have occurred. Since the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles covers all the rules of the road for traffic operations is entirely sufficient, we saw no reason to change, and many troubles if we did change.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-07, 05:22 PM   #50
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
Dude, you seriously can't compare 100 years ago to today, that is totally asenine. Before motor vehicles there was no such thing as a tailgate and racing took place on tracks, not the roads... for the most part. But then again, 80 years ago I was allowed to beat my wife with a stick if I felt I had good reason.
The roads today are designed with motor traffic in mind first, that makes them the main user of the roads.

I find it humerous that you have posted several times, "same roads, same rules" yet are all happy and giddy that you don't have to abide by that statement.
There is a word for people like that
Same rules means same rules that apply to drivers of all types of vehicles.
it does not mean same rules that apply to drivers of particular types of vehicles with radically different physical and operational characteristics of bicycles

There are rules that apply only to commercial trucks, only to motorcycles, and only to motor vehicles. Those are special rules, not general rules that apply to all drivers of all vehicles.

It's not that hard. You can get it.


And I'm not the only one who says "same rules same rights same roads".


Results 1 - 20 of about 4,880,000 English pages for same rules same roads same rights.

http://www.google.com/search?q=same+...utf-8&oe=utf-8
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

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



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:19 AM.