Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 89
  1. #26
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,534
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    My apologies Steve, I thought i saw your moniker at this google group already. its many from the cadre from the chainguard list, mostly. some of them post here. i don't know if i can name them, maybe i can quote them? I don't know.
    Bek, your name is on that list, as is mine. Is association with that list automatically a "stain?"

    Consider that the bike driving list is just another group of people trying to hash out different ideas about cycling on the road. Admittedly several of them have some pretty uh, "strange" notions...

    I "love" for instance their adherence to all things Forester, and to "data" while disregarding the realities that Hurst has mentioned.

  2. #27
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    it's a chainguard circlejerk at 'bicycle driving' gene.

    Helemet Head quickly began to block 75 percent of my posts, complaining I wasn't 'explaining' my points of view, despite the group, on the surface, being open to all opinions.

    Being affilitated with a group of anti-bicyclists like ones willing to marginalize bicyclists road rights wound rightfully be considered a smear if you were lockstepping with the cadre, gene.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  3. #28
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    [The participants in the Google group] all seem to think requiring bicyclists to be bound by laws broadly defined as "SMV-impeding-pull off roadway" laws is a fair and reasonable approach to addressing bicyclists rights to the roads in california and other state's statutes.

    I find it a reprehensible marginalization to suggest, that laws should be writting obligating bicyclists to pull off two lane roads as soon as they can in the face of five vehicles backed up behind. Broad applicability of this type of law would be very detrimental to bicyclists. It appears this is a current concern in CA, CABO is asking for this law to apply to bikes for some godforsaken and corrupt reasoning. they've asked for a ruling on this from some judiciary referee or whatnot.

    it's quite onerous and pernicious and potentially very damaging to bicyclists rights if these laws are made to more stringently apply to bicyclists. the applicability of SMV-impeding-pull off roadway laws to bicyclists need to be fought on principle and to ensure fundamental bicyclists road rights.
    In the past, you've argued that a vague law like FRAP is not an unfair restriction on cyclists as long as society interprets it fairly and that cyclist advocates promote a fair interpretation. I argued that real-world examples of inappropriate enforcement against cyclists, where cyclists were expected to operate in a matter we agree is impractical or unsafe, are evidence that the wording of the law should be changed to eliminate the ambiguity.

    In this case, you argue that the possibly ambiguous SMV pull-off-roadway law is a terrible restriction on cyclists if we accept that the SMV status can apply to cyclists depending on context. I argue that a fair and reasonable interpretation of the law need not be onerous for cyclists, and that cyclists should promote a fair interpretation. However, if you can show me a real-world example of inappropriate enforcement that indicates that unfair interpretation is a credible problem, then you can convince me that the law is a problem as written.

    However, if the law is a problem as written, I suggest that it is a greater social good to change the language of the law to ensure that it is enforced fairly and equitably for all slow drivers in a manner that protects their efficient and practical travel, rather than to tray to spin an excuse for why cyclists should be exempt, especially when such special status may create public backlash for cyclists.

  4. #29
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    there are ample cases of bicyclists being pulled over and ticketed for 'impeding traffic' despite there being no applicability in some states.

    there's a little discussion of one such case that recently occured in Ohio. a state that explicitly and recently has clarified that bicyclists moving reasonably cannot impede traffic Selz v Trotwood.

    Onerous "impeding traffic" enforcement traffic issues are a very commonplace occurance as far as the letters of record indicate. there's a lot of 'bicyclist pulled over for impeding traffic' stories out there dontchyaknow.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  5. #30
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    there are ample cases of bicyclists being pulled over and ticketed for 'impeding traffic' despite there being no applicability in some states.

    there's a little discussion of one such case that recently occured in Ohio. a state that explicitly and recently has clarified that bicyclists moving reasonably cannot impede traffic Selz v Trotwood.

    Onerous "impeding traffic" enforcement traffic issues are a very commonplace occurance as far as the letters of record indicate. there's a lot of 'bicyclist pulled over for impeding traffic' stories out there dontchyaknow.
    Ah, but those bogus tickets were for traveling too slowly, or for not riding FRAP in a single marked lane, not for failing to pull over for five or more vehicles on a two lane road.

    At issue in this thread is the requirement to pull off the road for five or more vehicles following on a two lane. Who has been ticketed for failure to do that?

  6. #31
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    um, i suggest it is all over the web at different bike advocacy websites, etc describing court cases where bicyclists were pulled over 'observing a line of traffic behind the cyclist, pulled over for obstructing traffic, and subsequently charged with .....'

    notions of bicyclists 'impeding traffic' appears a widespread issue. a cultural 'meme' about bicycling, as good old HH would describe.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 12-08-09 at 09:07 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  7. #32
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    um, i suggest it is all over the web at different bike advocacy websites, etc describing court cases where bicyclists were pulled over 'observing a line of traffic behind the cyclist, pulled over for obstructing traffic, and subsequently charged with .....'

    notions of bicyclists 'impeding traffic' appears a widespread issue. a cultural 'meme' about bicycling, as good old HH would describe.
    In all of the cases I am aware of, the police did not care about the count of the number of drivers, or the fact that some drivers were able to pass. In many cases they did not care about the number of lanes. In all the cases I am aware of, the citation was for traveling too slowly or not FRAP. The police in these cases were prejudiced against cyclists, and not attempting to enforce the SMV law for pulling over for five or more following on a two-lane.

    Vehicular cyclists are rabid opponents of police who ticket cyclists for traveling too slowly or for not riding FRAP. I suspect that the subject of the turnout/5-vehicle/2-lane law came up as an attempt to re-frame the legal discussion away from anti-cycling prejudice toward a fairer, more uniform treatment of slow traffic.

  8. #33
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    a 'more fair' treatment of bicycles as slow moving traffic would lead to more UNFAIR treatment, greater misunderstanding and prejudice against bicyclists from a broad applicability of 'pull off the road, buddy!' laws.

    SMV-I-POR laws should not apply to bicyclists as a broad applicability of these statutes would de facto prohibit bicyclists from many busy two lane roadways. Bicyclists not being considered of being required to pull off the highway in the face of traffic conditions has broad support in any reasonable legal analysis of the issue.

    anyone who thinks bicyclists being subject to pulling off two lane roads when traffic backs up behind and passing is 'unsafe' is selling out bicyclists rights, efforts towards throwing us off the road.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  9. #34
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The most frequent legal problem confronting cyclists is the belief held by some in law enforcement that the maximum number of vehicles that may be lawfully delayed by a bicyclist equals zero, and that the duration of that delay must be zero.

    Some cyclists apparently prefer to change that perception to a maximum of four vehicles, with the condition that if the number is five or higher, the maximum duration of that delay shall be long enough to allow the cyclist to find a safe and practical turnout location. Their reasoning appears to be that 4>0, and that the time to find a safe and practical turnout is also > 0. This seems to be a reasonable political gamble. The main pitfall is that they may need to revisit the turnout expectation to ensure that it not enforced to be so early as to become onerous.

    Personally, I prefer having no turn-out law, and instead turn out voluntarily in the rare occasion that more than 4 vehicles back up for more than a minute, if cycling alone, or ignore the backup if the number of cyclists exceeds the volume of other traffic.

  10. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,401
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    the vehicular cycling group has sunk to new lows.
    ...
    the bankruptcy of the 'vehicular cycling', ne 'bicycle driving' movement is explicit, attributable, and disgusting.
    ...
    ????? You need to smoke less weed.

    Please explain how this particular google group is representative of anything like a "movement" let alone the "vehicula cycliing" "movement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    Any interpretation of any states' SMV-impeding-pull off roadway law that requires a bicyclist 'leave the highway' when 5 cars back up behind is a very onerous development in the bicycling avocacy message.
    I think the "pull off roadway" laws require people to pull off into an available turn off. They don't require people to turn down streets, etc. It looks like the intent of these laws is to make sure very-slow traffic on upgrades doesn't hold things up. Maybe, you should link to the text the turn-out law that is getting you so hot and bothered.

    =============

    The following appears to be one dude's website.

    http://bicycledriving.org/
    Last edited by njkayaker; 12-09-09 at 03:27 PM.

  11. #36
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    google LAB reform, and you will likely see some of the same names and particulars.

    there is assuredly a core active group of people behind this drive to characterize bicyclists as being subject to CVC 21656, california's version of the SMV-I-POR law. Even if clarification of the law is in order, it is clear, from a bicycling advocacy standpoint, that the clarification should be bicyclists NOT be subject to SMV-I-POR laws.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  12. #37
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
    The most frequent legal problem confronting cyclists is the belief held by some in law enforcement that the maximum number of vehicles that may be lawfully delayed by a bicyclist equals zero, and that the duration of that delay must be zero.

    Some cyclists apparently prefer to change that perception to a maximum of four vehicles, with the condition that if the number is five or higher, the maximum duration of that delay shall be long enough to allow the cyclist to find a safe and practical turnout location. Their reasoning appears to be that 4>0, and that the time to find a safe and practical turnout is also > 0. This seems to be a reasonable political gamble. The main pitfall is that they may need to revisit the turnout expectation to ensure that it not enforced to be so early as to become onerous.

    Personally, I prefer having no turn-out law, and instead turn out voluntarily in the rare occasion that more than 4 vehicles back up for more than a minute, if cycling alone, or ignore the backup if the number of cyclists exceeds the volume of other traffic.
    and better still, would be if most cyclists recognized the onerous nature of these types of laws as applied to bicyclists would be, and would stand opposed to these laws.

    The main pitfall in lobbying to recognize that bicyclists are subject to any laws requiring we BE subject to SMV-I-POR laws would be a significant erosion of bicyclists existing rights.

    No such concession in a nonexistent compromise is worth placating any mistaken views of bicyclists road rights by the public or law enforcement.

    Asking for bicyclists to be subject to SMV-I -POR laws is NOT a reasonable gamble. it is giving away the farm for no reason, and a significant diminishment of bicyclists widely recognized American rights to free travel.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  13. #38
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bek appears to be worried that police might expect bicyclists to pull over into any driveway (or maybe even unpaved shoulders) any time five cars arrive behind them, as a consequence of applicability of the turn-out law to bicyclists.

    Those CA cyclists who are raising the SMV laws appear to be responding to bicycle-specific FRAP laws under which cyclists are sometimes cited when even a single vehicle - typically the police officer's - arrives behind them. The CA cyclists are attempting to assert their right to occupy the travel lane and impede a modest amount of traffic like other SMV operators do, against the wishes of some police, who expect cyclists to allow all traffic to pass with zero delay by staying at the extreme edge of the pavement.

    All I can say is, having no bicycle-specific FRAP law and no 5-vehicles 2-lane turn out law here in NC is highly preferable to the mess in CA.

  14. #39
    I STILL miss East Hill :) Rollfast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Where my bike's at
    My Bikes
    a lot
    Posts
    2,583
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    the vehicular cycling group has sunk to new lows.

    there's a new google group called 'bicycle driving'

    It was formed, explicitly, in an attempt to distance the current 'vehicular' bicycling advocacy platform from the admittedly toxic 'vehicular cycling' adherents.

    There's talk at one of the discussion groups, by several of the 'bicycle drivers', that bicyclists should be subject to SMV-pull off roadway to allow faster traffic to pass laws.

    One of them is describing his candyland vision of bicyclists rights.

    a position being bandied about there is that bicyclists are under no obligation to operate any further to the right than the dividing line on a rural highway, but also that bicyclists need to pull off the road entirely to allow faster traffic to pass when there's a backup of traffic.

    what a box of crackerjacks.

    the bankruptcy of the 'vehicular cycling', ne 'bicycle driving' movement is explicit, attributable, and disgusting.


    google groups, bicycle driving. a bunch of crackerjacks.

    .
    Google Groups is more decrepit(sic) than VC rants. Stay at 'home' and be happier.

  15. #40
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    good point, but the pernicious nature of their influence makes illustrating their decrepitude something I will do to keep it in the public eye. Bike Forums is a big google hit on most topics bicycling dontchyaknow?
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  16. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,401
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    google LAB reform, and you will likely see some of the same names and particulars.

    there is assuredly a core active group of people behind this drive to characterize bicyclists as being subject to CVC 21656, california's version of the SMV-I-POR law. Even if clarification of the law is in order.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law_in_California

    http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21656.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    it is clear, from a bicycling advocacy standpoint, that the clarification should be bicyclists NOT be subject to SMV-I-POR laws.
    It's so clear, it isn't. Why is this requirement a special burden for cyclists and not other vehicles?

    21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.
    It's the APOCALYPSE!

    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    good point, but the pernicious nature of their influence makes illustrating their decrepitude something I will do to keep it in the public eye. Bike Forums is a big google hit on most topics bicycling dontchyaknow?
    What evidence exists that they have any "influence" (beyond any other person on the internet with an opinion)?

    ==================

    Quote Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
    Bek appears to be worried that police might expect bicyclists to pull over into any driveway (or maybe even unpaved shoulders) any time five cars arrive behind them, as a consequence of applicability of the turn-out law to bicyclists.
    I kind of doubt that a "driveway" (or a street) would constitute a "sufficient area". A wide shoulder might.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 12-10-09 at 03:50 PM.

  17. #42
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why would a requirement to leave the highway for bicyclist be an onerous burden?

    I've been explaining that, repeatedly, the authors of bicycledriving.org also reiterate, the legal scholars and judges that have issued rulings on this type of 'off the highway' statutes have soundly interpreted these laws.

    AT THAT WIKI SITE, wiki has nothing about SMV-I-POR laws in CA, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT APPLY.

    it would de facto prohibit bicycling on busy two lane highways.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  18. #43
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    I kind of doubt that a "driveway" (or a street) would constitute a "sufficient area". A wide shoulder might.
    Hopefully it would not be considered such under the law, although a prejudiced police officer might think it sufficient. I doubt the law could require use of a private driveway as a turn out, simply because it is private property.

    Most of the driveways I encounter on narrow rural two-lanes are unpaved. Pulling into them would require slowing down to a walking speed in the roadway before turning off. I would then have to dismount at least partly to turn the bike around and prepare to return to the roadway. It's possible, and I've done it voluntarily in the past, but it requires more work than I would want the law to require, and I certainly wouldn't want to be expected to do it frequently.

    When pulling my son on a trailer, I need even more room. I would pull into a paved commercial or institutional driveway with plenty of room if I had to, not a residential one.

    Normally, I look for a short section of wide paved shoulder. There are very few continuous wide paved shoulders where I live, but the suburban development ordinances often require developers to widen the right of way and pave the added space when redeveloping property on a substandard road, and so when these roads pass through suburbs there are occasional 50' long sections of 12' or wider paved shoulder to be found here and there. Not good for riding upon, but okay for a planned turnout.

    Note that I really dislike the idea of pulling over onto an unpaved or narrow paved shoulder when drivers have been waiting behind me, because they will likely attempt to squeeze by (all in a huff, engine racing) when I am about to dismount while still in the roadway (I don't ride onto the unpaved shoulder or narrow sliver of paved shoulder). Whenever I do stop in the roadway, I do so when there isn't traffic behind me.
    Last edited by sggoodri; 12-11-09 at 09:44 AM.

  19. #44
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    if you dont want to expect to pull off the highway to favor following traffic frequently, that's a clear cut indication you are opposed to the incorrect notions a bicycle is subject to SMV-I-POR laws.

    its funny, steve, how in discussions of how best not require bicyclists be subject to impeding traffic notions, you readily suggest widening of roadways and rights of way, but in discussions of how best to increase numbers of bicyclists, you suggest this widening is politically impossible.

    funny how your impression of the same roadway modification is flippantly easy to achieve for one roadway scenario and politically impossible for the other.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  20. #45
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    its funny, steve, how in discussions of how best not require bicyclists be subject to impeding traffic notions, you readily suggest widening of roadways and rights of way, but in discussions of how best to increase numbers of bicyclists, you suggest this widening is politically impossible.

    funny how your impression of the same roadway modification is flippantly easy to achieve for one roadway scenario and politically impossible for the other.
    Roadways are unlikely to be widened for the purpose of improving comfort for bicyclists. It can happen, but it's rare.

    Roadways are more likely to be widened for the purpose of improving convenience for motorists.

    If the government is planning to move the curbs of an important roadway already, then I advocate in favor of providing enough pavement width that drivers can pass cyclists safely at comfortable distance mid-block without changing lanes.

    If motorists are clamoring for improved convenience in the presence of bicycle traffic, then I point out that the preferred solution is to provide wider pavement on the roadway, as described above. If enough motorists support this, the improvements are more likely to happen.

  21. #46
    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
    8,802
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    it would de facto prohibit bicycling on busy two lane highways.
    I've tried to stay out of this thread but your repeated stating of the above has finally drawn me in.

    Put some logic into your ranting and maybe people will take you more seriously. In the situation you describe, a busy two lane highway, either there are places to turnout available or there are not. When there are not places available to turnout, the cyclist has ZERO obligation to traffic backing up behind them. The law makes that clear. When there are places available for turnout, a cyclist should use them, allow traffic to clear, and then proceed on his way. If traffic backs up again before the next turnout location, he should use that turnout location as well. I fail to see how the SMV turn-off-roadway law even comes close to prohibiting a cyclist from using any roadway. I have never come across a roadway so busy that there are never gaps in traffic large enough for a cyclist to pull out and achieve normal cycling speed safely before traffic catches up to them. If the cyclist has to wait a minute or two for traffic to clear, that's the breaks. Driving isn't always convenient, sometimes even for cyclists.

  22. #47
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    that's not 'the breaks' my friend.

    thats an affront to bicyclists' rights to travel public rights of way in this country. you expect bicyclists to get off the road? pshaw.

    joejack, a guy ticketed for riding a bike, feels bicyclists should get out of the way, and off of busy two lane roads, repeatedly, even for a minute or two at a time, to favor following traffic.

    The koolaid must be good at the county lockup.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  23. #48
    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
    8,802
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    that's not 'the breaks' my friend.

    thats an affront to bicyclists' rights to travel public rights of way in this country. you expect bicyclists to get off the road? pshaw.

    joejack, a guy ticketed for riding a bike, feels bicyclists should get out of the way, and off of busy two lane roads, repeatedly, even for a minute or two at a time, to favor following traffic.

    The koolaid must be good at the county lockup.
    I expect slow moving vehicle drivers to turnout when a safe turnout is available and they are slowing a significant amount of traffic. I'll do it in a traffic situation, at the grocery store, at work, or in any public place (referring to slightly delaying myself so that I'm not excessively delaying others who will complete their task quickly and leave me to continue at my own pace). Do you want to wait behind a cyclist climbing a mountain road at 5mph? 1 minute of the cyclist's time could save you an hour on your trip. When you have one item at the grocery store and someone in front has two shopping carts full, do you appreciate when they let you jump in front? It's not an affront to anyone's rights. It's something any decent individual would have no problem with. You seem to be in the minority crying about this issue if you haven't noticed.

  24. #49
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    a little skit I'm working on:

    SET: Busy, two lane road at rush hour. nondescript, strip mall type roadway. Bicyclist amid 100s of vehicles.

    Angry motorist: "Get off the road, buddy! Slow moving vehicle, impeding, GET OFF THE ROAD!"

    Decrepit vehicular cyclist: "absolutely ,sir! Happy to oblige. let me stand here for two hours while traffic lightens up. Thank you sir, may i have another!"
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  25. #50
    I STILL miss East Hill :) Rollfast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Where my bike's at
    My Bikes
    a lot
    Posts
    2,583
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It SNOWED here Saturday morning. It will be another 2-3 days before I even gauge winter cycling conditions. Is THAT why you're cranky, cabin fever?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •