Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 89 of 89
  1. #76
    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)
    my logic is much more substantive than the 'connect a statute' legal opinions of a bunch of cyclists suffering from a debilitating case of cyclist inferiority syndrome.

    I mean really! theres' no support for the argument that "bikes must pull off road, we are VEHICLES!" but there is plenty of support for my position - WADOT, CADOT, Bob Mionskes' book-

    NONE of these credible sources have any explicit endorsement of the argument that bicyclists must leave the roadway under SMV-I-POR laws.

    again -surely, ONE of these characters and organizations mentions this as a duty of bicyclists. bicyclists shall be riding FRAP, perhaps, but no mention of bicyclists leaving the roadway for faster traffic.

    so:

    important legal cases surrounding issues of bicyclists impeding traffic support my contentions;

    the UVC contains no provisions that would require vehicles to required to pull off the roadway for faster traffic, much less bicyclists.

    bicyclist have a fundamental right to the road.

    no state or scholar has made the wild proclamations about bicyclists rights as have been so flippantly been bandied about by the 'new vehicularist order'.

    this "pull off the road is a statutory duty of bicyclists to faster traffic" nonsense, and john forester's recent doozy "bicyclists are required to ride at the edge of the roadway in all 50 states" , sheesh.

    the decrepitude of the 'vehicular cycling' platform is apalling, these inferiority laden ideas about bicyclists rights. How they are framing their arguments these days makes me wonder about the integrity of their agenda.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 12-30-09 at 07:55 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  2. #77
    Kaffee Nazi danarnold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Richland, WA
    My Bikes
    2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
    Posts
    1,374
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bek, even assuming anything you've said on this topic is remotely accurate, you must acknowledge no one here agrees with you. This is their chance to say I'm wrong. You can claim some one agrees, but unless they say so in their own words, your proclamations are of no import other than to discredit you.

    You must distinguish between what the current law actually says and what you want it to say. A third position is what the law should be. I have pointed out to you several times, and you have failed to respond to it, that in WA the law under my interpretation does NOT require the cyclist to pull completely off the road pavement and come to a full stop. In fact, I agree with you, that if the lad DID require a cyclist to stop and pull his bike into the dirt, the law should be changed.
    DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as legal advice, even if it seems silly enough to have been written by a legislator, and especially not if it appears (by remote chance) to display any evidence of erudition.

  3. #78
    Kaffee Nazi danarnold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Richland, WA
    My Bikes
    2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
    Posts
    1,374
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    'law' not 'lad' Freudian typo?
    DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as legal advice, even if it seems silly enough to have been written by a legislator, and especially not if it appears (by remote chance) to display any evidence of erudition.

  4. #79
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sioux City, Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vision R40 Recumbent
    Posts
    825
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doohickie View Post
    I have real mixed feelings about this whole subject. I use a lot of VC techniques while riding, especially while commuting, but I also use some less-than-standard maneuvers. While I don't think bicycle riders should be legally required to pull over to the right to let faster traffic pass while the cyclist is taking the lane, I do think cyclists should pull over as a matter of courtesy when it is safe can convenient to do so to let motorists through. I've had this argument several times with another rider I know well, and he views any pulling over, even if done voluntarily, as a surrender of his right to the road. The whole discussion just saps me. I try not to take strong positions either way, and to just ride the way that seems best for the conditions. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea if everyone just rode the best they can and tried not to pass judgment on others' riding styles.
    What you've just described is Adaptive Cycling. Meaning you use vc when and where you need to and constantly adapt to the environment, up to and including pulling over/off to allw backed-up faster moving traffic to pass.

  5. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    What you've just described is Adaptive Cycling. Meaning you use vc when and where you need to and constantly adapt to the environment, up to and including pulling over/off to allw backed-up faster moving traffic to pass.
    It is silly to consider that vehicular cycling does not allow the cyclist to be considerate of faster traffic. That is one part of vehicular cycling.

  6. #81
    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 silly to consider bicyclists in all 50 states as being prohibited from leaving the edge of the roadway unless a legal excuse is (somehow) demonstrated, but it doesn't stop people from uttering such foolishness.

    Should bicyclists be required to leave the roadway to benefit faster traffic, john? what do you think?

    should bicyclists ever be required to leave the travelled way to benefit other traffic, john? or do bicyclists widely affirmed rights to the travelled way supercede any purported requirement to pull off the road, to pull into a driveway, shoulder, etc, to benefit faster traffic behind the bicyclist?
    Last edited by Bekologist; 12-28-09 at 10:35 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  7. #82
    Kaffee Nazi danarnold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Richland, WA
    My Bikes
    2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
    Posts
    1,374
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bek, have you considered that words have meaning, and that different words have different meanings?

    John says it's quite reasonable for cyclists to make a free choice to be considerate to others and you go into your usual dither continuing to argue about some legal requirement only you insist on so you can rail against it.
    DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as legal advice, even if it seems silly enough to have been written by a legislator, and especially not if it appears (by remote chance) to display any evidence of erudition.

  8. #83
    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)
    eh? petty semantics? you know the difference between free choice and circumscription, dontchya, councillor? why conflate the two in trying to explain john foresters point of view?

    jon sez wot?
    Last edited by Bekologist; 12-29-09 at 07:49 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  9. #84
    Fred J.G. dwilbur3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sacramento
    My Bikes
    2004 Giant OCR Touring / 2001 Specialized Sirrus Comp (for sale) / 14-year-old Target Special
    Posts
    729
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    eh? petty semantics? you know the difference between free choice and circumscription, dontchya, councillor? why conflate the two in trying to explain john foresters point of view?

    jon sez wot?
    You continually argue a straw man. Poster says x, you say "I can't believe why so many people insist on y!" Then you act as if you've refuted their argument.

  10. #85
    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)
    actually, not. the vehicular cyclists' platform is bankrupt in my opinion.

    to further their illusory desires of statutory equality a well known spokesperson of the 'vehicular cycling' movement blatantly misinforms and marginalizes bicyclists legally afforded rights, with statements like 'in all 50 states, bicyclists are prohibited from operating away from the edge of the roadway unless a legal excuse is (somehow) demonstrated.

    this is a blatant marginalization of bicyclists operating rights. it illustrates the decrepitude of their agenda.

    Regarding bicyclists being required to leave the road for the benefit of faster traffic, this is an affront to my sense of bicyclists long held rights to the travelled way in this country.

    there is no straw man here. the UVC does not mention bicyclists leaving the roadway. Most states exempt bicyclists from SMV-POR statutes. Finding a core group of cycling 'advocates' somehow willing to emphasize these minor and infrequently applicable statutes, to rubber stamp dubious statutes bicyclists ever need to leave the roadway for faster traffic behind is a affront to american bicyclist road rights.

    I'll claim a defense of necessity if nothing else.

    I am not going to accept some self appointed proxy to tell me john forester thinks its' polite to share the road, i asked john what he thought of laws purportedly requiring bicyclists ever leave the travelled way to benefit overtaking traffic.

    i suspect john forester has the same opinion of bicyclists rights to the travelled way as i do, or similar, that bicyclists rights to the roadway supercede any broadly definable statutory requirement to leave the roadway for the benefit of convenient passing by faster traffic.

    pulling onto an improved roadway turnout to allow traffic backed up to pass on a mountain road is no circumscription of bicyclists rights; a broadly applicable statute to 'pull off the road' at earliest safe place on any two lane road when passing is unsafe and five cars back up behind is too onerous of a restriction on bicyclists widely affirmed rights to the travelled way -

    the vehicularists illusory dreams of statutory equality be damned.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 12-30-09 at 12:11 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  11. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,401
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    actually, not. the vehicular cyclists' platform is bankrupt in my opinion.
    You are a nut in my opinion.

    You'd likely serve bicycle advocacy better if you kept away from it.

    Failing that, you would likely be more successful if you didn't rely on overheated language and endless repetition as the basis of your "argument".

    In other words, your tone works against you.

    Considering how easily you have alienated people here (people who are, in some way, bicycle advocates), it would seem you'd have no hope convincing people who are against bicyclists of anything pro-bicycle.



    I'm still waiting for links to the stuff that has pushed you over the edge. Given your apparent refusal to do so, I suspect it doesn't exist.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 12-30-09 at 04:11 PM.

  12. #87
    Your scars reveal you tallard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Citizen of Planet Earth
    My Bikes
    My Brodie's dead, start hunting for a new cycle before March arrives
    Posts
    406
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    There's interest in marginalizing bicyclists rights in California and, presumably, across the country under variations of 'slow moving vehicles impeding shall pull off highway when 5 cars backup behind' laws.

    this erosion of bicyclists rights could lead to a de facto banning of bicyclists on many busy two lane roads in america.

    ""Some states have statutes prohibiting drivers from impeding traffic. These statutes should be written so that they apply only to motor vehicles, not to all vehicles. Otherwise, a broad version of this rule could be wrongly interpreted as prohibiting operation of bicycles or horse-drawn wagons whenever following drivers might be inconvenienced."
    Unfortunately, this type of legislation is a direct consequence of cyclists' actions to increase «voluntary» cycle paths. It was always a slippery slope from the beginning. Once the segregation of cyclists started, it was bound to gain momentum, passing from voluntary segregation to mandatory segregation. Same happened with helmets, first they were voluntary, now they're mandatory. It's the way the world turns.

    Cycling associations around North America should take note, mandatory segregating policies are not only the consequence of voluntary segregation, but the fundamental long term objective.

    Cyclists should be wiser.

  13. #88
    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)
    really?

    since SMV-I-POR laws have absolutely nothing specifically to do with either bicyclists, OR sidepaths,

    that analysis of slow moving vehicle laws as well as that of bike infrastructure is wholly suspect, tallard.


    SMV-I-POR laws are traffic laws, and it is clear in my mind and in that of others, that they should not apply to bicyclists lest them lead to a virtual prohibition of bicycle traffic on busy, narrow roadways.

    but they have NOTHING to do specfically with either bicyclists or sidepaths, tallard.

    maybe you agree with me, that 'impeding traffic shall pull off roadway' laws should not apply to human powered vehicles.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 02-01-10 at 04:25 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  14. #89
    Your scars reveal you tallard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Citizen of Planet Earth
    My Bikes
    My Brodie's dead, start hunting for a new cycle before March arrives
    Posts
    406
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    maybe you agree with me, that 'impeding traffic shall pull off roadway' laws should not apply to human powered vehicles.
    It should not but you know in the end it will

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

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