Bekologist

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.

danarnold

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.

danarnold

'law' not 'lad' Freudian typo?

Square & Compas

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.

John Forester

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.

Bekologist

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?

danarnold

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.

Bekologist

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?

dwilbur3

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.

Bekologist

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.

njkayaker

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.

tallard

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.

Bekologist

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.

tallard

It should not but you know in the end it will