Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 110
  1. #1
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sioux City, Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vision R40 Recumbent
    Posts
    825
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Some questions and requests for the self titled vc leader and his acolytes.

    I have some questions for forester and his acolytes. What do you think of the 3' passing laws that motorists have to obey when passing a cyclist? There are currently 15 states that have such laws. Iowa is going to be number 16 with a law requiring drivers to pass no closer then 5'.

    Last year the proposed laws were brought before the Hosue and Senate through the efforts of the state bicycle advocacy group, the Iowa Bicycle Coalition, or IBC. The new laws passed the Senate but stalled out in the House due to missing a deadline. At this Legislative Session it will be reintroduced in the House and should pass this time and then hopefully be signed by Gov. Culver.

    Among this there are also other laws in what has come to be called the "Bicycle Bill of Rights". Of course that is not the official title of the proposed law. One interesting item is the anti-dooring law. It seems there is already a state law that covers this if a parked motorist doors a cyclist. Removing this from the new proposed law should move things along a little faster, thus helping to get this passed sooner.

    Do the vc advocates view this as something that is against vc? What is your position on something like this? Do you have the belief if cyclists always ride vc there is no need for a law like this?

    In light of this information and questions I am asking, I am requesting that you stay away from the Iowa Legislative Session. We do not need you screwing things up for cyclists in Iowa. We are taking care of this ourselves and the IBC does a great job at representing cyclists interests in this state.

    Link: http://www.radioiowa.com/2009/12/25/...l-protections/

  2. #2
    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)
    I'm not a koolaid drinking minion myself,

    but I'll explain that

    the 'vehikularist' camp is generally opposed to vulnerable user bills. Too much class specificity treating bicyclists separate from other vehicles.

    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    I have some questions for forester and his acolytes. What do you think of the 3' passing laws that motorists have to obey when passing a cyclist? There are currently 15 states that have such laws. Iowa is going to be number 16 with a law requiring drivers to pass no closer then 5'.

    Last year the proposed laws were brought before the Hosue and Senate through the efforts of the state bicycle advocacy group, the Iowa Bicycle Coalition, or IBC. The new laws passed the Senate but stalled out in the House due to missing a deadline. At this Legislative Session it will be reintroduced in the House and should pass this time and then hopefully be signed by Gov. Culver.

    Among this there are also other laws in what has come to be called the "Bicycle Bill of Rights". Of course that is not the official title of the proposed law. One interesting item is the anti-dooring law. It seems there is already a state law that covers this if a parked motorist doors a cyclist. Removing this from the new proposed law should move things along a little faster, thus helping to get this passed sooner.

    Do the vc advocates view this as something that is against vc? What is your position on something like this? Do you have the belief if cyclists always ride vc there is no need for a law like this?

    In light of this information and questions I am asking, I am requesting that you stay away from the Iowa Legislative Session. We do not need you screwing things up for cyclists in Iowa. We are taking care of this ourselves and the IBC does a great job at representing cyclists interests in this state.

    Link: http://www.radioiowa.com/2009/12/25/...l-protections/
    Many cycling organizations, including the California Association of Bicycling Organizations, oppose specific passing clearance distance laws. For one thing, they cannot be correct, for the safe passing clearance differs from situation to situation. Furthermore, they cannot be enforced; who's going to measure the distance? The issue has nothing to do with the difference between vehicular cycling and incompetent cycling; all cyclists are affected. Furthermore, the precise overtaking clearance has little meaning; what's the difference between 3 feet and 5 feet? Or 2 feet, for that matter? There is an additional problem in traffic management and highway design; presumably the clearance law increases the width to be allowed under all conditions in which a motorist might overtake a cyclist.

    As for the dooring law, nearly all states have for decades had laws saying that it is unlawful to open a door on a side available for traffic when traffic is approaching so close as to constitute a danger, or words to that effect. You indicate that Iowa already has that law. So what more would the new version do?

    You claim that the Iowa Bicycle Coalition "does a great job at representing cyclists (sic) interest in this state." However, the message that you have written indicates otherwise. I suggest that your statement would be more accurate if it stated that IBC does a great job of representing what you happen to feel are your interests.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,570
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    There's some bad reporting in there.

    "Eight bicyclists were killed in collisions with vehicles on Iowa roads last year, while 430 were injured in wrecks."

    How many of these incidents have anything to do with overtaking? "Wrecks?" Is that also "collisions with other vehicles"?

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

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    As for the dooring law, nearly all states have for decades had laws saying that it is unlawful to open a door on a side available for traffic when traffic is approaching so close as to constitute a danger, or words to that effect. You indicate that Iowa already has that law. So what more would the new version do?
    I'd guess the change would do what the anti-cellphone laws do (which is illegal due to other, less specific, laws).

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Furthermore, they cannot be enforced;
    Just like the anti-cellphone laws!
    Last edited by njkayaker; 01-02-10 at 11:16 AM.

  5. #5
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sioux City, Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vision R40 Recumbent
    Posts
    825
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I should have been a little more clear on this, for that I apologize. It is understood that the passing law will be difficult to enforce. Unless an LEO sees it being violated nothing can be done to cite or fine the violators. But the same applies to speed limit laws. The purpose of this law is when a motorist hits a cyclist the punishment/fine is more severe. As it stands right now there is either no citation or punishment or a very small fine when a motorist hits a cyclist while passing too close. This new law is more to hold motorists accountable then anything else. Similar laws have been very successful in other states.

    There would not be a new version of the dooring law, that part has been or will be elimintated because there is an existing law in place already. The new laws for the "Bicycle Bill of Rights" in Iowa covers more then just safe passing distance.

    How does my statement about the IBC indicate otherwise? Or how do you think it does? They do not just represent my interests but the interests of cyclists all over Iowa. Over the last 4 years alone over a dozen cyclists have been killed by motorists passing too close. The attitude of motorists toward cyclists when cyclists speak out agains this is just horrific. The comments have ranged from the cyclist deserved it to the cyclist should not have been on the roadway, some have even blamed the cyclist even though the motorist was held responsible by the LEO. There has been a focus on a "Bicycle Bill of Rights" for a long time. Now it is finally coming to frutition and being enacted through the Legislature. Prior to this the focus was on changing things at the local city/town and county level. That did not work which left the only option of going through the State Legislature.

  6. #6
    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 njkayaker View Post
    There's some bad reporting in there.

    "Eight bicyclists were killed in collisions with vehicles on Iowa roads last year, while 430 were injured in wrecks."

    How many of these incidents have anything to do with overtaking? "Wrecks?" Is that also "collisions with other vehicles"?

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


    I'd guess the change would do what the anti-cellphone laws do (which is illegal due to other, less specific, laws).


    Just like the anti-cellphone laws!
    The reference to wrecks means collisions with motor vechicles. A majority of these all of them were when the motorist was overtaking the cyclist at too close of a distance. This is the most common type of collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist in Iowa. There are stats on this and I can attest this is accurate. Every bad encounter I ahd with a motorist last year was from them passing too close. I never had issues with drivers while crossing at intersections or with oncoming traffic. Always same driection traffic and while overtaking me. This is regardless of where I was positioned on the roadway. Whether 6" off of the curb or 3' and every where in between.

    Iowa does have distracted driver laws. I do not know how much of an affect they have on cell phone usage, if any at all.
    Last edited by Square & Compas; 01-02-10 at 11:51 AM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    I should have been a little more clear on this, for that I apologize. It is understood that the passing law will be difficult to enforce. Unless an LEO sees it being violated nothing can be done to cite or fine the violators. But the same applies to speed limit laws. The purpose of this law is when a motorist hits a cyclist the punishment/fine is more severe. As it stands right now there is either no citation or punishment or a very small fine when a motorist hits a cyclist while passing too close. This new law is more to hold motorists accountable then anything else. Similar laws have been very successful in other states.

    There would not be a new version of the dooring law, that part has been or will be elimintated because there is an existing law in place already. The new laws for the "Bicycle Bill of Rights" in Iowa covers more then just safe passing distance.

    How does my statement about the IBC indicate otherwise? Or how do you think it does? They do not just represent my interests but the interests of cyclists all over Iowa. Over the last 4 years alone over a dozen cyclists have been killed by motorists passing too close. The attitude of motorists toward cyclists when cyclists speak out agains this is just horrific. The comments have ranged from the cyclist deserved it to the cyclist should not have been on the roadway, some have even blamed the cyclist even though the motorist was held responsible by the LEO. There has been a focus on a "Bicycle Bill of Rights" for a long time. Now it is finally coming to frutition and being enacted through the Legislature. Prior to this the focus was on changing things at the local city/town and county level. That did not work which left the only option of going through the State Legislature.
    You claim that "Over the last 4 years alone over a dozen cyclists have been killed by motorists passing too close." Oh, really? Were they frightened into heart attacks? I rather think that proving that crime would be rather difficult. Which motorist was it that frightened the cyclist into his heart attack?

    Wouldn't it be better to deal with what is probably the problem, a motorist hitting a lawful cyclist from behind and killing or injuring him. That is clearly a violation of the standard overtaking law; you don't need any more than that.

    You state the problem as it appears to you: "The attitude of motorists toward cyclists when cyclists speak out agains (sic) this is just horrific. The comments have ranged from the cyclist deserved it to the cyclist should not have been on the roadway, some have even blamed the cyclist even though the motorist was held responsible by the LEO." Clearly, you think that your area has a pretty intense prejudice against cyclists. But I fail to see how this proposed overtaking clearance law will mitigate that prejudice. Indeed, it might well increase it, by making overtaking appear to be more difficult and with greater jeopardy.

    If people thought out their intentions by reason rather than by emotions, they would tend to take better actions.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    The reference to wrecks means collisions with motor vechicles. A majority of these all of them were when the motorist was overtaking the cyclist at too close of a distance. This is the most common type of collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist in Iowa. There are stats on this and I can attest this is accurate. Every bad encounter I ahd with a motorist last year was from them passing too close. I never had issues with drivers while crossing at intersections or with oncoming traffic. Always same driection traffic and while overtaking me. This is regardless of where I was positioned on the roadway. Whether 6" off of the curb or 3' and every where in between.

    Iowa does have distracted driver laws. I do not know how much of an affect they have on cell phone usage, if any at all.
    You claim that: "A majority of these all of them were when the motorist was overtaking the cyclist at too close of a distance. This is the most common type of collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist in Iowa. There are stats on this and I can attest this is accurate."

    I see, being frightened into a heart attack by motorist overtaking at too close a distance? As long as you believe such foolishness your actions will be misdirected. If these were motorist overtaking lawful cyclist collisions, remember that "collisions" is the problem, not being too close.

    I doubt your claim. No study of car-bike collisions in any state has shown anything near this proportion of defective overtaking car-bike collisions. So far as I know, there have been no data indicating that Iowa is so different from the other states in which such studies have been done. Unlikely claims require outstanding evidence; where is your evidence?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    snips
    There has been a focus on a "Bicycle Bill of Rights" for a long time. Now it is finally coming to frutition and being enacted through the Legislature. Prior to this the focus was on changing things at the local city/town and county level. That did not work which left the only option of going through the State Legislature.
    The problem of inconsistent traffic laws in different locations in the state has been evident in many states, many of which appear to be in the Middle West. California has the statute California Vehicle Code 21, Uniformity of Code. "Except otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of this code are applicable and uniform throughout the State and in all counties and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on the matters covered by this code unless expressly authorized herein." That strong requirement for statewide uniformity has been a great benefit to cyclists of this state, for it has prevented local authorities from doing worse for cyclists than the state's provisions. It may be that the problems of Iowa's cyclists would be partially solved if they could get better statewide uniformity that now exists.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,570
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    But the same applies to speed limit laws.
    While both events would need to be witnessed, the speed speed is much, much easier to detect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    The reference to wrecks means collisions with motor vechicles.
    Then, this would have been a better way to say it:

    "Eight bicyclists were killed [and 430 were injured] in collisions with vehicles on Iowa roads last year."

    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    Iowa does have distracted driver laws. I do not know how much of an affect they have on cell phone usage, if any at all.
    Given how well the anti-cellphone laws appear to work (ie, not at all), I'd say the distracted driver laws have the same effect (ie, none)!

    If there is any real value to a specific law like the anti-cellphone law, I think it would be to avoid arguing about what "distracted driving" is or means. That is, it makes compliance, or the lack of compliance, less ambiguous.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    But I fail to see how this proposed overtaking clearance law will mitigate that prejudice. Indeed, it might well increase it, by making overtaking appear to be more difficult and with greater jeopardy.
    The same could be said for doing away with the FRAP laws. Or, having all cyclists ride in a VC manner.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 01-02-10 at 12:42 PM.

  11. #11
    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 John Forester View Post
    You claim that "Over the last 4 years alone over a dozen cyclists have been killed by motorists passing too close." Oh, really? Were they frightened into heart attacks? I rather think that proving that crime would be rather difficult. Which motorist was it that frightened the cyclist into his heart attack?

    Wouldn't it be better to deal with what is probably the problem, a motorist hitting a lawful cyclist from behind and killing or injuring him. That is clearly a violation of the standard overtaking law; you don't need any more than that.

    You state the problem as it appears to you: "The attitude of motorists toward cyclists when cyclists speak out agains (sic) this is just horrific. The comments have ranged from the cyclist deserved it to the cyclist should not have been on the roadway, some have even blamed the cyclist even though the motorist was held responsible by the LEO." Clearly, you think that your area has a pretty intense prejudice against cyclists. But I fail to see how this proposed overtaking clearance law will mitigate that prejudice. Indeed, it might well increase it, by making overtaking appear to be more difficult and with greater jeopardy.

    If people thought out their intentions by reason rather than by emotions, they would tend to take better actions.
    No, the cyclists were killed due to the collision with a vehicle that weighs over a ton and a bad driver that for some reason decided to pass too close and hit the cyclist and the cyclist died from their injuries. Where do you get the thinking they were frightened into a heart attack? That question/comment is offensive to say the least and it seems the tone you are taking with it is you are blaming the cyclists and not holding the motorists responsible. The fine, if any is very small by comparison to what the new law will provide after it is passed.

    Even with this new law continueing education is still a focus as well. Educating both drivers and cyclists. While properly interacting with cyclists is part of the state drivers ed. program taught at schools there is no mandatory education for people who have been driving for a while.

    Can you explain how or why after this law was passed in other states the overtaking collision rate has gone down between motorists and cyclists? I beleive Illinois is one such state this has happened in.

  12. #12
    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 John Forester View Post
    The problem of inconsistent traffic laws in different locations in the state has been evident in many states, many of which appear to be in the Middle West. California has the statute California Vehicle Code 21, Uniformity of Code. "Except otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of this code are applicable and uniform throughout the State and in all counties and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on the matters covered by this code unless expressly authorized herein." That strong requirement for statewide uniformity has been a great benefit to cyclists of this state, for it has prevented local authorities from doing worse for cyclists than the state's provisions. It may be that the problems of Iowa's cyclists would be partially solved if they could get better statewide uniformity that now exists.

    Iowa has something similar to CA. The verbiage in municiple codes states something to the effect of except where expressly provided by state code. This usually means the state code has priority over municiple code. But municiple code is needed for more specific needs of the communities. For example local bicycle and animal control laws. This new law will be a uniform law for all across the state.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    snips

    The same could be said for doing away with the FRAP laws. Or, having all cyclists ride in a VC manner.
    Yes, to the extent to which vehicular cycling differs from typical curb hugging, that is so. However, vehicular cycling requires moving laterally when that is required for safety under the conditions, whatever they happen to be, and according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That's clearly proper lawful operation that produces safety benefits for cyclists, and, therefore, should not be the basis for increased anti-cyclist prejudice. But, even if it is, the benefits to cyclists are obvious.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    No, the cyclists were killed due to the collision with a vehicle that weighs over a ton and a bad driver that for some reason decided to pass too close and hit the cyclist and the cyclist died from their injuries. Where do you get the thinking they were frightened into a heart attack? That question/comment is offensive to say the least and it seems the tone you are taking with it is you are blaming the cyclists and not holding the motorists responsible. The fine, if any is very small by comparison to what the new law will provide after it is passed.

    Even with this new law continueing education is still a focus as well. Educating both drivers and cyclists. While properly interacting with cyclists is part of the state drivers ed. program taught at schools there is no mandatory education for people who have been driving for a while.

    Can you explain how or why after this law was passed in other states the overtaking collision rate has gone down between motorists and cyclists? I beleive Illinois is one such state this has happened in.
    It is clear that you do not understand the meaning of the words that you keep writing. You keep saying that the cyclists were killed by too close overtaking. The plain fact is that they were killed by motorist overtaking car-bike collisions. Why don't you say so? What's your problem that prevents you from making the plain statement of fact?

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,570
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    Where do you get the thinking they were frightened into a heart attack?
    I think it was sarcasm.

    How do you know the collisions were due to a passing failure rather than a "following too close/hit from behind" failure? Maybe, Iowa is rife with "take the lane" zealots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    That question/comment is offensive to say the least and it seems the tone you are taking with it is you are blaming the cyclists and not holding the motorists responsible.
    Note that you set the tone for "offensive" with your initial post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    The fine, if any is very small by comparison to what the new law will provide after it is passed.
    $500 extra for killing, instead of injuring, somebody seems pretty-small still.

    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    Can you explain how or why after this law was passed in other states the overtaking collision rate has gone down between motorists and cyclists? I beleive Illinois is one such state this has happened in.
    Where is the data?
    Last edited by njkayaker; 01-02-10 at 01:23 PM.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,570
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Yes, to the extent to which vehicular cycling differs from typical curb hugging, that is so. However, vehicular cycling requires moving laterally when that is required for safety under the conditions, whatever they happen to be, and according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
    This is a bit ambigous. I take it that you mean move laterally rightward.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    That's clearly proper lawful operation that produces safety benefits for cyclists, and, therefore, should not be the basis for increased anti-cyclist prejudice.
    I don't see how cyclists being in the middle of the lane would not annoy motorists, regardless of its legality. I think the basis for anti-cycling prejudice is that there are so few cyclists.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    But, even if it is, the benefits to cyclists are obvious.
    The notion that cyclists would be safer doing this is speculative. I've never seen anything that suggests that there is a sufficient quantity or quality of data to support this as being a fact.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 01-02-10 at 01:38 PM.

  17. #17
    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 John Forester View Post
    Yes, to the extent to which vehicular cycling differs from typical curb hugging, that is so. However, vehicular cycling requires moving laterally when that is required for safety under the conditions, whatever they happen to be, and according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That's clearly proper lawful operation that produces safety benefits for cyclists, and, therefore, should not be the basis for increased anti-cyclist prejudice. But, even if it is, the benefits to cyclists are obvious.
    In Iowa the P in FRAP stands for Practicable, not Possible. This means that a cyclist can ride as far from the curb/road gutter as they need to to stay safe. Whether is it staying safe from hitting debris or causing/forcing motorists to see a cyclist more clearly and thus passing a cyclist at a greater distance and it also means it allows cyclists to take the lane when they need to, for example at an intersection to prevent a right/left hook.

  18. #18
    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 njkayaker View Post
    I think it was sarcasmHow do you know the collisions were due to a passing failure rather than a "following too close/hit from behind" failure? Maybe, Iowa is rife with "take the lane" zealots. $500 extra for killing, instead of injuring, somebody seems pretty-small still. Where is the data?
    Every news report, which included information from the LEO's who responded to the incident, stated it was an overtaking situation. While $500 could be considered small, it is a good start. You'll have to do a google search to find the stats. Also try the IBC web site.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    In Iowa the P in FRAP stands for Practicable, not Possible. This means that a cyclist can ride as far from the curb/road gutter as they need to to stay safe. Whether is it staying safe from hitting debris or causing/forcing motorists to see a cyclist more clearly and thus passing a cyclist at a greater distance and it also means it allows cyclists to take the lane when they need to, for example at an intersection to prevent a right/left hook.
    Why do you feel the need to go through presenting that silly argument again? Everybody understands that the law starts out with the presumption that the cyclist should stay right. That presumption can be overcome by considerations such as degree of practicability and the like, frequently not quantifiable. The cyclist may feel that he is operating correctly according to his view of practicability, but, when push comes to shove, as when being prosecuted for disobeying the law, or when having degree of negligence evaluated in a civil injury suit, the cyclist's opinion counts for nothing. It is the judge or jury whose view counts, and, as we recognize, the views of such persons are frequently prejudiced against cyclists. That has been stated time and again in these discussions. Getting cyclists out from under a law that enables and encourages discrimination against cyclists, and putting them under the same law as all the other drivers on the road, is clearly the best way out of this mess.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Originally Posted by John Forester
    Yes, to the extent to which vehicular cycling differs from typical curb hugging, that is so. However, vehicular cycling requires moving laterally when that is required for safety under the conditions, whatever they happen to be, and according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.


    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    This is a bit ambigous. I take it that you mean move laterally rightward.
    No, I explictly mean moving leftward from the curb hugging position. Surely that was obvious?

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,570
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    No, I explictly mean moving leftward from the curb hugging position. Surely that was obvious?
    It is now!

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Yes, to the extent to which vehicular cycling differs from typical curb hugging, that is so. However, vehicular cycling requires moving laterally when that is required for safety under the conditions, whatever they happen to be, and according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That's clearly proper lawI ful operation that produces safety benefits for cyclists, and, therefore, should not be the basis for increased anti-cyclist prejudice. But, even if it is, the benefits to cyclists are obvious.
    I think that there are only two effective routes to reducing anti-cycling prejudice: 1) eliminating cycling on the roadways altogether or 2) there being enough cyclists that being prejudiced is futile. I suspect that VC would increase the prejudice.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 01-02-10 at 02:23 PM.

  22. #22
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sioux City, Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vision R40 Recumbent
    Posts
    825
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In terms of FRAP, yes while it does happen when and if in a court of law situation, there could be bias against cyclists. But I have yet to see a cyclist cited for riding 4' off of the curb. I know if I ever was I would fight the ticket in court. I do not think this law discriminates against cyclists. In fact i have conducted my own experiment, you're gonna love this because it is real world proof that FRAP is not a bad thing.

    I did this on the same strech of roadway, for the same distance with the same level of traffic. Used 2 cameras mounted to my bike to record the ride on this stretch of roadway. One pointed behind me and one ahead of me recording video. This way I had the correct number of motor vehicles who passed me. I conducted the experiment for 5 business days each, Monday through Friday twice a day at the same times each day. The first week I practically hugged the curb. I was pretty much 6" off of the curb the whole way. The second week I was more left of the curb, in the "tire track" of the travel lane, about 2 to 3' off of the curb.

    The results were as follows: The first week, 6" off of the curb I was buzzed, passed too close, honked at, yelled at, etc. I was even brushed by a mirror. The second week I was passed within at least 2' if not more, was not yelled at, was not brushed, was not honked at.

    And one more thing, a lot of the drivers were the same people on their morning or afternoon commute.

    The results of my test tell me one thing. FRAP works when used properly.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    In terms of FRAP, yes while it does happen when and if in a court of law situation, there could be bias against cyclists. But I have yet to see a cyclist cited for riding 4' off of the curb. I know if I ever was I would fight the ticket in court. I do not think this law discriminates against cyclists. In fact i have conducted my own experiment, you're gonna love this because it is real world proof that FRAP is not a bad thing.

    I did this on the same strech of roadway, for the same distance with the same level of traffic. Used 2 cameras mounted to my bike to record the ride on this stretch of roadway. One pointed behind me and one ahead of me recording video. This way I had the correct number of motor vehicles who passed me. I conducted the experiment for 5 business days each, Monday through Friday twice a day at the same times each day. The first week I practically hugged the curb. I was pretty much 6" off of the curb the whole way. The second week I was more left of the curb, in the "tire track" of the travel lane, about 2 to 3' off of the curb.

    The results were as follows: The first week, 6" off of the curb I was buzzed, passed too close, honked at, yelled at, etc. I was even brushed by a mirror. The second week I was passed within at least 2' if not more, was not yelled at, was not brushed, was not honked at.

    And one more thing, a lot of the drivers were the same people on their morning or afternoon commute.

    The results of my test tell me one thing. FRAP works when used properly.
    Your test is interesting, but it has nothing to do with FRAP.

  24. #24
    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 John Forester View Post
    Your test is interesting, but it has nothing to do with FRAP.
    Sure it does. I was using FRAP when riding as far to the right as practicable when 6" off the curb and again the next week when I was 2' to 3' off the curb. FRAP, with the P meaning Practicable allowed me to do this. If the P meant Possible I would have to ride 6" from the curb the whole time, regardless.

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Square & Compas View Post
    Sure it does. I was using FRAP when riding as far to the right as practicable when 6" off the curb and again the next week when I was 2' to 3' off the curb. FRAP, with the P meaning Practicable allowed me to do this. If the P meant Possible I would have to ride 6" from the curb the whole time, regardless.
    The discussion of the difference between possible and practicable I heard in a meeting from the nation's most prominent expert on the subject, Ed Kearney, then the Executive Director of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, about 1972. His definition of practicable was "possible, safe, and reasonable." That issue was dead and gone from before then, when the NCUTLO decided to use "practicable". Please consider your thoughts before posting.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •