the decrepitude of vehicular cycling advocacy
12-05-09, 01:20 PM
#1
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
the decrepitude of vehicular cycling advocacy
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.
.
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.
.
12-05-09, 01:53 PM
#2
You gonna eat that?
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.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi 
"However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
12-05-09, 07:09 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
please read Mr. Hurst's September 17, 2009 blog entry at the URL below:
https://www.industrializedcyclist.com/
https://www.industrializedcyclist.com/
12-05-09, 09:47 PM
#4
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
He's calling the insidious nature of the vc crewe accurately enough thats for sure. these guys disgust me in both their marginalization of bicyclists existing road rights, and what they suggest should be. suggesting bicyclists pull off the roadway for faster traffic to pass is a reprehensible mischaracterization of bicyclists road rights!
Originally Posted by roberthurst, sept 17,2009 the industrialized cyclist
I must say beware of 'advocates' who clamor for 'equality' between bikes and cars on the street, because instead of reaching for the stars they may actually be calling for a significant diminishment of your existing freedoms as a bicyclist.
12-06-09, 01:33 AM
#5
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
this comment right here, out of a letter from the san diego bicycling advocacy community, from some one claiming to be a
'transportation engineering liaison' of the california association of bicycling organizations - as if a group of bicycling organizations would actually sellout bicyclists rights to the road like the following quote- it's quite shocking really -
( a series of his notions were followed by this DOOZY)
this is reprehensible attempt to severely restrict bicyclists road rights. he topsy turvy proclaims he is interested in preserving bicyclists road rights but is willing to sellout bicyclists right to travel roads as traffic. he wants bicyclists to pull off the road to allow faster traffic to pass.
who is this CABO and why are they calling for a serious circumscription of bicyclists road rights? This type of marginalizing anti-bicycling masquerading as advocacy crapola has got to be quashed.
There's most definetly a group of cycling 'advocates' conspiring to restrict bicylcists road rights fer sure.
'transportation engineering liaison' of the california association of bicycling organizations - as if a group of bicycling organizations would actually sellout bicyclists rights to the road like the following quote- it's quite shocking really -
Originally Posted by bob shanteau, 'transportation engineering liaison' of CABO
If we truly want to increase bicycle mode share, what we need instead
are laws that
are laws that
Originally Posted by bob shanteau
.......include bicyclists in the law that requires slow moving vehicles on 2 lane roads to turn out when there are 5 or more vehicles behind (CVC 21656);.
Bob Shanteau
Transportation Engineering Liaison
California Association of Bicycling Organizations
Bob Shanteau
Transportation Engineering Liaison
California Association of Bicycling Organizations
who is this CABO and why are they calling for a serious circumscription of bicyclists road rights? This type of marginalizing anti-bicycling masquerading as advocacy crapola has got to be quashed.
There's most definetly a group of cycling 'advocates' conspiring to restrict bicylcists road rights fer sure.
12-06-09, 01:42 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
He's calling the insidious nature of the vc crewe accurately enough thats for sure. these guys disgust me in both their marginalization of bicyclists existing road rights, and what they suggest should be. suggesting bicyclists pull off the roadway for faster traffic to pass is a reprehensible mischaracterization of bicyclists road rights!
12-06-09, 07:55 AM
#7
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
however you want to read it, randya.
you think concern over the interests in reducing bicyclists rights under the guise of vehicular cycling is unmerited, by all means accept as gospel robert's inane commentary about the arguments between those that seek to add rider share to the american streets and those that stand opposed to this goal.
the admittance in googolegroups bicycle driving is that a group of these "bicyclists" are interested in limiting bicyclists rights to the degree we would have to get off the road in the face of faster traffic.
ThIS POSITION is REPREHENSIBLE and untenable in the annals of bicycling advocacy.
this is not just a minor bicker between the facilitators and the vehicularists, these ******bags want to kick us off the roads de facto under the guise of protecting our rights.
they suck.
you think concern over the interests in reducing bicyclists rights under the guise of vehicular cycling is unmerited, by all means accept as gospel robert's inane commentary about the arguments between those that seek to add rider share to the american streets and those that stand opposed to this goal.
the admittance in googolegroups bicycle driving is that a group of these "bicyclists" are interested in limiting bicyclists rights to the degree we would have to get off the road in the face of faster traffic.
ThIS POSITION is REPREHENSIBLE and untenable in the annals of bicycling advocacy.
this is not just a minor bicker between the facilitators and the vehicularists, these ******bags want to kick us off the roads de facto under the guise of protecting our rights.
they suck.
Last edited by Bekologist; 12-06-09 at 08:04 AM.
12-06-09, 09:53 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
the only dooshes I know that want to kick cyclists off the roads are the Portland Amsterdam cycle track advocates. The installation of these glorified sidepaths coupled with the state's mandatory sidepath law will de-facto result in cyclists being kicked off the roads. I'm no Foresterologist, but I still believe in a cyclist's right to use all of the road as necessary.
12-06-09, 09:56 PM
#9
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
the argument about bicyclists rights is being seriously impinged on by good old BF alumni Helmet Head. he's 'heading up' the efforts to de facto ban bicyclists from two lane roads in california.
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.
they think it is fair and reasonable for bicyclists to be required to leave the roadway at the soonest opportunity entirely on '2 lane highways- effectively any two lane road - when 5 or more cars back up behind.
this is a reprehensible attack on bicyclists road rights in america.
this erosion of bicyclists rights could lead to a de facto banning of bicyclists on many busy two lane roads in america.
In support that smv-impeding statutes should not apply, from bicycledriving.org-
""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."
Bek
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.
they think it is fair and reasonable for bicyclists to be required to leave the roadway at the soonest opportunity entirely on '2 lane highways- effectively any two lane road - when 5 or more cars back up behind.
this is a reprehensible attack on bicyclists road rights in america.
this erosion of bicyclists rights could lead to a de facto banning of bicyclists on many busy two lane roads in america.
In support that smv-impeding statutes should not apply, from bicycledriving.org-
""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."
Bek
Last edited by Bekologist; 12-07-09 at 12:39 AM.
12-07-09, 08:09 AM
#10
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
please read Mr. Hurst's September 17, 2009 blog entry at the URL below:
https://www.industrializedcyclist.com/
https://www.industrializedcyclist.com/
I hope Robert Hurst has no issue with that. I will remove it on his request.
Originally Posted by Robert Hurst Blog
Ideological bicycling advocacy makes for endless loop internet arguing, and it's useless on the street. Ideological advocacy has become a serious problem for real-world bicyclists: Notice how the future of bicycling in this country has in some ways been hijacked by fantastically clueless ideologues on either side of an ongoing debate over facilities. It's truly amazing. On one side there is a group of earnest, innocent fledglings who honestly believe that any new semi-separated facility will be good for bicyclists and good for America. They hold a precious vision of Amsterdam-izing the country which is dangerous in its simplicity. On the other side is a cadre of pompous, personality-challenged streethogs who offer aggressively insecure and selfishly uncooperative riding in the guise of law-and-order, rights-and-responsibilities cycling. Neither side is big on facts or details or listening to those who understand them. In these rather incestuous groups voices of real long-time bike experience seem to be few, as the churning stew of ignorance is the only atmospheric condition in which such groups can persist. Those striving for reasoned subtle thoughts are drowned out in an echo chamber of practiced answers, almost like a form of religious chanting. Each group thinks the other group is the Enemy, and beyond help. In fact they are both right. Let's start giving both these groups the respect they deserve, which is very little. If you're a member of one or the other, you're not going to like that. But we actual bicyclists need to deal with the world as it is, not how we hope or wish it to be. I think that's a direct quote from The Art of [Urban] Cycling.
I got a few notes this week from bike-riding opponents of the Idaho Stop who were concerned by my endorsement of it. What they seemed to be asking me is this: How can we gain Equality With Cars if we're granted superior freedoms to drivers? It does present a dilemma.
Each of these arguments against the Idaho Stop carried a familiar tone. Going back to the high-wheeler era, there has been a certain type of bicyclist -- lately a member of one of the groups above -- who assumes the mantle of victimhood and often expresses a desire for 'equality' on the streets. Victimhood is their default condition. This is strange because bicyclists already enjoy superior legal freedom of movement in addition to the widely accepted non-legal freedoms. If you think about it for a moment you'll realize it's true. It takes a real beginner or a particularly ideologically-addled rider to miss or deny such an obvious truth. The obligation to move right for faster traffic, lack of access to some streets, the much celebrated anti-bike bias that exists in our country, do not nullify that superior mobility as some seem to feel. Bicycling is already better-than-equal and legalizing the Idaho Stop would simply represent a continuation along those lines. Taking a massive step backward to 'equality' would not be a positive development for bicyclists in traffic nor would it suddenly conjure the respect which is the one true thing these deeply insecure riders are really seeking. That respect doesn't exist. It's a dream-thing.
Some of those who express fear of the Idaho Stop also seem very uneasy about the special legal allowances that bicyclists already enjoy. They seem to feel that a bicyclist's unique ability to switch between the vehicular and pedestrian realms, and to negotiate unused pockets of the street or other surfaces (part of what I call 'bicycular cycling') is in fact a bad thing in itself. In my opinion their comments betray not only a lack of appreciation for this very important side of bike transportation, but an outright disdain for it. It's a deeply flawed vision of what bicycling is. It feels to me like they would, if given an opportunity, take this special power away from bicyclists altogether, as if none among us could possibly use it wisely and safely. But this freedom is extremely important for urban cycling in America. And so I must say beware of 'advocates' who clamor for 'equality' between bikes and cars on the street, because instead of reaching for the stars they may actually be calling for a significant diminishment of your existing freedoms as a bicyclist.
I got a few notes this week from bike-riding opponents of the Idaho Stop who were concerned by my endorsement of it. What they seemed to be asking me is this: How can we gain Equality With Cars if we're granted superior freedoms to drivers? It does present a dilemma.
Each of these arguments against the Idaho Stop carried a familiar tone. Going back to the high-wheeler era, there has been a certain type of bicyclist -- lately a member of one of the groups above -- who assumes the mantle of victimhood and often expresses a desire for 'equality' on the streets. Victimhood is their default condition. This is strange because bicyclists already enjoy superior legal freedom of movement in addition to the widely accepted non-legal freedoms. If you think about it for a moment you'll realize it's true. It takes a real beginner or a particularly ideologically-addled rider to miss or deny such an obvious truth. The obligation to move right for faster traffic, lack of access to some streets, the much celebrated anti-bike bias that exists in our country, do not nullify that superior mobility as some seem to feel. Bicycling is already better-than-equal and legalizing the Idaho Stop would simply represent a continuation along those lines. Taking a massive step backward to 'equality' would not be a positive development for bicyclists in traffic nor would it suddenly conjure the respect which is the one true thing these deeply insecure riders are really seeking. That respect doesn't exist. It's a dream-thing.
Some of those who express fear of the Idaho Stop also seem very uneasy about the special legal allowances that bicyclists already enjoy. They seem to feel that a bicyclist's unique ability to switch between the vehicular and pedestrian realms, and to negotiate unused pockets of the street or other surfaces (part of what I call 'bicycular cycling') is in fact a bad thing in itself. In my opinion their comments betray not only a lack of appreciation for this very important side of bike transportation, but an outright disdain for it. It's a deeply flawed vision of what bicycling is. It feels to me like they would, if given an opportunity, take this special power away from bicyclists altogether, as if none among us could possibly use it wisely and safely. But this freedom is extremely important for urban cycling in America. And so I must say beware of 'advocates' who clamor for 'equality' between bikes and cars on the street, because instead of reaching for the stars they may actually be calling for a significant diminishment of your existing freedoms as a bicyclist.
12-07-09, 09:08 AM
#11
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
trust me, trying to get bicyclists subject to "SMV-impeding-pull off roadway" laws is much more pernicious than idaho stop sign laws coming to other parts of the country.
the 'bicycle driving' contingent is quite toxic.
the 'bicycle driving' contingent is quite toxic.
12-07-09, 09:34 AM
#12
Senior Member
Okay, let's get real - how many times per year, for the average cyclist, does the situation of having five or more cars backed up behind them on a narrow TWO LANE road actually happen, and how long does that usually last?
Riding solo, this might happen to me once a year, and rarely lasts long enough for me to start looking for a place to pull over. Either the drivers get an opportunity to pass in the next lane, or the road widens, or I am turning off the road. Or, traffic is slow anyway, and I'm just taking the lane with my speed limited by other traffic or signals ahead. I've pulled off the road three or four times in the last decade to disperse backed up traffic on a narrow two-lane. I do this voluntarily - there is no law requiring slow drivers to pull off the roadway in NC. Maybe I'm lucky that most of the busier roads have additional lanes for passing, and a lot of the two lane roads here are wide enough for same-lane passing.
Now consider large group rides. I see five or more cars backed up behind large groups fairly often. Are the vehicular cycling proponents arguing that dozens of cyclists riding together on a narrow rural 2-lane should leave the roadway to let five drivers pass? I suspect not. Here I think we need to consider the relative convenience of the cyclists and the motorists. The group ride leaders I've spoken with are more interested in making adjustments to formation, i.e. platooning smaller numbers of cyclists with gaps between platoons, so that motorists can pass more easily, rather than leaving the roadway.
So, please show me a specific quote where some vehicular cycling proponent is arguing in favor of an onerous burden to be placed on cyclists for the benefit of passing.
Riding solo, this might happen to me once a year, and rarely lasts long enough for me to start looking for a place to pull over. Either the drivers get an opportunity to pass in the next lane, or the road widens, or I am turning off the road. Or, traffic is slow anyway, and I'm just taking the lane with my speed limited by other traffic or signals ahead. I've pulled off the road three or four times in the last decade to disperse backed up traffic on a narrow two-lane. I do this voluntarily - there is no law requiring slow drivers to pull off the roadway in NC. Maybe I'm lucky that most of the busier roads have additional lanes for passing, and a lot of the two lane roads here are wide enough for same-lane passing.
Now consider large group rides. I see five or more cars backed up behind large groups fairly often. Are the vehicular cycling proponents arguing that dozens of cyclists riding together on a narrow rural 2-lane should leave the roadway to let five drivers pass? I suspect not. Here I think we need to consider the relative convenience of the cyclists and the motorists. The group ride leaders I've spoken with are more interested in making adjustments to formation, i.e. platooning smaller numbers of cyclists with gaps between platoons, so that motorists can pass more easily, rather than leaving the roadway.
So, please show me a specific quote where some vehicular cycling proponent is arguing in favor of an onerous burden to be placed on cyclists for the benefit of passing.
12-07-09, 10:18 AM
#13
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
boy, steve. it happens on my ride to the grocery store about every ride.
the condition of a bicyclist on a narrow two lane road, with 5 cars behind, is a VERY commonplace road scenario. suggesting bicyclists should be subject to
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.
this needs to be quashed vigorously. Bicyclists intent on giving away our road rights need to be exposed.
I don't need to quote them in here. do you need me to point you to a google group at which you are a posting member?
the content of the argument is more than sufficient. go check it out if you do not believe the story of the marginalizing intent of these soo called 'advocates'.
the condition of a bicyclist on a narrow two lane road, with 5 cars behind, is a VERY commonplace road scenario. suggesting bicyclists should be subject to
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.
this needs to be quashed vigorously. Bicyclists intent on giving away our road rights need to be exposed.
I don't need to quote them in here. do you need me to point you to a google group at which you are a posting member?
the content of the argument is more than sufficient. go check it out if you do not believe the story of the marginalizing intent of these soo called 'advocates'.
Last edited by Bekologist; 12-07-09 at 10:21 AM.
12-07-09, 11:50 AM
#14
Senior Member
Are you saying that cyclists should be immune to such a law but not horse and buggy drivers, neighborhood electric vehicle drivers, or tractor drivers? Why should cyclists get special treatment, and how do we convince the general public of this?
Or, would it be better to clarify the law to ensure that it is no more onerous for cyclists than for other SMV drivers, and that it is reasonable for them as well?
Or, would it be better to clarify the law to ensure that it is no more onerous for cyclists than for other SMV drivers, and that it is reasonable for them as well?
12-07-09, 12:02 PM
#15
Senior Member
I don't need to quote them in here. do you need me to point you to a google group at which you are a posting member? the content of the argument is more than sufficient. go check it out if you do not believe the story of the marginalizing intent of these soo called 'advocates'.
12-07-09, 12:04 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
12 Posts
I apologize for the black background for those who have trouble reading it. The reason I chose the dark background was that I actually found it easier on my tired eyes after staring at white screens for years. (When I write now using Word I tend to use the dark background option for that reason.) But I realize I am a nutter and that others have some difficulty with the black background. Also, if your browser plugs in Times as a default font then it will be much more difficult to read than it would be in many other fonts.
12-07-09, 12:49 PM
#17
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
1. Not enough visibility and/or too much oncoming traffic for cars to pass me (rolling route).
2. The driver behind me refuses to pass me. I don't know if they are just timid or feel like they are protecting me...but it really annoys me and the drivers behind them. Indeed, they usually put me in more danger because in many cases one of the annoyed drivers behind them will attempt an unsafe pass out of impatience and frustration. (If you think drivers get pissed when a bike slows them down, they get even more pissed when another car slows them down for no apparent reason.)
In both cases, I may turn off into one of the rare side streets or parking lots on my rural/exburb route to let traffic clear.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
Last edited by chipcom; 12-07-09 at 12:57 PM.
12-07-09, 01:12 PM
#18
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
No problem, I'm amazed anybody reads those things at all.
I apologize for the black background for those who have trouble reading it. The reason I chose the dark background was that I actually found it easier on my tired eyes after staring at white screens for years. (When I write now using Word I tend to use the dark background option for that reason.) But I realize I am a nutter and that others have some difficulty with the black background. Also, if your browser plugs in Times as a default font then it will be much more difficult to read than it would be in many other fonts.
I apologize for the black background for those who have trouble reading it. The reason I chose the dark background was that I actually found it easier on my tired eyes after staring at white screens for years. (When I write now using Word I tend to use the dark background option for that reason.) But I realize I am a nutter and that others have some difficulty with the black background. Also, if your browser plugs in Times as a default font then it will be much more difficult to read than it would be in many other fonts.
********************************************
Thanks for the permission after the fact. I really have to agree with much of that blog, and find that often the diametrically opposing extremes of any argument do not represent the larger "middle ground" reality... The vast "silent majority" if you will.
12-07-09, 01:16 PM
#19
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Okay, let's get real - how many times per year, for the average cyclist, does the situation of having five or more cars backed up behind them on a narrow TWO LANE road actually happen, and how long does that usually last?
Riding solo, this might happen to me once a year, and rarely lasts long enough for me to start looking for a place to pull over. Either the drivers get an opportunity to pass in the next lane, or the road widens, or I am turning off the road. Or, traffic is slow anyway, and I'm just taking the lane with my speed limited by other traffic or signals ahead. I've pulled off the road three or four times in the last decade to disperse backed up traffic on a narrow two-lane. I do this voluntarily - there is no law requiring slow drivers to pull off the roadway in NC. Maybe I'm lucky that most of the busier roads have additional lanes for passing, and a lot of the two lane roads here are wide enough for same-lane passing.
Now consider large group rides. I see five or more cars backed up behind large groups fairly often. Are the vehicular cycling proponents arguing that dozens of cyclists riding together on a narrow rural 2-lane should leave the roadway to let five drivers pass? I suspect not. Here I think we need to consider the relative convenience of the cyclists and the motorists. The group ride leaders I've spoken with are more interested in making adjustments to formation, i.e. platooning smaller numbers of cyclists with gaps between platoons, so that motorists can pass more easily, rather than leaving the roadway.
So, please show me a specific quote where some vehicular cycling proponent is arguing in favor of an onerous burden to be placed on cyclists for the benefit of passing.
Riding solo, this might happen to me once a year, and rarely lasts long enough for me to start looking for a place to pull over. Either the drivers get an opportunity to pass in the next lane, or the road widens, or I am turning off the road. Or, traffic is slow anyway, and I'm just taking the lane with my speed limited by other traffic or signals ahead. I've pulled off the road three or four times in the last decade to disperse backed up traffic on a narrow two-lane. I do this voluntarily - there is no law requiring slow drivers to pull off the roadway in NC. Maybe I'm lucky that most of the busier roads have additional lanes for passing, and a lot of the two lane roads here are wide enough for same-lane passing.
Now consider large group rides. I see five or more cars backed up behind large groups fairly often. Are the vehicular cycling proponents arguing that dozens of cyclists riding together on a narrow rural 2-lane should leave the roadway to let five drivers pass? I suspect not. Here I think we need to consider the relative convenience of the cyclists and the motorists. The group ride leaders I've spoken with are more interested in making adjustments to formation, i.e. platooning smaller numbers of cyclists with gaps between platoons, so that motorists can pass more easily, rather than leaving the roadway.
So, please show me a specific quote where some vehicular cycling proponent is arguing in favor of an onerous burden to be placed on cyclists for the benefit of passing.
12-07-09, 01:37 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I didn't have a problem with the text, in fact I prefer white on black to black on white; but I did notice that there wasn't a way to link directly to specific entries in the blog.
12-07-09, 01:40 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I have also heard that the impeding traffic statutes don't apply to cyclists, but I'm willing to bet a determination of that nature would be up to an LEO and/or a judge.
12-07-09, 02:22 PM
#22
Senior Member
Happens to me twice a day, most days, on my commute, usually for two reasons:
1. Not enough visibility and/or too much oncoming traffic for cars to pass me (rolling route).
2. The driver behind me refuses to pass me. I don't know if they are just timid or feel like they are protecting me...but it really annoys me and the drivers behind them. Indeed, they usually put me in more danger because in many cases one of the annoyed drivers behind them will attempt an unsafe pass out of impatience and frustration. (If you think drivers get pissed when a bike slows them down, they get even more pissed when another car slows them down for no apparent reason.)
In both cases, I may turn off into one of the rare side streets or parking lots on my rural/exburb route to let traffic clear.
1. Not enough visibility and/or too much oncoming traffic for cars to pass me (rolling route).
2. The driver behind me refuses to pass me. I don't know if they are just timid or feel like they are protecting me...but it really annoys me and the drivers behind them. Indeed, they usually put me in more danger because in many cases one of the annoyed drivers behind them will attempt an unsafe pass out of impatience and frustration. (If you think drivers get pissed when a bike slows them down, they get even more pissed when another car slows them down for no apparent reason.)
In both cases, I may turn off into one of the rare side streets or parking lots on my rural/exburb route to let traffic clear.
All of this points out the operational benefit of having adequate pavement width for easy passing on busy two-lane roads. This is a facility engineering issue that many vehicular cycling advocates support. I have supported such facilities for many years. The facility need not be marked for bicycles in order to serve reasonably well for reducing social friction between cyclists and other drivers.
12-07-09, 02:23 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
12 Posts
Thanks for reading in any case.
12-07-09, 02:43 PM
#24
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
I find that a steady stream of oncoming traffic is required for drivers to stack up behind me for any time. Usually, as soon as the oncoming lane looks clear, the driver behind me passes - even if sight distances are poor. On hilly roads, my slower uphill speed reduces passing times. While I usually avoid shoulders in poor condition, there are times when I will move onto a shoulder and ride at greatly reduced speed for a few seconds to let a number of drivers pass before I move back into the travel lane. Fortunately I have very few narrow busy two-lanes on my normal routes.
All of this points out the operational benefit of having adequate pavement width for easy passing on busy two-lane roads. This is a facility engineering issue that many vehicular cycling advocates support. I have supported such facilities for many years. The facility need not be marked for bicycles in order to serve reasonably well for reducing social friction between cyclists and other drivers.
All of this points out the operational benefit of having adequate pavement width for easy passing on busy two-lane roads. This is a facility engineering issue that many vehicular cycling advocates support. I have supported such facilities for many years. The facility need not be marked for bicycles in order to serve reasonably well for reducing social friction between cyclists and other drivers.
Also, I'm not about to encourage people to pass me going up hills or with limited sight distance...because odds are when they have to swerve back into my lane to avoid an accident, I'm going to be in their path. Sure, I can't prevent them from doing stoopid passing tricks, but my lane position leaves them no doubt that they have to get into the other lane to do so.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
12-08-09, 12:19 AM
#25
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
after the pogrom of my last series of criticisms, i hesitate to really get down and dirty with it in here? I don't know.
Wayne, and Serge, and John, and Bob, 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.