It rarely happens. In my experience it hardly ever happens. Maybe once every three or four miles, and only then if I'm not riding at the speed limit or at the speed of traffic, which is rare because my commute is on low-speed roads with on-street parking.Quote:
and ian, you don't always take the lane. you mention when it's safe to pass you share the road by riding safely right. i'd bet it happens every block.
But even if my commute was on major arteries, I would always take the lane, because on busy roads it's even more important. Besides, here in Silver Spring, there has been a big push on the part of DOT to mark main roads with 'Cyclists may use full lane' signs.
'Recommended cutoff speed 40mph'? Where does that come from? In the US, cyclists are generally allowed on every road except limited access roads and roads where the speed limit is over 50mph.Quote:
and let's not forget, chris516's recommended cutoff speed for cyclists even riding on roads is 40mph. over 40, get off the road, you have no business riding there, much less 'taking the lane'.
And rear-end crashes are the rarest of collisions. Turning collisions are far more likely, and riding in the gutter or in a bike lane make such collisions even more likely.
you THINK bikelanes are 'less safe' despite all evidence to the contrary.
a specious 'less safe' assessment does not equate into NOT safe.
Not one, but two fallacies drive your road position.
wow, you only get passed once every 3 to 4 miles. a traffic anomaly or a real specimen of bicycling mastery. and a very curious backwater pocket in Maryland masquerading as a bedroom community to this nations capitol.Quote:
Originally Posted by ianbrettcooper
i have to ask, are you sure you're actually living in Maryland,INSIDE the capitol beltway????
this place you live must be a hidden place on the east coast-inside the beltway, right next to washington DC, but no one is driving! it's truly AMAZING to hear of such idyllic traffic conditions so close to megalopolis of this nations capitol- pardon my doubts, but this traffic report sounds VERY suspect.
'Recommended cutoff speed 40mph'? Where does that come from? In the US, cyclists are generally allowed on every road except limited access roads and roads where the speed limit is over 50mph.
it's Chris's speed limit. he thinks cyclists shouldn't even RIDE on roads faster than 40mph, much less 'take the lane'. it's Chris' cuttoff speed. but don't forget, your state restricts cyclists off roads only 10mph faster.
Originally Posted by bekologist
Failing to operate a vehicle under the rules of the road can unequivocally create conditions of reckless endangerment to other road users.
a rider taking the lane does not necessarily keep everyone safer, there are plenty of conditions this isn't true, like a 14 foot wide outside lane, where sharing is safe, legal, and the norm, and riding obtusely in the lane could create hazardous conditions for other road users under certain traffic and environmental conditions.
riders can be convicted of reckless riding. Reports in this forum (like Ian's) appear to confirm the presence of inchoate lane positioning on the part of cyclists convinced lane control is the only road use standard they ride under.
A VERY small minority of cyclists position themselves bluntly, failing to adhere to the spirit and letter of the laws governing use of public roads. It's likely they will never be cited or convicted. Rider censure for reckless riding is nearly non-existant.
But perhaps you didn't bother to read the link before you answered it? Well, your excuse is as good as it can be, if you've read and are following Forester's advice. But he's plain and simple wrong about the risks on the roads and streets.
As you all can read, Bek supports and advocates the view of the motoring establishment that cyclists ought to be bound by the cyclist-discriminatory laws that apply to cyclists alone, whereas many of us believe, and advocate, that cyclists ought to be bound only by the laws that apply equally, without discrimination, to all drivers of vehicles.
i support cyclists right to control lanes when needed.
what a propagandist. Mr Bates was convicted of RECKLESS DRIVING , not a bike law.Quote:
Chip Seal was convicted of using the outside lane of a four-lane highway, convicted with the argument that his use of that lane constituted reckless endangerment to other road users. True, that constituted violation of one of the laws for cyclists that do not apply to other drivers of vehicles
§ 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or
wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.
Of course, as always, Bek is arguing for the motorists' side of the discussions rather than for the cyclists' side.
Also, I've seen drivers who are not paying attention, drift into the bike lane and nearly hit the cars parked at the curb.
"As you all can read, Bek supports and advocates the view of the motoring establishment that cyclists ought to be bound by the cyclist-discriminatory laws that apply to cyclists alone, whereas many of us believe, and advocate, that cyclists ought to be bound only by the laws that apply equally, without discrimination, to all drivers of vehicles. "
I can't agree with this. to say only laws that apply equally to all drivers of vehicles presumes all vehicles are equal. they are not.
If you think a bicycle is the equal of a 4000 pound car your not going to last very long.
JUST LIKE if you think your 4000 pound car is the equal of an 80,000 pound semi YOU ALSO will not last long.
There are different rules for TRUCKS because they are NOT EQUAL to CARS. SO therefore I see no problem with different (but fair) rules for bicycles.
it is UNLAWFUL for me to ride my bicycle on the AC Expressway. this is not discrimination. this is to keep MORONS from operating a vehicle "flat out unsafe" on such a roadway. Period.
NOW if there is no "reasonable" alternative path between two points it should be lawful to use that roadway in a safe manner and the road way should be designed accordingly.
a tyical consumer bicycle is capable of max sustained 15mph for the average person and not for very long. even SKILLEd riders can go much faster than 20mph sustained for any serious timespan with "seriously" trained and equipped riders (rare) able to go 25+ sustained.
I would say its reasonable to call bicycles equal to around 30-35mph. over 35mph they are FAR from equal and different rules can and should apply (as long as they are FAIR) over 35mph the closing velocity potentials create a danger by their very existence.
The only time you should take the lane is when it is UNSAFE not too and when that is the case YOU CAN AND SHOULD take the lane.
if the law disagrees with this the law is wrong. its that simple and it needs to be changed.
Everywhere I ride so far the law "jives" with this concept.
Riding on a highway and taking a lane IS dangerous. at 55mph with you doing 20mph that is a closing velocity of 35mph !! 45-50mph is most cases since on most highways people will actually be doing 60-65+mph
at that closing velocity your reaction time is dramatically reduces when you encounter an "unexpectedly" slow vehicle.
this is why many highways have a minimum speed you must comply with and or a requirement to engage your flashers if your going slower than that minimum. SO OTHERS have the reaction time expectation they assume.
Originally Posted by John Forester
Originally Posted by bekologist
I see. Glad to see full disclosure that you are fully aware and DO admit Mr. Bates was convicted under Texas general vehicle statutes and nothing bicycle related as you had errantly postured in your earlier post.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
......so willing to discard ones' integrity and deliberately mislead Bike Forums in order to fabricate controversy about a convicted reckless driver.
Nice one, John! who's got the stash of Forum integrity medals for posting such accurate information about cases of bicycle jurisprudence! Cases where the cyclist was wrong about their belief they can always 'take the lane' without considerations of other road users safety and lane use.
What does the forester method say anyway, "yield to faster traffic?" (the ol' self-styled inferiority complex creeping its head into the vehikular cykling instruction)" slower traffic near the curb", something like that - these are embodied in the five principia of vehikular cykling instruction of 'speed positioning' and 'slower traffic keep right,' which are embodied in all states traffic codes and form the basis for 'the rules of the road'
to have to defend the arguments of the author against his own diatribe is absurd.
quit dodging your deliberate misinformation to the rest of the Bike Forum members.
This, in talking about a bicyclist convicted of reckless driving, you try to claim he was convicted for a
but Reed wasn't convicted of a law that does not apply to other drivers of vehicles.Quote:
violation of one of the laws for cyclists that do not apply to other drivers of vehicles.
Reed was convicted of a general vehicle law and principles of general traffic laws.
A person driving a Yugo at 15mph in the manner Reed was known for operating a bike in Texas would in all likelyhood get that Yugo driver convicted of reckless driving as well, if they refused a officers order to move safely right the way Reed did.
it's inflammatory and deliberately misleading to suggest reed was convicted of bike law that doesn't apply to other vehicles.
John, your running commentary at Bike Forums has proven itself to be little more than chronic, deliberate misstatements of fact.
Specifically in this thread, misleading bikers in a public forum with deliberate misrepresentation of legal cases involving bicyclists in order to fabricate controversy about traffic law principles involved with 'taking the lane' -
isn't that a violation of Bike Forum (or any forum) guidelines - deliberately misleading and being disrespectful of the rest of the forum?
despite which, the forester bike tehniique of adhering to the rules of the road by yielding to faster traffic and slower traffic near the kerb would have kept Reed from getting a ticket of a violation of general vehicle law in texas.
ooooh, such the logician!
-the lengths people will go to play the fool!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by john forester
just so we're clear - John admits he was aware Reed Bates was convicted under general Texas traffic laws and not bike specific laws - yet he deliberately misinformed the forum about the legal specifics of the case.
The reed bates case involved a road user with an inflated, deliberately reckless and misinformed sense of absolutism about his 'taking the lane' overriding his duty of care to other road users.
Just so the forum is clear - John was deliberating misinforming the forum about a traffic case involving a cyclist in order to fabricate controversy about bike laws that the cyclist was NOT convicted under..
since john is deliberately misleading the forum surrounding basic facts about the reckless driver on a bike in Texas it's best to simply move on from the deceit.