John Forester

That's not the way the law reads. In one part it requires as far right as practicable, which Bek is arguing in another current discussion does not have exceptions. In the other part of the law it lists the exceptions to as far right as practicable, such as left turns, overtaking, narrow lanes, and such. This is the part that Bek is arguing for in this discussion.

nerys

ok seriously now john. maybe I am just really tired (I am just got done 4 days straight of work 14+ hours shifts I am beat)

but it sounds like your saying BOTH things in the same post. can you clarify?

I don't always argue the same thing in all threads even when talking about the same "type" of thing. it depends on context.

so under what CONTEXT is he arguing in each thread? if you cherry pick quotes outside of the context of the conversation they are in (not saying you are just noting the potential) you can make anyone sound like they are saying almost anything.

so what is the context of the discussion in the other thread?

and WHAT precisely is "not what the law reads" you say that is not how the law reads but don't tell me what the law is not reading. ie a point with zero context or reference.

John Forester

Nerys, I suppose that it is good that you have so much work to do, even though it tires you. The quickest way to present the law is for you to Google California Vehicle Code 21202, which is the original example of the law with exceptions that got copied around the USA. In the other discussion group Bek is arguing, from the instructions in drivers' manuals and such, that government quite properly presents only the far to the right initial section, while in this discussion Bek is arguing that the exceptions provide what cyclists need. That's the Janus-faced pair of arguments.

Bekologist

john's blowing smoke. john has consistentely stated for decades he believes traffic laws in most states instruct cyclists to ride 'far to the right'.

he incessantly characterizes cyclists road rights as having to ride to the far right. An inferiority laden position about bicycling.

I have a much different opinion about traffic laws. I recognize in most states, traffic laws allow cyclists to choose a safe lane position away from the right, and to control lanes when merited under many road and traffic conditions.

That is NOT "far to the right". "far to the right" is john forester's interpretation of traffic laws as they affect cyclists.

A person who coins the term 'road sneak', and has been telling cyclists for decades they have to ride "far to the right" shouldn't be trusted to give advice about taking the lane!

John Forester

Bek is just trying to create more quarrelsome confusion. While I have often written that motorists, and the laws they make, discriminate against cyclists by giving them lower legal status than other drivers, even than motorists, by requiring cyclists to ride far right, I have always recommended that cyclists obey, instead, the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That's been my position from 1974 on. Bek's repeated statements that I advocate cycling as if the inferior status should apply are just plain wrong. I have always opposed the inferior status, have fought against it in government committees, and have advocated cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Bek tries to make much of the difference between "far right" and the legal wording "as far right as practicable", which is no difference at all; one is just the shorthand for the other.

The real difference between us, which makes Bek so angry, is that he advocates the anti-cyclist discriminatory laws with their exceptions that attempt to replace the rights removed by the discriminatory text, while I advocate the repeal of the discriminatory laws, so that no exceptions would ever exist because then there would be no question but that cyclists have the rights of drivers of vehicles.

The real issue is why Bek, who calls himself a bicycle advocate, so dearly loves the anti-cyclist discriminatory laws. He has two arguments to support his choice. The first argument is that the standard laws for slowly-moving vehicles are more discriminatory than the anti-cyclist discriminatory laws. Bek claims that these laws require, without exceptions, that cyclist must ride far right. But that is false, because those laws require drivers of slowly-moving vehicles to either use the right-hand lane or to proceed as far right as practicable. In short, Bek denies that the OR phrasing allows drivers to have the choice, which is just ideological nonsense. Bek's second argument is that the drivers' instruction manuals and such, issued by departments of motor vehicles, instruct cyclists to ride far right. That's so, but Bek's argument fails because none of these instructions is the actual law; they just represent the motorist-superiority/cyclist-inferiority superstitions in the minds of their authors.

The real puzzle is why it is that Bek, who calls himself a bicycle advocate, so desperately, with obviously faulty arguments, defends the laws that discriminate against cyclists by putting them in a legal status less than other drivers, less even than motorists. I say that any person who defends the anti-cyclist discriminatory laws cannot be an advocate for cyclists, whatever else he may advocate.

Bekologist

What an insipid morass of befuddlement.

John, you're consistently marginalized cyclists rights with mischaracterizations of 'far to the right' (see, you just did it again) despite cyclist specific traffic laws explicitly giving us wide discretionary powers to ride well in the lane under many circumstances!! -

for the last 40 years, and also endorse a method of letting cars spool by a bicyclist on either side while plying your patented 'road sneak' maneuver.

There's ample reason for the bicycling community to have serious doubts about your advice on when cyclists can and should 'take the lane'.

Bekologist

I missed this in the chaff.

What? A vehicular cyclist would never ride to the right of a fog line?



surely that post can't be serious.



sometimes vehicular cyclists do ride to the right of the fog line.



OF COURSE vehicular cyclists ride to the right of the fog line! when it's safe to do so, a vehicular cyclist may very well be riding on the shoulder of the road. Vehicular cyclists will be found riding in in the lane, in a bikelane, or on the shoulders of roads. Here's a little secret for you, bandit- vehicular cyclists are sometimes even seen riding on bicycle paths!

It's the vehicularly ADDLED cyclists - those are the ones that think they should never ride shoulders of roads.

John Forester

Bek, you have been arguing, either here or elsewhere, that the official instructions for cyclists published by many states require that cyclists ride far right. Now you are here arguing that the laws provide exceptions to that requirement. Two faced arguments, those are.

The fact, which Bek refuses to accept, is that the basic laws for cyclists first give cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, and then destroy those rights by requiring cycling far right (don't fuss just how far right, it ain't important), and then, to some extent, return some of those rights by providing a list of exceptions. The result is that the cyclist, if he is not in the far right position, has to be able to prove that one of the exceptions happens to apply to his situation. No licensed motorist has to prove that he has the right to use the roadway in the normal manner; that goes automatically with the status, without going through some list of exceptions that might contain the motorist's right.

This business of giving cyclists rights, then removing those rights, and then maybe replacing some of those rights through a list of exceptions is exactly what Bek desires. I happen to desire that cyclists be granted the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles and that's the end of the legal quagmire. Why Bek desires cyclists to be trapped in this present legal quagmire he has never explained; it obviously has to do with some ideology that has hold of him.

nerys

ok maybe this is not the most popular sentiment but here is my go.

cyclist "ARE" inferior to motorists. all cards on the table. BS out the stinking window. lets get down to brass nickles here.

40 pound bike 200 pound rider. 10-25mph

4000 pound car. 40-60mph

this is simple physics folks. BIKE LOSES every time.

people have a natural "RIGHT" not Privilege to utilize the public roadways of this nation to transport themselves and their property.

to TRAVEL.

but this right does NOT INCLUDE "by any means you wish"

in fact this has been defined. any "common conveyance of the time" by the supreme court. Common conveyance has dual meaning here. describing common (bicycles are common) and common CONTEXTUALLY. so a Park trail common is cycle and foot. not "go cart"

on the roadways that means sometimes both bike and car and sometimes JUST car.

for the same reason you can not ride your HORSE on I95 you also can't right your Bicycle on I95. for the same reason I can't ride my hovercraft on I95 for the same reason I can use I95 as my personal runway for my cessna that I wish I had :-)

you are a DANGER. period. you make the roadway UNSAFE no matter how carefully you ride by your mere PRESENCE.

you can NOT mingle 4 lane 65mph traffic with a 10mph bicycle. you just can't. there is no safe way to do that unless the roadway is DESIGNED to do that.

this is not about "rights" this is about simple stinking common sense.

Now there are roads that are borderline. the cars are not doing 65 but they are doing 40-45.

we should work toward "SHARING" the roads. I don't really care too much about the law (the law stopped being based on common sense 100 years ago) I care about what is "right just and moral"

it "right of the fog line" is safe YOU SHOULD RIDE THEIR. its really that simple. its rude and selfish (regardless of what the law says) if you can get out of the way of faster traffic without endangering yourself.

Bekologists post #132

the FIRST picture. if you don't think that FULL LANE WIDTH shoulder is wide enough for you to safely ride your bicycle I seriously question your ability to ride a bike. that is luxurious a path for a bicycle. (most of our shoulders are not that wide but wide enough that I feel safe.)

now if there is no shoulder or no safe shoulder I take different actions in "THIS ORDER" and this order is based on Just Moral POLITE behavior.

now I DO have the RIGHT to use that roadway but having the right does not always mean one SHOULD.

so step #1 can I go around? if yes DONE do that. if No goto Step #2

Step #2 do I really NEED to go that way. ie stop going that way or take a bus or car. if yes DO THAT if no goto step #3

Step #3 all other "sensible" options are exhausted. I really NEED to go this way.

Then do it. but do so as safely and politely as one can without compromising ones safety.

if you can right the edge do it. if that is unsafe take the lane "when needed" and for as short a time as needed to keep yourself safe.

this is pretty simple stuff folks.

this is not about "right and wrong" and "legal and illegal" this is about common sense common courtesy and human decency and not being a ****** toward your fellow human beings. thats all.

this should not be complicated or controversial.

and ride far right MAKES SENSE in most cases

its the LAW in most states. slower traffic stay right. YOU ARE SLOWER TRAFFIC.

so stay right as far as you can do so safely.

Bekologist

Sorry, John. Stop the misinformation. stop pretending i talk about 'far right' -that's YOUR message to the bicycling community. As an example from just above

you're already mentioned your interpretation of bike laws a couple of times on this page.


You are wedded to that message, John. You've been uttering & publishing it for decades - 'traffic laws require cyclists ride far-to-the-right.'


Far to the right is John Foresters' message about bicyclists and lane control. So is the road sneak method of NOT taking the lane and riding on the lane lines with motorists passing on either side of the bicyclist.

Riding "far to the right" or like "road sneak" are terribly ineffective lane control methods IMO.


I would never characterize, and have never characterized, bicyclists being instructed to ride 'far right' or 'far to the right'. I recognize traffic laws give cyclists wide discretion to choose a safe lane position, and even control the lane under many circumstances.

hagen2456

Quoted in full, with applause.

genec

Let's follow your logic for just a second and see where that gets us... Big rigs on the road are vastly heavier and bigger than an ordinary passenger vehicle... using the logic just displayed above, every big rig has (according to you) more rights on the road than does the ordinary passenger vehicle... Yet we don't see that at all. In fact nearly every state has laws that restrict big rigs to the right most lanes on the highway... much as most states have laws that restrict cyclists to the right hand side of the road.
Big rigs are also speed limited, passenger cars are not.

So much for your logic.

hagen2456

The way I see the post you respond to, it is not so much about rights as it's about what's safe.

nerys

First this is about safety not rights. (how was that unclear to you precisely?

logical fallacy. your making connections not present in fact.

the BIG RIG can travel at the same velocities that the car can.

big rigs however can not accelerate as quickly as cars can ie they tend to be "slower" in some regards hence they are relegated to the RIGHT LANE (slower traffic stay right NOT HEAVIER TRAFFIC STAY LEFT)

you made an argumentative reply. you wanted to make a negative reply to what I said. so you "fabricated" out of thin air some stupid argument regarding the size of trucks and then pretended I said it and that you were replying to me.

when in fact you were just arguing with yourself because the point your arguing came out of YOUR mind and your mind alone and never came from me.

CARS AND TRUCKS can operate at 65mph safely. Period. not a point up for discussion.

CARS TRUCKS and BICYCLES can not operate safetly at 65mph on roads not designed for such.

PERIOD.

genec

I won't argue the point of bicycles not being operated on 65 MPH roads as I do tend to agree that is not a terribly safe practice... but then bikes are not generally allowed on such roads. (there are exceptions... such as highways in the west that are the ONLY road, and some surface streets that again are the only connection between two points).

My whole argument was against your mass and weight comments (perhaps I should have bolded that area specifically)

BTW the 4000 pound car works just fine at speeds down to 10MPH or less too.

But if you are going to compare mass and size, you'll see that while the car and driver are an order of magnitude larger than the cyclist and rider, so too the big rig is an order of magnitude greater than the automobile. Mass is only an issue when the vehicle is not being properly controlled.

Is speed really an issue? Not if the operators are aware of what is in front of them and control their vehicles accordingly... especially since no operator should ever drive beyond their sight line.

Since this is in a thread regarding taking the lane... which I too have argued against... take note that my arguments hinge on distracted operators (of which there are many), not on a speed or mass issue, which is irrelevant.

nerys

my argument was not about mass and weight there was nothing for you to "BOLD"

mass and weight don't come into play UNTIL THERE IS AN IMPACT

the issue was SPEED. the greater the difference in speed the higher the probability of an impact and THEN mass comes in.

the mass and weight ie bike loses was just to describe to you why when the speeds are off YOU DON'T want to mess with that scenario.

distracted drivers are irrelevant.

THEY ARE DISTRACTED so they are going to "not notice you" no matter where you are.

the issues is NOT distracted drivers. because THEY will notice you when you DO things to stay safe.

bandit1990

Sir, your reply makes no sense, and I guess that is why no one has responded to your latest post. "Taking the lane" doesn't condsider vehicle type. Could be a car, could be a bike, could be a horse, could be a Prius (yes that is a car, but I don't consider it to be a car). The point is this: put yourself in the least amount of danger, whether from another vehicle, or whatever. Being seen is important. Clothing is important. Placement on the road is not as important. Why don't you ride on the center stripe, and get back to us with how safe you felt that day?

nerys

that would be because you lack context. IE you did not READ THE THREAD before you replied to a post.

This is shown factually using the evidence in your own reply.

The ONLY way you can say this

Why don't you ride on the center stripe, and get back to us with how safe you felt that day?

in reply to ME is if you did not read the thread. so please read the thread and reply again if you feel the need.

ChrisM2097

For the most part, I take the lane whenever there's no bike lane, or the bike lane is too close to the door zone, or there are hazards (garbage cans, branches, pine needles, broken glass, etc.) in the bike lane. I do this regardless of how many lanes there are, or whether or not there's a shoulder (wide or narrow).

I only started doing this recently. I was tired of getting buzzed. I can deal with ignorant people telling me to move over.

I had 4 of them yell at me on my commute today. One guy yelled "Get in the bike lane"...but there was clearly no bike lane on that stretch of road. There are "sharrows" in the middle of the right lane (2 lanes in each direction). Obviously that guy isn't very observant. He got stuck at the red light up ahead. I pulled up next to him, and he proceeded to hastily make a right turn, nearly hitting others that were coming his way. Maybe I'm a scary looking cyclist?

I'm seriously considering finding a jersey that has this on the back:

agent pombero

On my commute there is a very sharp and fairly long S-curve where I always take the lane. I've nearly died twice on that curve over the years because cars passed dangerously close to me...I take the lane when visibility is low in the bike lanes (which typically don't have any lights around them). I take the lane basically whenever I feel it would put me in optimal view of drivers behind me and or prevent them from passing me in tight spots.

ianbrettcooper

I always take the lane. Here in Maryland, it's always legal to take the lane in the absence of other traffic, if you're going as fast as other traffic, or if you're going at the speed limit. Also, it's legal to take the lane for the sake of safety, and since the center of the lane makes me most visible, it's always the safest place to be. Finally, since virtually no lane is wide enough to safely share with motor vehicles (due to the 3ft safe passing law), the law allows me to take it in that circumstance too.

So there's virtually no circumstance where I'm not allowed to take the lane, and since it's safest, I take the lane at all times unless I feel it's safe to move right to let cars pass.

Besides, no one has the right to a certain speed on the road. They must travel at the speed of the vehicle in front until it's safe to pass.

Chris516

+1!!

Bekologist

actually, ian and chris516, maryland state law requires bicyclists to use bikelanes if safe to do so- you'd be breaking the law if you always take the lane, ian, as well as unnecessarily failing to operate your bicycle under the rules of the road that could in turn recklessly endanger other road users.


Maryland traffic law 21-1205.1

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.




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'.

ChrisM2097

I'm certainly glad these aren't the rules in CA. Out here, the law states that if you're approaching a place where a right-turn is authorized, you don't need to be in the bike lane. That pretty much means that you can legally take the lane almost 100% of the time. I haven't seen any definition, or explanation of this term. Does "approaching" mean within 50'? 500'? 5 miles?

Bekologist

whenever there are indefinite terms used in traffic codes, a 'reasonable man' standard applies.

this 'reasonable man' metric helps bound cyclists lateral lane position under most states traffic laws - except among the bicyclists who have lost all semblance of being reasonable!