Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 68
  1. #26
    Bicikli Huszár sudo bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    My Bikes
    '95 Novara Randonee
    Posts
    2,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    a john forester quote on bicyclists duties to share the road and operate FRAP to facilitate overtaking, in an interview with About.com's David Fiedler on bicycling.



    from the interview with john at about.com
    Are you in high school?

    Seriously, how is this productive at all?
    "The bicycle is the noblest invention of mankind. I love the bicycle. I always have. I can think of no sincere, decent human being, male or female, young or old, saint or sinner, who can resist the bicycle."

    - William Saroyan

  2. #27
    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)
    discussing cycling and cycling advice by a erstwhile respected cycling author?

    is it productive? I don't know. I've been asking john to clarify his interpretation of the laws, when this interview was, used his interpretation to frame an example of slowly moving vehicles sharing the roads like wheelbarrows, horsemen, and bicyclists.

    This thread is a disscussion on john forester the cycling authors interpretation of cyclists duties to facilitate overtaking by operate FRAP like any other slowly driven vehicles.

    I would have expected more cooperation from john, as his statements regarding FRAP, facilitating passing and overtaking are what are framing this thread topic.

    this is a discussion of cyclists duties under law and how a *cough* authority in cycling has recently described cyclists duties to share the road.

    are you in high school, sudobike? do you have anything productive to say about the duties of cyclists to facilitate overtaking?

    Do you understand cyclists have a duty to facilitate overtaking by operating FRAP when safe and that, perhaps most crucially on two lane roads, the duty to facilitate overtaking persists?
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-12-11 at 08:23 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  3. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by akohekohe View Post
    I've been reading this thread and trying to figure out what the different interpretations FRAP and facilitating safely overtaking are between Bek and John F. Bek seems to believe that facilitating safe overtaking ALWAYS involves FRAP and thus FRAP and facilitating safely overtaking are essentially the same thing. John F., on the other hand, asserts they are not the same, which leads me to believe John F.'s position is that it is not ALWAYS necessary to ride FRAP to facilitate safe overtaking and in fact there may be situations in which FRAP does not in fact facilitate safe overtaking but makes it less safe. I'm not trying to put words in either person's mouth here, I'm just saying what I understand to be the assertions of each in this thread so please feel free to politely correct this summary of your positions. So, have I fairly summarized your positions?
    You have accurately summarized my position, without discussing the details of when FRAP facilitates safe overtaking and when it does not. It is also my view that for the great majority of roads the standard slow-moving vehicle law states the position reasonably well for both two-track and single-track vehicles. The exception is the rare case of the single-track vehicle and the outside through lane so wide that it is safe for a two-track vehicle and a single-track vehicle to operate side by side.

    Bek writes that he disagrees with my view, but he also very strongly advocates laws that are based on these engineering facts, which both complicates his argumentation and puzzles us. The difference, as I understand it, is between our concepts of cyclist. This takes some explanation. American traffic law first declares that cyclists have the status of drivers of vehicles. Then it degraded that status by requiring cyclists to ride FRAP, and then to use bikeways that enforce FRAP. However, the engineering facts forced the lawmakers to insert exceptions into both the FRAP and the bikeway laws because pure FRAP wouldn't allow cycling to be done. The American public loves this situation, because it believes that only FRAP is safe and operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is difficult and dangerous. Its belief is so strong that it believes the impossible, that FRAP and bikeways make cycling safe for people who won't obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

    Bek advocates the popular view, praising FRAP and bikeways, presumably because he believes (as so many additional others have stated time after time) that the popular view attracts motorists into taking up bicycle transportation. Vehicular cyclists, such as myself, believe that the whole FRAP and bikeway business, based on supposed cyclist-inferiority with motorist-superiority, is bad for cyclists. "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles."

    There are emotions on both sides. Vehicular cyclists oppose the governmental program of FRAP and bikeways because it provides the legal power to prevent cyclists from obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, with the secondary reason that treating cyclists badly is not likely to increase the amount of cycling done. FRAP and bikeways advocates hate vehicular cyclists because, so they say, vehicular cycling has never attracted motorists into bicycle transportation while, so they say, FRAP and bikeways do so. Vehicular cyclists are upset by governments' actions, but FRAP and bikeways advocates are very strongly emotionally motivated, as we see with Bek, because vehicular cyclists are the only principled opposition to their dream of a great transfer from motoring to bicycle transportation produced by FRAP and bikeways.

  4. #29
    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)
    wow....continued obtuse misstatements about traffic laws, and continued attempts to deny the statutory duty of slowly driven vehicles in most states to FRAP to share two lane roads. "opposing the governmental program of FRAP and bikeways...." NOT related to this discussion.

    Vehicular cyclists oppose the law and the common duty of slowly driven vehicles to FRAP? no wonder the VC camp lacks any credibility - insisting cyclists must break the law to ride bikes like they do

    but wait, reasonableness resides somewhere in that camp, if only they keep their wits about them!

    Quote Originally Posted by cycling author
    The drivers who must comply with the statute are given the choice of lateral position on the roadway, the two options being: "in the right-hand lane for traffic" or "as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb." It is reasonable to conclude that "the right-hand lane for traffic" means that two or more lanes are available for traffic in that direction (if this is not the assumption, the phrase would have no relevance). Therefore, while the cyclist has the choice, he is lawful if occupying the right-hand lane for traffic if there are two or more lanes for traffic in his direction, and is required, on road with only one lane for traffic in his direction, to ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge.
    quite reasonable dontchyathink? any other interpretation would be nonsensical.

    slowly driven, narrow vehicles have the duty to facilitate overtaking. argued for by john forester to the committee that defines the uniform traffic statute standard. john forester, quoted in his book, at his website and in interviews that bicyclists have a duty to facilitate overtaking like other vehicles.

    which are required under SMV-FRAP laws to share two lane roads by operating FRAP.


    Bicyclists, wheelbarrow operators, horsemen, must share two lane roads under every reiteration of states' SMV-FRAP laws to facilitate overtaking. no vehicle EXCEPT bikes have a specific right to lanes too narrow to be safely shared, unlike johns version of the laws of the states.



    its very hilarious that john has ascribed the duties of slowly driven vehicles and bicyclists in his books, but when pressed, offers up unreasonable fantasies about two lane roads having both right hand and left hand lanes for same direction traffic, reprehensible notions that bicyclists would be better off without our specific rights to the road and rank, amateur suffragism that bicyclists have to near constantly break the law to drive a bike like a vehicle!


    ....Bikes, of course have more rights to a full lane than any other slowly driven vehicle under bikes ride frap laws, and bike frap laws provide more legal protections for cyclists. Additionally, bicyclists operating safely right to share two lane roads with faster traffic wishing to overtake expressly DO NOT violate any rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Bicyclists share this duty with other narrow, slowly driven vehicles like wheelbarrow operators or horsemen, but bikes and only bikes have more specific enumerated rights in most states, to lanes not safe to share and other conditions not granted other slowly driven vehicles.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-12-11 at 08:44 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  5. #30
    Bicikli Huszár sudo bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    My Bikes
    '95 Novara Randonee
    Posts
    2,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    are you in high school, sudobike? do you have anything productive to say about the duties of cyclists to facilitate overtaking?
    Yes.

    Do you understand cyclists have a duty to facilitate overtaking by operating FRAP when safe and that, perhaps most crucially on two lane roads, the duty to facilitate overtaking persists?
    According to etiquette as well as 21202, providing safety isn't compromised, yes, of course. According to 21654, no.
    "The bicycle is the noblest invention of mankind. I love the bicycle. I always have. I can think of no sincere, decent human being, male or female, young or old, saint or sinner, who can resist the bicycle."

    - William Saroyan

  6. #31
    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)
    keep in mind that slowly driven vehicles in the state of california are required to operate FRAP on two lane roads, pursuant to CVC 21654.

    CVC 21202 is the more permissive safe sharing law for bicyclists.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  7. #32
    Bicikli Huszár sudo bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    My Bikes
    '95 Novara Randonee
    Posts
    2,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    keep in mind that slowly driven vehicles in the state of california are required to operate FRAP on two lane roads, pursuant to CVC 21654.
    No.

    EDIT: However, I believe they are still required to use turnouts and exit the roadway to allow traffic to pass when there are more than 5 vehicles waiting to pass on a 2 lane road, per 21656, if that's what you mean. As you can see, we have a separate law to facilitate passing on 2 lane highways.

    21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

    Amended Ch. 448, Stats. 1965. Effective September 17, 1965.
    CVC 21202 is the more permissive safe sharing law for bicyclists.
    In practice, probably. (IMO)
    Last edited by sudo bike; 06-13-11 at 07:03 AM.
    "The bicycle is the noblest invention of mankind. I love the bicycle. I always have. I can think of no sincere, decent human being, male or female, young or old, saint or sinner, who can resist the bicycle."

    - William Saroyan

  8. #33
    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)
    You are so adamant in your unreasonable (as per JF, EC p 274) interpretation that two lane roads have both left hand lane and right hand lanes for thru traffic.

    it sounds like you're on a bus being driven by Abbott and Costello.

    21656 applies ONLY on roads passing is otherwise unsafe, after the vehicle has operated FRAP pursuant to CVC 21654 and the vehicle comes up on an improved or otherwise safe spot to turn out to the right out of the travel lane altogther to allow a lineup of vehicles to pass.

    21656 is a turn out to the right-leave the roadway law, far more specific in intent than the general and omnipresent duty along two lane roads of slowly driven vehicles to FRAP to facilitate passing in California.

    a man pushing a wheelbarrow is required to operate FRAP on a two lane road in California, as is a horseman or a bicyclist. none of these slowly driven vehicles has an absolute right to continue in any lateral position along two lane roads in California without due consideration of faster traffic wishing to overtake.

    John Forester, of course, has been quoted in a recent interview in support of this interpretation. bikes (and vehicular cyclists) have a duty to facilitate overtaking.....

    Quote Originally Posted by john forester
    The public should see the vehicular cyclist as simply one more driver on the road, operating like the others. However, the cyclist should understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both drivers.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-13-11 at 09:00 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  9. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    All snipped
    Bek continues with his claim (can't really call it an argument, for there is no supporting factual basis) that the law requires that slow drivers on typical two-lane roads must operate FRAP to facilitate overtaking lest some faster driver approaches. That was always the motorists' argument about bicycle traffic. However, the slow-moving vehicle law requires either use of the right-hand lane available for traffic or FRAP, leaving the choice up to the driver as long as lanes are marked. Engineering consideration, well known to Bek, for he argues for the same consideration, shows that for typical two-lane roads FRAP does not increase the opportunities for safe overtaking more than just using the lane does, because the opportunities for safe overtaking are defined by sight distances and opposite-direction traffic. Therefore, Bek's argument that FRAP is necessary on two-lane roads to facilitate safe overtaking is false.

    Bek's noisy argument that typical lanes of typical two-lane roads are too narrow for safe side-by-side sharing by cyclists and motorists, when applied to the discriminatory anti-cyclist law, conflicts absolutely with his equally noisy argument that this engineering fact does not exist when applied to the slow-moving vehicle law. Engineering facts are engineering facts, no matter which law considers them or is based on them.

  10. #35
    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 didn't say 'all snipped'" can't even rebut??

    john, YOU YOURSELF state in your books what I am describing as cyclists duties to share two lane roads, facilitate passing, and the only reasonable interpretation of 'right hand lane of traffic or frap".

    Quote Originally Posted by cycling author john
    It is reasonable to conclude that "the right-hand lane for traffic" means that two or more lanes are available for traffic in that direction (if this is not the assumption, the phrase would have no relevance).
    if you have left the camp of reasonableness, that is not a sign the camp of reason has shifted boundaries.

    foisting unreasonable, unsupportable and fringe beliefs about bicycling advocacy, that have been previously inferred by erstwhile cycling authorities as unreasonable, IS the very embodiment of unreasonable, radical beliefs extremely unlikely to gain traction in a courtroom.


    Unsupportable, fringe, radical beliefs that are sure to drive bicycling deeper back into the dark ages have no place in 21st century cycling advocacy.

    People that advance such a contrary, shifty version of what they themselves once considered the only rational and commonsense interpretation of traffic laws -as it well is, excepting the drivers of the Abbott and Costello Coach Lines, LTD , seem curious and even slightly treacherous. The arguments have shifted akin to a person selling their home team up the river, making bets against the FC.


    vc=sovereign citizens???? only obeying THEIR version of traffic laws as they apply to bicyclists???
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-14-11 at 09:21 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  11. #36
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    ..... that typical lanes of typical two-lane roads are too narrow for safe side-by-side sharing by cyclists and motorists, when applied to the discriminatory anti-cyclist law, conflicts absolutely ........ that this engineering fact does not exist when applied to the slow-moving vehicle law. Engineering facts are engineering facts, no matter which law considers them or is based on them.
    engineering facts are engineering facts, and there's laws that give cyclists more rights to lanes not safe to share?

    and that's a problem? you think the bike laws discriminate because they allow bicyclists more rights to take the lane. There's a reason for the common bike-specific language about lanes not safe to share in bike specific laws, to give cyclists rights to the lane other slow moving vehicles do not possess.


    good grief. john's gripe about there being differences between the two laws illustrates exactly why there are more permissive bicycle road sharing statutes, to allow bicyclists more rights to take the lane.



    what acrimonious skew.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-14-11 at 06:58 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  12. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    engineering facts are engineering facts, and there's laws that give cyclists more rights to lanes not safe to share?

    and that's a problem? you think the bike laws discriminate because they allow bicyclists more rights to take the lane. There's a reason for the common bike-specific language about lanes not safe to share in bike specific laws, to give cyclists rights to the lane other slow moving vehicles do not possess.

    good grief. john's gripe about there being differences between the two laws illustrates exactly why there are more permissive bicycle road sharing statutes, to allow bicyclists more rights to take the lane.

    what acrimonious skew.
    Bek's argument is that the FRAP law with its exceptions create rights for cyclists that do not exist under the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The FRAP law removes rights, but its exceptions give back more than is taken. Bek has presented this argument without any legal support and with only his own dramatic verbal argument. The right that Bek claims to be created for the cyclist, over and above the rights granted by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, by the FRAP exceptions, is the right to occupy the full width of a lane that is too narrow to share. However, this right exists in the standard rules; drivers of vehicles are assumed to occupy a lane, where lanes are marked. The only exception is the FRAP law, which holds that cyclists are not entitled to occupy a lane, but to use only the practicable right-hand edge of the right-hand lane and become second-class road users. Think about it: no FRAP law means no FRAP legal requirement.

    Bek claims that the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles generally require cyclists to ride FRAP. The law that he so claims is the California slow-moving vehicle law (CVC 21654) , which requires drivers moving slowly to use "the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge." Obviously, on roads which have no lanes the FRAP requirement applies; these are low-traffic, low-speed residential urban roads and a few very low-traffic rural roads. These really are not significant when considering general traffic operations. Bek claims that two-lane roads do not possess a "right-lane for traffic", and, therefore, that CVC 21654 requires cyclists on two-lane roads to ride FRAP. The definition of a laned roadway includes two-lane roadways "A road is a "laned roadway" when it is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic. (UVC 1-133)" Obviously, when looking or traveling along the roadway, one lane is the right-hand lane and the other is the left-hand lane. Without a shred of evidence, Bek claims that this is not so, that only multi-lane roads can have a right-hand lane.

    Bek's claim that two-lane roads do not have a right-hand lane enables him to argue that the CVC 21654 requires cyclists to always ride FRAP on two-lane roads (we are ignoring the few two-lane roads with wide lanes) while the exceptions to the FRAP law allow cyclists to occupy the right-hand lane. Bek's argument depends completely on the claim that two-lane roads do not have right-hand lanes, which is, I offer, rather absurd. It is not in keeping with the words themselves, while it would have been easy to use the appropriate phrasing if Bek's limited definition had been intended.

    In short, Bek's defends the FRAP law, which was created by motorists, and also the bikeways which were created by motorists to enforce FRAP. Throughout, his defenses are no more than saying that what the motorists created for bicycle traffic is wonderful for cyclists. In short, no substantive evidence, only praise for governments' carrying out of motorists' desires. Oh, yes, the general public has the same beliefs in these matters as do motorists, if for no other reason than that most of the voting public are also motorists. The only opposition comes from those cyclists who have discovered that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles."

    That's not the total explanation. Bek is obviously one of those who believe that doing what the public desires about bicycle transportation is the most effective way to persuade motorists to take up bicycle transportation. Therefore, opposing the public desire about bicycle transportation is expressing opposition to the powerfully emotional dream of converting from an automobile-dominated system to a bicycle-dominated system. That's why Bek, and others of similar opinion, are so strongly opposed to cyclists claiming their rights as drivers of vehicles by working for repeal of the FRAP and bikeway laws.

  13. #38
    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)
    john, your new fangled, fringe interpretation has no legal backing, lacks common sense, is unreasonable, and fails to provide any compelling argument. Stop bluffing, stop fighting to restrict cyclists with your flawed ideas about SMV-FRAP laws.

    Any notion that two lane roads have both right hand lanes and left hand lanes for same direction traffic is absolutely nonsensical.

    "THERE'S A BUS COMING RIGHT AT US IN THE LEFT LANE, LOU!" comes to mind in a skit involving Abbott and Costello.


    Quote Originally Posted by erstwhile cycling author
    It is reasonable to conclude that "the right-hand lane for traffic" means that two or more lanes are available for traffic in that direction (if this is not the assumption, the phrase would have no relevance).
    suggestions to the contrary are wholly unreasonable and irrelevant.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-14-11 at 08:36 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  14. #39
    Bicikli Huszár sudo bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    My Bikes
    '95 Novara Randonee
    Posts
    2,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    You are so adamant in your unreasonable (as per JF, EC p 274) interpretation that two lane roads have both left hand lane and right hand lanes for thru traffic.
    Prove otherwise.

    it sounds like you're on a bus being driven by Abbott and Costello.


    21656 applies ONLY on roads passing is otherwise unsafe, after the vehicle has operated FRAP pursuant to CVC 21654 and the vehicle comes up on an improved or otherwise safe spot to turn out to the right out of the travel lane altogther to allow a lineup of vehicles to pass.
    Exactly. So if a bicycle is riding in the center of the rightmost thru lane per 21654, and there is no way for a car to safely pass, the cyclist is legally obligated to exit the roadway (or assume the voluntary FRAP position to create a safe passing situation, if possible) when more than 5 cars are waiting to pass.

    As I said, we already have a law that ensures safe, cooperative passing on 2 lane highways. So yes, cyclists do have a statutory obligation to facilitate passing, via 21654 (use right lane where available) and 21656 (leave the roadway to allow passing when safe, if there is no other way for a car to safely pass) even without considering 21202.

    a man pushing a wheelbarrow is required to operate FRAP on a two lane road in California,
    I'm pretty sure a man pushing a wheelbarrow is a pedestrian, and has different applicable laws.

    as is a horseman or a bicyclist. none of these slowly driven vehicles has an absolute right to continue in any lateral position along two lane roads in California without due consideration of faster traffic wishing to overtake.
    Correct, due to 21202. If that did not exist, then yes, they would still have to give consideration via 21656, unless they chose to ride FRAP and that created a safe passing situation. Pretty easy stuff.
    "The bicycle is the noblest invention of mankind. I love the bicycle. I always have. I can think of no sincere, decent human being, male or female, young or old, saint or sinner, who can resist the bicycle."

    - William Saroyan

  15. #40
    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)
    that, sudo bike, is so much muddled reasoning I'm not even going to break it down other than to say you've made numerous logical errors in your claims just above.

    as examples, horsemen are not regulated by CVC 21202, cyclists have duties underCVC 21202, not 21654. and now it's "voluntary FRAP" for slow moving vehicles????

    don't let reality hold that unabashed sophistry back, young man!


    there is no need for me to PROVE the commonsense, the only rational conclusion to be drawn, and regulated by state traffic statute, about vehicles being required to operate on the right half of roads except when passing, so there are no 'left hand lanes' on the half of the road generally reserved for opposing traffic.

    Claims to the contrary are ludicrous fatuity.

    you and john have the burden to prove otherwise.

    Sophistry and semantics, even more egregious and brazen, in light of john himself having ascribed in print the only reasonable conclusion, do not prove the contrary.

    out to lunch, left the camp of reason, into fringe, unsupported and wacky bluffs.

    "THERE'S A BUS COMING DIRECTLY TOWARDS US IN THE LEFT LANE, LOU!!!!"

    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-15-11 at 07:05 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  16. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    john, your new fangled, fringe interpretation has no legal backing, lacks common sense, is unreasonable, and fails to provide any compelling argument. Stop bluffing, stop fighting to restrict cyclists with your flawed ideas about SMV-FRAP laws.

    Any notion that two lane roads have both right hand lanes and left hand lanes for same direction traffic is absolutely nonsensical.

    "THERE'S A BUS COMING RIGHT AT US IN THE LEFT LANE, LOU!" comes to mind in a skit involving Abbott and Costello.


    suggestions to the contrary are wholly unreasonable and irrelevant.
    Bek, you are misstating the slow-moving vehicle statute, which does not say that it limits itself to roads with two or more lanes for same direction traffic. It simply says right-hand lane available for traffic.

    Bek, you are arguing that the SMV law requires, on two-lane roads, that the only overtaking that is allowed is that which takes place using only the right-hand lane, made possible by having the slower vehicle proceeed FRAP. That's your argument, when analyzed. This is obviously impossible for most vehicles. It is generally dangerous when the slower vehicle is a bicycle, because most two-lane roads do not have lanes sufficiently wide for safe side-by-side sharing.

    The law specifically permits, even expects, the use of the left-hand lane for overtaking. Therefore, the law specifically considers both lanes of a two-lane highway to be available for traffic in one direction. The limitation is that the right-hand lane may be used at all times, while the left-hand lane may be used only for certain purposes, one of them being overtaking when conditions make that safe.

    Bek has persisted for months, years, in presenting such obviously defective arguments for supporting the governments' major actions regarding bicycle traffic, these being cyclist-restricting traffic laws and bikeways. His arguments have boiled down to arguing that these must be right because governments' have done them. Bek has never presented evidence of actual prevention of car-bike collisions or greater traveling convenience for cyclists (although a few facilities do provide some).

    One can only conclude that Bek expends all his effort and volubility for the purpose of defending the seventy-year-old (or more) American view of cyclists as second-class roadway users who are unable to operate as drivers of vehicles and therefore need motorist-created bikeways. Bek is one of those who believe that this American system of bicycle traffic will persuade many motorists to switch a large proportion of trips from motor to bicycle transport, while vehicular cycling will not do so. After all, this has been their publiv argument for decades; they can hardly deny that. What's the evidence. While vehicular cycling has never been governmental or societal policy, but rather an underground activity, it is correct that it hasn't produced a big switch from motor to bicycle transport. On the other side, the cyclist-inferiority view has been American governmental and societal policy for seventy years or more, and bikeways have been American governmental and societal policy for thirty-five years, and in this time, with all the governmental and societal forces behind them, they haven't produced that switch either.

  17. #42
    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)
    "THERE'S A BUS HEADING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THE LEFT HAND LANE, LOU!!!!"

    Two lane roads do not have left hand lanes for traffic, pursuant to 'drive on right half of highway' laws common to all states.

    Such aggrandizing fatuity to continue to claim the contrary.

    regardless, john....this thread is about a quote of yours about bicyclists facilitating passing when safe.

    Quote Originally Posted by john forester
    However, the cyclist should understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both drivers.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-15-11 at 09:07 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  18. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    "THERE'S A BUS HEADING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THE LEFT HAND LANE, LOU!!!!"

    Two lane roads do not have left hand lanes for traffic, pursuant to 'drive on right half of highway' laws common to all states.

    Such aggrandizing fatuity to continue to claim the contrary.

    regardless, john....this thread is about a quote of yours about bicyclists facilitating passing when safe.
    Originally Posted by john forester
    However, the cyclist should understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both drivers.
    I stand by that statement. But Bek keeps complaining about it. Well, Bek, what is your complaint about it? Please inform us of the reason for your discontent.

  19. #44
    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 discontent, i'm using your quote to illustrate cyclists duties under law. what is YOUR complaint?

    some of my disagreement is with you misstating traffic laws with wildly unsupportable claims that slowly driven vehicles have no duty to share two lane roads operating FRAP and that FRAP only applies on unlaned roads for slowly driven vehicles. There are NO 'left hand lanes' on two lane roads, arguments suggesting this are fatuous.

    How would a man on a horse share a two lane, 60mph highway? How would a bicyclist?

    Both would by operating as far to the right as is practicable, to safely share the road.

    i agree that john describes cyclists duties to FRAP on roads when safe.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-15-11 at 09:43 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  20. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    i'm not discontent, i'm using your quote to illustrate cyclists duties under law. what is YOUR complaint?

    some of my disagreement is with you misstating traffic laws with wildly unsupportable claims that slowly driven vehicles have no duty to share two lane roads operating FRAP and that FRAP only applies on unlaned roads for slowly driven vehicles. There are NO 'left hand lanes' on two lane roads, arguments suggesting this are fatuous.

    How would a man on a horse share a two lane, 60mph highway? How would a bicyclist?

    Both would by operating as far to the right as is practicable, to safely share the road.

    i agree that john describes cyclists duties to FRAP on roads when safe.
    The point that Bek keeps trying to avoid saying, that is except when he wants to say it, is that operating FRAP may, or may not, facilitate safe overtaking, and that there are more roads, and more significant roads, on which FRAP does not facilitate safe overtaking than which do. Bek keeps making the motorists' argument, that is except when he opposes it, that FRAP is a wonderful way of ensuring that motorists have every possible chance for overtaking, whether it be dangerous or safe. That's what motorists want to produce, with both FRAP laws and bikeways, because they can't be bothered to think about the engineering facts of overtaking.

  21. #46
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by john forester
    .....operating FRAP may, or may not, facilitate safe overtaking, and that there are more roads, and more significant roads, on which FRAP does not facilitate safe overtaking than which do....

    john, that's right, that's FRAP, buddy. that's the very nature of practicability you have mentioned to me before you wouldn't be able explain in a courtroom.

    and that's why BIKES FRAP laws allow cyclists in most states to expressly take lanes too narrow to be safely shared.

    Since this difficulty on definitions seems to persist, of an inability to adequately explain FRAP, perhaps helping the public understand their rights and responsibilities about this biking stuff should just be left to people that can.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  22. #47
    Bicikli Huszár sudo bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    My Bikes
    '95 Novara Randonee
    Posts
    2,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    that, sudo bike, is so much muddled reasoning I'm not even going to break it down other than to say you've made numerous logical errors in your claims just above.
    Shocking. Bek, sidestepping? Whodathunkit.

    as examples, horsemen are not regulated by CVC 21202, cyclists have duties underCVC 21202, not 21654.
    And?

    and now it's "voluntary FRAP" for slow moving vehicles????
    For cyclists? Because of 21202, no, it isn't voluntary. Under 21654? Only inasmuch as you must use the right lane...

    don't let reality hold that unabashed sophistry back, young man!
    I find this especially amusing in light of the context of your post.

    there is no need for me to PROVE the commonsense, [snip]
    And thus goes your credibility.

    Claims to the contrary are ludicrous fatuity.
    Again, shocking.

    you and john have the burden to prove otherwise.
    You've made the claim that cyclists have a statutory duty to ride FRAP under 21654. You have the burden of proof.

    Sophistry and semantics, even more egregious and brazen, in light of john himself having ascribed in print the only reasonable conclusion, do not prove the contrary.
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    out to lunch, left the camp of reason, into fringe, unsupported and wacky bluffs.
    More ad hominem. Par for the course.

    "THERE'S A BUS COMING DIRECTLY TOWARDS US IN THE LEFT LANE, LOU!!!!"
    ???
    "The bicycle is the noblest invention of mankind. I love the bicycle. I always have. I can think of no sincere, decent human being, male or female, young or old, saint or sinner, who can resist the bicycle."

    - William Saroyan

  23. #48
    Bicikli Huszár sudo bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    My Bikes
    '95 Novara Randonee
    Posts
    2,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    The law specifically permits, even expects, the use of the left-hand lane for overtaking. Therefore, the law specifically considers both lanes of a two-lane highway to be available for traffic in one direction. The limitation is that the right-hand lane may be used at all times, while the left-hand lane may be used only for certain purposes, one of them being overtaking when conditions make that safe.
    Exactly.

    Even in common vernacular, what do we call a country highway with one lane each direction? A 2-lane highway. Which would make them left and right respectively. QED.
    "The bicycle is the noblest invention of mankind. I love the bicycle. I always have. I can think of no sincere, decent human being, male or female, young or old, saint or sinner, who can resist the bicycle."

    - William Saroyan

  24. #49
    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)
    a single lane each direction gets you a right hand and a left hand lane?

    a wildly unsupportable, unreasonable notion about two lane roads.

    john himself even thought it significant enough to call that notion unreasonable in in his cycling books.

    "THERE'S A BUS COMING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THIS LEFT LANE OF TRAFFIC, LOU!!"

    All states have "right half of roadway" laws, which predicate the other half of the road as authorized for oncoming traffic, providing a single lane in each direction on two lane roads.

    There are no right hand lanes for slower vehicles to occupy while faster traffic proceeds in the 'left hand' lane on a two lane road. that would be considered passing in the oncoming traffic lane, crossing into the half of the road authorized for opposite direction traffic, and which is allowed for use only for passing and expressly provided for under the same right half of road laws which, amazingly also requires slow vehicles operate to the right to facilitate overtaking.

    Suggestions to the contrary would get laughed out of any courtroom.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-16-11 at 12:08 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  25. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    a single lane each direction gets you a right hand and a left hand lane?

    a wildly unsupportable, unreasonable notion about two lane roads.

    john himself even thought it significant enough to call that notion unreasonable in in his cycling books.

    "THERE'S A BUS COMING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THIS LEFT LANE OF TRAFFIC, LOU!!"

    All states have "right half of roadway" laws, which predicate the other half of the road as authorized for oncoming traffic, providing a single lane in each direction on two lane roads.

    There are no right hand lanes for slower vehicles to occupy while faster traffic proceeds in the 'left hand' lane on a two lane road. that would be considered passing in the oncoming traffic lane, crossing into the half of the road authorized for opposite direction traffic, and which is allowed for use only for passing and expressly provided for under the same right half of road laws which, amazingly also requires slow vehicles operate to the right to facilitate overtaking.

    Suggestions to the contrary would get laughed out of any courtroom.
    Bek now claims that in my cycling books I have written that two-lane roads have only one lane, or at least do not have a right-hand and a left-hand lane. Bek, that's a great big flaming lie. Indeed, Bek, until your introduced your most peculiar argument, there was no reason for any one else to spend the effort to work out the number of lanes in a two-lane roadway.

    Bek now produces another peculiar argument, saying that, on a two-lane road, the left-hand lane is not to be used by faster traffic to pass slower traffic, but is only to be used by faster traffic to overtake slower traffic. Well, passing and overtaking are two words for the same act.

    Bek has got into this absurd argumentation because he wants to prove, by some kind of semantic manipulation, that the typical slow-moving vehicle law, which requires use of the right-hand lane available for traffic or the FRAP position, prohibits normal use of the right-hand lane of a two-lane road and requires FRAP only.

    In short, Bek is expending his time and effort to vigorously and vociferously advocate the motorist-superiority view that cyclists are an inferior class of road users whose prime duty is to clear the way for the real traffic.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •