Bekologist

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

Brontide

1) I don't think he has stated otherwise.

2) having a duty/obligation as a road user and having a statutory duty are different.

3) did we need another thread to post this?

Bekologist

WELL, this is a different topic.

this is a statement of cyclists duties to share the road to facilitate overtaking, from one of the founding fathers of vehicular cycling, and an appropriate topic in and of itself.

maybe it could also be referred to at the other thread as well.

John Forester

Beck has again tried to make bricks without straw by quoting only the first part of the paragraph fully quoted below.


"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. That is not a duty to cringe out of the way regardless of danger or inconvenience to the cyclist, but a duty to move right only when it is safe to do so and is in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles."

Notice that I say "in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" and that I don't mention "as far right as practicable". Providing more details for my statement results in the following. On roads with typical lanes, occupy the right-hand through lane; on roads without any lane line stay as far right as practicable unless other considerations apply; on roads with an outside lane wide enough to share, stay as far right as practicable unless other considerations apply. These recommendations are in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Bekologist

Bicyclists, absolutely, have a duty to share the road, by riding FRAP safely to facilitate passing and that is in accordance with the rules of the road that govern vehicle operation, in all 50 states.

Absolutely, john.


Its entirely unreasonable to think bicyclists wouldn't have to ride as far right as practicable on laned roads, to be perfectly honest, john, if the duties of cyclists are, like you state, are to share the road and facilitate passing when safe.

you've also stated vehicles have to operate as far right as practicable on two lane roads in california

and that's exactly what's required of bicyclists, to share the road safely by operating FRAP, like other slowly driven, narrow vehicles. A man on a horse must also share a two lane road, similar to a bicyclist, with a duty to facilitate overtaking by operating FRAP, in accordance with the laws regulating slow moving vehicle operation in all 50 states.


it's a duty vehicles have when slowly driven. even more so when narrow and slowly driven, as it is easier to facilitate that safe passing we demand as road users.

John Forester

Yes, I made a mistake, just like Bek's. But once I worked out the traffic engineering aspects together with the actual words of the slow vehicle statute in the historical context in which it was written, I realized that Bek's view that cyclists on two-lane roads with typical lane width must ride FRAP did not facilitate safe overtaking, but encouraged unsafe overtaking into the face of opposite-direction traffic. The critical difference for us concerns the specific conditions under which the width or narrowness of the slow vehicle actually facilitates safe overtaking, and the answer is that narrowness facilitates safe overtaking only when the outside through lane is wide, which is the atypical condition. With typical conditions the width or narrowness of the slower vehicle has no effect on the safe overtaking opportunities. Motorists haven't had to think this matter through; they find it easiest, and conforms to their idea that cyclists don't have traffic skills, to just tell us to ride FRAP and let them work out when it is safe. Which we have had plenty of evidence of, they don't understand.

I think that Bek should mature his understanding, but that would require that he grow out of his popular attitude of subservience to motorists, apparently done for political ideological motives. It is clear that Bek, currently, doesn't want motorists to think that cyclists are getting uppity.

Brontide

Whoa there. Just because a vehicle is narrow and/or slow does not mean it is easier to facilitate overtaking on roads where split operation is unsafe. If split operation is safe there is no reason to be blocking overtaking traffic.

Doohickie

Ah, so ol' John believes in common sense, eh?

Share the road is a two-way street, folks.

Bekologist

'bek's view'? 'getting uppity?'

John, its YOUR interview. YOU state bikes should ride FRAP to facilitate overtaking when safe for both drivers. when was that interview, by the way?


The entirely rational reasoning that when it is unsafe for bikes and cars to share lanes, bikes should be allowed to take the lane for safety is what led to BIKES-FRAP protections in states like california, which recognized the value in adding cyclist specific protections so cyclists would not be endangered to share roads unsafely, under SMV-FRAP law, which predicates FRAP without allowance for lane width.


arguing that slowly driven vehicles can't, shouldn't facilitate safe overtaking on two lane roads by operating FRAP, and have no obligation to share two lane roads?

what in the world???? contrary to all obligations spelled out under the law.

John Forester

Bek, you are lying by selective and partial quotation when you discuss my interview. You are both omitting consideration of the conditions that make overtaking safe and the compliance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It doesn't matter when that interview took place, I stand by my full statement that I provided a few posts ago.

When Beck argues about the motivation for the modern version of the cyclist FRAP law, created by a governmental highway committee on which I was the only cyclist representative, he is also inaccurate, because he wasn't there and his supposed motivation is contrary to the historical record. The exceptions to both the cyclist FRAP law (CVC 21202) and the mandatory-bike-lane law (CVC 21208) were not created to protect cyclists from the evil effects of the cyclist FRAP law. If that were desired, the obvious way to protect cyclists from the cyclist FRAP law would be to repeal that law, which is what I was arguing for when I still believed that the purpose of the committee was to benefit cyclists by rationalizing the law for bicycle traffic. Of course, the actions of the committee convinced me, along with documentary evidence that I discovered, that the purpose of the committee was to restrict cyclists as much as possible by forcing them to operate in the cyclist-inferiority manner both on normal roads and where bike lanes and side paths would be created. Bek argues as if this were not both accurate and long on the historical record. That makes his argument either one from ignorance or, if he is not as ignorant as he might claim, by lying.

The exceptions in both the cyclist FRAP law and the bike-lane law were created to preserve the laws based on the principle that cyclists should be subservient to motorists. I repeat: the proper way to save cyclists from the legal jeopardy created by cyclist FRAP and bike-lane laws is to not have those laws in the first place. One would think that Bek was sufficiently intelligent to understand that.

Therefore, Bek is reduced to trying to argue that the standard slow-moving vehicle law (CVC 21654), which gives cyclists the right to use the outside through lane, is more restrictive than the cyclist FRAP law which is based on the principle that cyclists should ride FRAP unless certain conditions are met. Of course, nobody would accept that argument as stated, so Bek has to argue, without substantiation, that the slow-moving vehicle law provides that right only on multi-lane roads. That's the pickle into which Bek's ideological dogma has forced him. He really should be questioning his own ideological dogma, whatever it may happen to be.

Bekologist

I'm not omitting anything about safe overtaking.

Again, John -

you've stated in several media over several decades that bicyclists should share the road by operating FRAP.

its' in your book, you mention it in your interviews.

When was that interview with David Fiedler when you stated that, and I'm quoting now

how would a man on a horse share a two lane, 60 mph highway, john? no obligation to operate FRAP safely to facilitate overtaking?

john forester has long argued the duties of slowly driven vehicles are to be operate FRAP to facilitate overtaking, that bicyclists have the obligation as slowly driven vehicles to follow the laws and that includes the duty to ride FRAP to facilitate overtaking, according the the rules of the road in all 50 states, wether specifically enumerated for bicyclists or not.

and a position a man on a horse or a bicyclist should facilitate overtaking on a two lane road does not contradict those rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Indeed, it is reasonable to conclude this is an expected behavior, and could be argued that failure to consider safe overtaking could make a rider become reckless in a deliberate disregard for others reasonable expectations.

So, John, when was that interview with David Fiedler?

John Forester

Bek, perhaps an interview with a journalist would be a big event for you, something you would remember, but it is not so for me. If the time is convenient when telephoned, I answer the questions without making a big even of it, without entering the year, month, day, hour, and minute in a record of my activities. I suspect that Fiedler, since his business appears to be interviews, has an accurate record; why don't you ask him?

And, Bek, you have again deliberately lied about my statements by making a partial and selective quotation. I the management of this forum were paying attention and doing the duty that they say they accept, they would banish you for repeated lying.

Bek, you now argue that my position involves "failure to consider safe overtaking". That's another lie. I explicitly consider the conditions under which cyclist lateral position facilitates safe overtaking, and I recommend that the cyclist ride FRAP only when that position is required to make safe overtaking possible and not when that position does not provide that facilitation.

And Bek lies again by stating my position as being simply "to follow the laws". He knows full well, because he has argued plentifully about this subject, that my position is that cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, a class of laws that does not include the rules for riders of bicycles. The rules for riders of bicycles were created, and revised, by motorists to suit their idea that cyclists should always operate FRAP regardless of other laws and of safety. That historic fact ought to be sufficient for cyclists to suspect error, even though Bek doesn't have that suspicion.

Bekologist

john perhaps doesn't realize that when he's describing the act of operating a vehicle as far right as is practicable. operating safely right, taking or sharing the lane as is necessary to facilitate overtaking only when safe, IS FRAP.



Vehicles operating only as far to the right as is safe, and not one inch further, and having this position vary depending on traffic and road conditions, is the very embodiment of FRAP.

John is endorsing the very same traffic concept of FRAP for bicycles, when he acridly restates his belief that cyclists ride safely right, to faciltate overtaking, by
FRAP, john. you are describing operating FRAP, like you have long claimed, in your books and interviews, that cyclists have a duty, to facilitate overtaking.


no wonder this EC stuff has lost all relevance -

who's going to buy into such a far afield theory about traffic laws, that insiststs bicyclists must break the law?

I think John may be confused, if he's making claims bicyclists should facilitate overtaking, but also making contradictory and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary.

Facilitating overtaking safely by bicyclists and other slowly moving vehicles has been a long standing and reasonable aspect of traffic laws.

john forester has written about in his books and commented upon bicyclists having the duty to facilitate overtaking, by operating as far to the right as is practicable, in recent interviews.

Bekologist

Woah, there brontide. You are the only one introducing UN-SAFE passing into the equation.

nowhere does riding FRAP mean a cyclist compromise their safety. didn't we go discuss this already-

if it isn't safe, it isn't practicable.

Brontide

Contradictions. It is only easier for a narrow vehicle to facilitate overtaking if you compromise it's safety, that is a fact. Lets go over the two scenarios here.

1) The lane is wide enough to allow split travel: The narrow vehicle is not blocking traffic in the first place. So there is not easier or harder, the bike isn't blocking the normal flow of traffic in the first place.

2) The lane is not wide enough to split: The narrow vehicle must ride far enough left to force a lane change in overtaking traffic. In this case the bike can *not* facilitate overtaking without compromising their safety.

I really don't know why I bother; you will no doubt ignore the substance to this post and just end up saying something that is completely divergent to my point, probably contradicting yourself again.

Bekologist

wrong. Safety is NOT compromised by operating safely right.

there is widespread duty to safely operate as far to the right as practicable to allow smooth, partial lane passes of narrow, slowly driven vehicles.

like a man on a horse, a vehicle slowly driven does not have an absolute claim to any position on a two lane road; that vehicle operator must operate as far to the right as is safe to facilitate passing.

Bicyclists, a man on a horseback, and a man pushing a wheelbarrow all have a duty to not unnecessarily endanger traffic wishing to overtake, by operating as far to the right as is safe on two lane roads.

a man with a wheelbarrow, a man on a horse, and a man on a bike are all not allowed to unecessarily take to the center of a 60mph, two lane rural highway and not move right to benefit faster traffic.

suggestions these vehicles have no duty to faciltate passing on a two lane road is an absurd notion.

NOW, only bicyclists commonly have a statutory and explicit exception to take lanes too narrow to share; bicyclists and bicyclists alone have the right to take a lane too narrow to share safely.fighting to remove cyclists specific rights to take lanes too narrow to be safely shared is a fight to restrict cyclists rights.

absent those explicit statutory allowances, bicyclists do not have the explicit right to avoid right turns, substandard lane width, etc.

bicyclists must frap, there is no unsafe operation implied in frap. its as if you and john think practicable means possible, which it doesn't.

this is a long standing and commonly held duty of slowly driven vehicles, wether specifically enumerated for bikes or general traffic. but only bikes have many exceptions under law for full lane use as a narrow, slowly driven vehicle.

AND LIKE JOHN SAID, in a recent interview,

facilitating overtaking when safe is synonymous with operating FRAP.

.

Brontide

Contradiction, you keep wanting to have it both ways. The center of the lane is absolutely the proper place for a cyclist absent a bike lane or wide enough lane to split. Moving further right only endangers the cyclist from drivers who pass too close. The only safe way to pass the cyclist is to leave the travel lane when passing and the center line is FRAP and is safe for both the cyclist and the overtaking vehicle.

googling for "partial lane passing" only seems to hit your posts. Either you can pass side-by-side safely or the overtaking vehicle has to leave the travel lane, the law does not recognize this partial pass of which you speak. Do you have any legal documentation for this "partial passing"?

Bekologist

legal documentation on the long standing, common and statutory duties of vehicles to operate as far to the right as practicable to facilitate overtaking, you mean?

hilarious bluff.

here's what the California DMV says about bicycling and passing.

of course, in california cyclists specifically have the right to substandard lanes. in North Carolina, a state with no bikes frap law, bicyclists entertain no such allowances.

John Forester

Bek is mixing together the concept of as far right as practicable and the concept of facilitating safe overtaking; these are not the same thing at all. Mixing together? I say deliberately mixing these together to suit his ideology that cycling ought to be considered popular with the motoring public. Anyway, the word practicable, either in its common meaning or as it is used in traffic law, pertains only to the practicality of doing something considering safety and difficulty and reasonability for the person doing that something. Therefore, in traffic law, it is based on the smoothness of road surface, ability to see hazards ahead, interference by other beings, strength required, and such conditions. It has never been connected to how others see that operation or how it may, or may not, interfere with their operation.

Facilitating overtaking is entirely different; it is directed entirely at the operation of others, not directly at the operation of the facilitator. Furthermore, our discussions consider only facilitating overtaking that is done in a safe and lawful manner. Facilitating safe overtaking has nothing directly to do with the condition of the road surface for bicycling. Safe overtaking involves variables such as speeds, traffic density, number of lanes, width of outside lane, sight distances, none of which are part of practicable.

It is only by confusing the reader through mixing these two different concepts that Bek is enabled to present his false picture of my position regarding the overtaking issue.

Bekologist

not the same at all???

John, don't try to deny it,

you yourself argued to the NUCTLO, the national committee that sets traffic laws, that the SMV-FRAP law was to facilitate overtaking!

so, john foresters' mind at one time too, saw the connection between facilitating overtaking and duties of slowly driven vehicles to FRAP..


Such shifting sophistry to attempt to deny what one has argued in the past!!!

John Forester

Yes, indeed, I argued that the purpose of the cyclist FRAP laws was not to make cycling safe, as was commonly being broadcast, and still is the common superstition, but the purpose of these laws was to facilitate safe overtaking. I still say so, because that is true.

You, Bek, are arguing the motorists' position that to start out by requiring cyclists to ride FRAP, unless some other law applies, is so much easier and provides a subservient cycling population that makes motoring more convenient. The problem with that motorists' argument, and with your thoughts, Bek, is that not every example of FRAP facilitates safe overtaking. In some cases it does, but in other cases it does not, and the vehicular cycling position takes account of that difference. I can't help it, Bek, if your ideology so blinds you to this rather obvious fact of traffic operation.

Bekologist

John forester promoted to the NUCTLO that the general SMV-FRAP law was to facilitate overtaking.

.......certainly under these general SMV-FRAP laws, john also would consider cyclists duties to facilitate overtaking and operate FRAP when slowly driven, as he has stated in numerous media and in his books and interviews. and in this thread just above.

why the argument?

Cyclists should ride safely right to facilitate overtaking, as you stated in an interview with David Fiedler.

that is, to operate as far to the right as is practicable so as to facilitate overtaking by faster vehicles. just like other vehicles, as a man on a horse or pushing a wheelbarrow should not unthinkingly take a position far to the left of a lane unless he must for his safety on a two lane road, but should operate to the right, as far to the right as practicable.

Wheelbarrow operators, horsemen and bicyclists all have a long standing, common duty as well as a statutory one, to operate as far to the right as practicable - most crucially on two lane roads and commonly accepted in what I would believe to be all American jurisdictions - to facilitate overtaking. This is also codified in the language of the UVC and most state vehicle codes.

akohekohe

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?

Bekologist

No, i doubt you understand my position. This thread isn't about my position.

This thread is about a quote from an author on biking about cyclists, being slow and narrow, needing to facilitate overtaking like other slow moving narrow vehicles.

The thread is about that quote, and the force of law regarding bicyclists or other slowly driven, narrow vehicles and the duties to operate as far to the right as practicable to facilitate overtaking, by operating as far to the right as is safe in the presence of faster traffic wishing to overtake.

For example, horsemen or wheelbarrow operators, or bicyclists.

I feel FRAP includes a far left position of even a wide lane if needed for a cyclists safety. So, if you didn't think I considered this, you may not understand my position on traffic law.

this thread is about JOHN's - the cycling *ahem* "authority's"- stated, quoted and published position on road sharing duties by bicyclists, and how it meshes with traffic law. Not mine.

akohekohe

Well, if that is the case then it seems the purpose of this thread, as you see it, is to denigrate John F. while completely ignoring what he has to say in response. A thread with a purpose like that can't possibly lead to any meaningful discussion, so I won't be checking the thread further since it would be a waste of my time. To John F.: this person Bek is behaving like a troll and seems to be completely uninterested in rational dialog. I would stop responding to anything he posts since dialog with Bek seems to be a complete waste of time.