Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 120
  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    ?

    Slow moving motorized vehicles aren't common enough to increase any sort of "political base".

    I'd guess that there are many more bicyclists than slow moving motor vehicles.
    No? Would you risk applying the anti-cyclist bias in enforcement to the operators of slow-moving vehicles? These people do have political power because their livelihoods depend on their machines.

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    njkayaker argues: "Whether provided by custom or the law, FRAP for bicycles is necessary to be able to accommodate cars and bicycles on the same roads "fairly". This is exactly analogous to laws regarding other kinds of slow moving vehicles."

    This is not so. Sometimes FRAP by cyclists does allow safe overtaking that would not be possible if the cyclist were simply occupying the lane, but this is unusual situation because most lanes are insufficiently wide for safe overtaking within that lane. If the overtaking motorist must occupy some width of the adjacent lane, then he is allowed to do so only when no traffic is approaching so close as to constitute a danger, which means that his opportunities are limited to the same extent whatever may be the cyclist's lateral position.

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,423
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    njkayaker argues: "Whether provided by custom or the law, FRAP for bicycles is necessary to be able to accommodate cars and bicycles on the same roads "fairly". This is exactly analogous to laws regarding other kinds of slow moving vehicles."

    This is not so. Sometimes FRAP by cyclists does allow safe overtaking that would not be possible if the cyclist were simply occupying the lane, but this is unusual situation because most lanes are insufficiently wide for safe overtaking within that lane. If the overtaking motorist must occupy some width of the adjacent lane, then he is allowed to do so only when no traffic is approaching so close as to constitute a danger, which means that his opportunities are limited to the same extent whatever may be the cyclist's lateral position.
    1) FRAP is not required for lanes that are not wide enough.
    2) There is no requirement to pass within the same lane.
    3) Safe passing is required in all cases (with or without FRAP).

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,423
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    No? Would you risk applying the anti-cyclist bias in enforcement to the operators of slow-moving vehicles? These people do have political power because their livelihoods depend on their machines.
    The anti-cycling bias isn't going to magically disappear with having one set of laws applying to both classes of vehicles. It doesn't seem that bicyclists in NC (where there no bicycle-specific FRAP law) has any less anti-cycling bias than states with FRAP laws.

    What would make anybody expect that they would use their political power to back bicyclists?

    One might think that they would display the same or more anti-cycling bias that the average motorist does!
    Last edited by njkayaker; 06-22-11 at 02:41 PM.

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    1) FRAP is not required for lanes that are not wide enough.
    2) There is no requirement to pass within the same lane.
    3) Safe passing is required in all cases (with or without FRAP).
    There is no reference to any statute in these statements. They were made in reply to my statement of the engineering facts concerning overtaking. To oppose this engineering description by using legal arguments is just not applicable. If you wish to discuss the engineering facts and how they affect safe overtaking, then do so. If you wish to discuss what statutes require, then provide statutes by number and wording, and then discuss, if you wish, how the statutes apply, or don't apply, to the engineering facts.

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    The anti-cycling bias isn't going to magically disappear with having one set of laws applying to both classes of vehicles. It doesn't seem that bicyclists in NC (where there no bicycle-specific FRAP law) has any less anti-cycling bias than states with FRAP laws.

    What would make anybody expect that they would use their political power to back bicyclists?

    One might think that they would display the same or more anti-cycling bias that the average motorist does!
    You people seem to be overly concerned about the opinions of ignorant motorists. Most motorists are ignorant of cyclists' rights and duties. But motorists have very little power over you. The power that does oppress you is the power of government using the cyclist-FRAP and bikeway laws that are based on treating cyclists as second-class, and incompetent, road users. Without those laws, government would have no legal power to discriminate against you for being cyclists. They might try, but without laws that distinguish cyclists from other drivers of vehicles they couldn't make it stick, so they would learn to give up the attempt. And, in the long run, if the government loses its power to discriminate against cyclists, the rest of society would learn that this is not the approved action and so, to some extent, reduce the amount of discrimination it attempts to apply.

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,423
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    You people seem to be overly concerned about the opinions of ignorant motorists.
    I was commenting on the odd notion that drivers of slow moving vehicles would be useful allies for bicyclists. Nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    There is no reference to any statute in these statements. They were made in reply to my statement of the engineering facts concerning overtaking. To oppose this engineering description by using legal arguments is just not applicable. If you wish to discuss the engineering facts and how they affect safe overtaking, then do so. If you wish to discuss what statutes require, then provide statutes by number and wording, and then discuss, if you wish, how the statutes apply, or don't apply, to the engineering facts.
    There is no "engineering fact" that requires passing with in the same lane. The "same lane" stuff is a straw man.

    And there were no "facts" listed in the comment that I was replying to.

    Either there is enough room to do so or there is not.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 06-22-11 at 05:44 PM.

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    I was commenting on the odd notion that drivers of slow moving vehicles would be useful allies for bicyclists. Nothing more.
    Why odd allies? This presumes that the cyclist-FRAP laws are repealed, so that the laws that apply to slow moving vehicles apply to all drivers of vehicles equally. If those laws were enforced with the degree of bias that is now applied to cyclists, the operators of slow-moving vehicles would object to being so treated. Equally so, there would be no legal ground for treating cyclists differently from other drivers of slow-moving vehicles, because the law would prohibit such treatment. The first is an empirical statement, but since we object to how government treats us it would be reasonable to predict that drivers of combine machinery would also object. The second is a standard statement of legal principle that ain't in dispute.

  9. #59
    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)
    if BIKES FRAP laws are repealed, cyclists would have less allowances to take the lane than currently granted in most of the BIKES FRAP states by virtue of far more restrictive SMV FRAP requirements.

    personal notions about bicyclists and 'discriminatory' suffragism is just so much victim syndrome. Fighting to take away cyclists rights of BIKES FRAP laws will not leave cyclists free to take any lane position on laned roadways under SMV FRAP laws as some of the bicycle drivers so obtusely insist.

    Those peddling fantasies about the law seek to sell cyclists rights down the river and take away cyclists explicit and express legal protections.

    Some of the 'bicycle drivers' contingent that suggests a better condition for bicyclists under SMV-FRAP laws blatantly misstate the actual requirements of bicyclists in states with only SMV-FRAP laws.

    A dishonest portrayal of cyclists rights. Avoid advocacy that presents a dishonest portrayal of cyclists responsibilities with their candyland portrayals of cyclists duties.

    It is fairly uniformly represented across state lines in states with just SMV-FRAP laws that bicyclists are required to operate as far to the right as practicable on all roads, of any number of lanes.

    The bicycle drivers present a false idyll of cyclists allowances under SMV FRAP laws.

    Arguments that cyclists have a duty to only operate FRAP on unlaned roads in states with SMV FRAP laws misrepresents the duties of cyclists in a hapless or duplicitous betrayal of the american bicyclist.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-22-11 at 11:20 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post

    It is fairly uniformly represented across state lines in states with just SMV-FRAP laws that bicyclists are required to operate as far to the right as practicable on all roads, of any number of lanes.
    Bek surrounds his pertinent point with propaganda claiming that the other view is promoted as "hapless or duplicitous betrayal". That is, without presenting any evidence for his propaganda claim.

    Now to the pertinent point. Bek has never presented evidence for this, and the statutes that have been presented contradict Bek's claim. Bek's claim rests on his ideological refusal to recognize that statutes requiring either use of right-hand lane or FRAP do not apply. His arguments are that "or" does not allow the driver to make a choice, and that two-lane roads do not have a right-hand lane. Since these have been exploded, Bek doesn't have even the semblance of reasonable arguments for his major claim about FRAP.

  11. #61
    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, what do you mean I've never presented evidence of this. We're having a discussion about what I've found out reading other states Department of Transportation dictates on traffic management in concert with the laws of those states. I've posted some materials, but one thing is fairly uniformly represented across state lines -


    States' DOTs that regulate bikes soley as vehicles without BIKES FRAP provisions require bikes operate FRAP on all roads. this is affirmed across state lines, in several states, by states official instruction to bicyclists from these states Departments of Transportation.


    Instead of the grand 'bicycle drivers' fantasy of road equality, the reality of no bike specificity in traffic law is far, far more restrictive.

    Iowa- no BIKES FRAP law, requires bikes ride FRAP on all roads.

    North Carolina- no BIKES FRAP law, requires bikes ride FRAP on all roads.

    Kentucky - no BIKES FRAP law, requires bikes ride FRAP on all roads.

    Indiana - no BIKES FRAP law, requires bikes ride FRAP on all roads.

    The compelling authority of states law and interpretations by state DOTs -THE traffic authorities in states (not DMV manuals ! )- provide a prevailing interpretation that further validates the compelling weight of law.



    You can -should - go root around in the statutes and the DOT standards of states with SMV FRAP laws for a while, to get appraised of the fundaments of the discussion..... earlier you were pretending Idaho had no SMV FRAP laws! You've been bringing little substantive worth to these conversations.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-23-11 at 09:00 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    john, what do you mean I've never presented evidence of this. We're having a discussion about what I've found out reading other states Department of Transportation dictates on traffic management in concert with the laws of those states. I've posted some materials, but one thing is fairly uniformly represented across state lines -

    It is fairly uniformly represented across state lines in states with just SMV-FRAP laws that bicyclists are required to operate as far to the right as practicable on all roads, of any number of lanes.

    Instead of the grand 'bicycle drivers' fantasy of road equality, the reality of no bike specificity in traffic law is far, far more restrictive.

    Iowa- no BIKES FRAP law, requires bikes ride FRAP on all roads.

    North Carolina- no BIKES FRAP law, requires bikes ride FRAP on all roads.

    Kentucky - no BIKES FRAP law, requires bikes ride FRAP on all roads.

    Indiana - no BIKES FRAP law, requires bikes ride FRAP on all roads.

    The compelling authority of states law and interpretations by state DOT -the traffic authorities - provide a prevailing interpretation to validate the compelling weight of law.



    You can -should - go root around in the statutes and the DOT standards of states with SMV FRAP laws for a while, to get appraised of the fundaments of the discussion..... earlier you were pretending Idaho had no SMV FRAP laws! You've been bringing little substantive worth to these conversations.
    In this discussion of whether state statutes require FRAP, Bek has produced more propaganda without producing any statutes that support his view.

    All that Bek has succeeded in doing is to present himself as a fervent believer in the popular superstition that cyclists are second-class road users whose primary duty is to stay out of the way of motor traffic.

  13. #63
    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)
    Actually, john, I strongly support states BIKE SAFETY laws that allow bicyclists the right to lanes too narrow to safely share.

    I am also a league cycling instructor and work to further bicyclist safety at many levels in my career and avocations.

    here's a recent letter to the editor of mine published in a major west coast newspaper....
    Quote Originally Posted by bekologist
    "Editor, The Times:
    I was shocked on opening Saturday’s Seattle Times to find yet another person unaware of the rules of the road, angry at behaviors people are legally allowed to do for their safety while riding a bicycle [“Not for the view,” Northwest Voices, Opinion, June 4].

    There is no condoning illegal behavior by bicyclists. However, the letter echoed three myths drivers hold about bicyclists:

    — Bicyclists “impede” traffic when slower than cars;

    — Bicyclists must use bike lanes;

    — Bicyclists cannot ride on sidewalks.

    All are untrue.

    Bicyclists are legally allowed to take the lane moving slower than car traffic, are allowed to avoid bike lanes, can ride on a sidewalk and cross in a crosswalk for their safety. Bicyclists are usually in the traffic lane or avoiding a bike lane only when their safety demands it. When bicyclists ride in the lane, motorists have a civic duty to drive carefully around them.

    Bicyclists of all ages demand safe treatment by drivers. Bicyclists riding in the lane or avoiding bike lanes do so for their safety and deserve considerate treatment by Washington motorists. Bicyclist safety isn’t a debate about dog parks.

    Children and their parents are at risk when drivers operate with mistaken impressions about bicycling."




    I am also a bicycle advocate that rallies at the state level to protect cyclists road rights in my state.

    I sagaciously quash duplicitous "advocacy" that seeks to remove cyclists road rights.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-23-11 at 09:20 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    Actually, john, I strongly support states BIKE SAFETY laws that allow bicyclists the right to lanes too narrow to safely share.

    I am also a league cycling instructor and work to further bicyclist safety at many levels in my career and avocations.

    I am also a bicycle advocate that rallies at the state level to protect cyclists road rights in my state.

    I sagaciously quash duplicitous "advocacy" that seeks to remove cyclists road rights.
    It has been obvious for decades that those who advocate bikeways and FRAP have great problems making valid arguments for their advocacy, because of the contradiction between their desires and traffic-engineering (in its widest sense) facts. Such persons have very strong emotional feelings that they are RIGHT, leading to the conclusion that their opponents must be duplicitous liars, just as Bek demonstrates here.

    So Bek supports the laws that are based on cyclist FRAP, with some allowance under certain conditions for using a lane, in contrast to the standard SMV laws that simply allow the use of the right-hand lane without any hindering conditions.

    So Bek is an instructor for LAB. Considering that Bek's arguments presented in these discussions agree with the LAB position, I presume that Bek's instruction reflects that view that cyclists are second-class road users required to FRAP for the convenience of motorists.

    So Bek is an advocate. One must presume that he advocates in public what he advocates in these discussions. Nothing more need be said.

    So Bek "quash[es] duplicitous 'advocacy' that seeks to remove cyclists' road rights." One has to believe that Bek acts in public according to the arguments he has presented here and his motivation is what he claims it is. That is, he is motivated by the belief that those who advocate for cyclists' full rights as drivers of vehicles are motivated by the desire to reduce those rights. Such arguments as these reveal the emotional tangle produced when those who advocate the motorists' view that cyclists' prime duty is to ride FRAP and use bikeways, both created by motorists for the convenience of motorists, advocating this view by pretending that it increases cyclists' rights.

  15. #65
    Part-time epistemologist invisiblehand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer, Bike Friday tikit
    Posts
    5,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    ?

    Slow moving motorized vehicles aren't common enough to increase any sort of "political base".

    I'd guess that there are many more bicyclists than slow moving motor vehicles.
    Perhaps if the base was "roadies" instead of all cyclists, it would be more meaningful. I also think that some normally fast moving vehicles become slow moving vehicles on steep inclines and such. Some bases have big economic impacts or strong lobbies or big impacts in an entity like the Senate which is not based on population. So if some legislation attempted to block cyclists from particular roads were forced to apply the law to all slow moving vehicles on those roads -- commercial trucks -- you would get more push-back even if it were not actively coordinated.
    Last edited by invisiblehand; 06-23-11 at 09:44 AM.

  16. #66
    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)
    didn't the roadies have something to do with the recently passed MBL law in FL? no thanks, 'roadies' are like critical mess, but on carbon.

    you think the freight haulers are going to start supporting the bicyclists.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-23-11 at 10:12 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  17. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,423
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Why odd allies? This presumes that the cyclist-FRAP laws are repealed, so that the laws that apply to slow moving vehicles apply to all drivers of vehicles equally. If those laws were enforced with the degree of bias that is now applied to cyclists, the operators of slow-moving vehicles would object to being so treated. Equally so, there would be no legal ground for treating cyclists differently from other drivers of slow-moving vehicles, because the law would prohibit such treatment. The first is an empirical statement, but since we object to how government treats us it would be reasonable to predict that drivers of combine machinery would also object. The second is a standard statement of legal principle that ain't in dispute.
    Operators of slow moving motorized vehicles do not appear to have any issues with the current law (if that is correct, they have no incentive to change it). And, if there is a anti-cyclists bias in the current laws, they might prefer having that bias. Indeed, they might might more prefer banning cyclists entirely!
    Last edited by njkayaker; 06-25-11 at 07:55 AM.

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,423
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by invisiblehand View Post
    So if some legislation attempted to block cyclists from particular roads were forced to apply the law to all slow moving vehicles on those roads -- commercial trucks -- you would get more push-back even if it were not actively coordinated.
    Being able to imagine something as being possible doesn't mean it is probable! There is nothing that would indicate that what you imagine has any real likelihood of happening.

    The people who write laws (supposedly) discriminatory against bicycles clearly do not see a benefit from bicyclists being on the road. Those people are much more likely to see a benefit to slow moving motor vehicles (even if they see that they also have a cost). And the operators of slow moving motor vehicles has no apparent objection with the current law.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 06-25-11 at 08:09 AM.

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    Being able to imagine something as being possible doesn't mean it is probable! There is nothing that would indicate that what you imagine has any real likelihood of happening.

    The people who write laws (supposedly) discriminatory against bicycles clearly do not see a benefit from bicyclists being on the road. Those people are much more likely to see a benefit to slow moving motor vehicles (even if they see that they also have a cost). And the operators of slow moving motor vehicles has no apparent objection with the current law.
    I think that this, and the previous post, require some explanation. It is true that the operators of slow-moving vehicles accept the current law for slow-moving vehicles. I don't say that they love it, but they accept it because it is administered fairly for all drivers, based only on the actual speed of the vehicle. On the other hand, the cyclist-FRAP laws are based on the idea that bicycle traffic is a poorly controlled nuisance that needs, just because it consists of bicycles, to keep a clear road for motor traffic. That is, it is class based, not speed based, on the principle that cyclists' prime duty is to stay out of the way of the real road traffic.

    If the cyclist-FRAP laws were repealed, then, when going slower than other traffic, they would be regulated by the law for slow-moving vehicles. The important point is that then the police cannot say "He's riding a bicycle and bicycles are supposed to stay far right," because there would then be no law to allow them to enforce that concept. All that would apply is the standard slow-moving vehicle law, saying that when moving slower than other traffic, drivers must use the right-hand lane or (and this "or" gives the driver the choice, not the police a requirement) as close as practicable to the curb or right-hand edge of the roadway. Since the "or" gives the driver the choice, he may exercise that choice as long as there is a right-hand lane. If the police attempted to enforce FRAP when the law allows use of right-hand lane, the courts would have to disallow such enforcement, and if the legislature attempted to rewrite the SMV law to require only FRAP, just to discriminate against cyclists, then the operators of vehicles which often moved slowly would object.

    The important principle to remember and to act upon is that cyclists are, by law, drivers of vehicles. That is, except to the extent to which the cyclist-FRAP laws deny them their rights. If cyclists are truly regulated as drivers of vehicles, they are regulated by laws that the rest of the driving community accepts as reasonably fair. That is the protection that cyclists need.

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,423
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I think that this, and the previous post, require some explanation. It is true that the operators of slow-moving vehicles accept the current law for slow-moving vehicles. I don't say that they love it, but they accept it because it is administered fairly for all drivers, based only on the actual speed of the vehicle.
    No one is arguing that they "love" it.

    There just is no benefit for them to combine with cyclists to change the current law in ways that would only benefit bicyclists.

    And they accept the current law because it encodes reasonable behavior that reasonable people would do anyway. And (generally) the law doesn't keep them from doing what they need to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    If the cyclist-FRAP laws were repealed, then, when going slower than other traffic, they would be regulated by the law for slow-moving vehicles. The important point is that then the police cannot say "He's riding a bicycle and bicycles are supposed to stay far right," because there would then be no law to allow them to enforce that concept.
    The bicycle laws typically require FRAP only when travelling slower than "normal" traffic. Thus, the police can't technically do what you are suggesting unless the cyclist is travelling slower than other traffic. The police could apply the SMV "FRAP" law exactly the same way they supposedly apply the bicycle specific law. I have not seen any argument would indicate they would not do that (you and others merely take it as a given).

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    All that would apply is the standard slow-moving vehicle law, saying that when moving slower than other traffic, drivers must use the right-hand lane or (and this "or" gives the driver the choice, not the police a requirement) as close as practicable to the curb or right-hand edge of the roadway. Since the "or" gives the driver the choice, he may exercise that choice as long as there is a right-hand lane. If the police attempted to enforce FRAP when the law allows use of right-hand lane, the courts would have to disallow such enforcement, and if the legislature attempted to rewrite the SMV law to require only FRAP, just to discriminate against cyclists, then the operators of vehicles which often moved slowly would object.
    Except your interpretation of "or" delimiting two equal choices is incorrect!

    The order of the two clauses matters.

    The slow moving vehicle is allowed to drive FRAP in any situation but FRAP is required if there is no left hand lane (going in the same direction).

    The first clause removes the FRAP requirement in the same way that "preparing for a left turn" removes the requirement for keeping to the right hand lane.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    The important principle to remember and to act upon is that cyclists are, by law, drivers of vehicles. That is, except to the extent to which the cyclist-FRAP laws deny them their rights. If cyclists are truly regulated as drivers of vehicles, they are regulated by laws that the rest of the driving community accepts as reasonably fair. That is the protection that cyclists need.
    Outside of clear-cases like "mandatory bike lane" laws, it doesn't seem that the bicycle specific laws are any different than the SMV laws. The "unfairness" is due to misunderstanding (deliberately or otherwise) the current law and there is no reason to expect that such misunderstanding would not occur with a non-bicyclist-specific SMV law.

    That is, the anti-cyclist bias exists in either case (and either set of laws is sufficient to act upon that bias).
    Last edited by njkayaker; 06-25-11 at 11:18 AM.

  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    No one is arguing that they "love" it.

    There just is no benefit for them to combine with cyclists to change the current law in ways that would only benefit bicyclists.

    And they accept the current law because it encodes reasonable behavior that reasonable people would do anyway. And (generally) the law doesn't keep them from doing what they need to do.


    The bicycle laws typically require FRAP only when travelling slower than "normal" traffic. Thus, the police can't technically do what you are suggesting unless the cyclist is travelling slower than other traffic. The police could apply the SMV "FRAP" law exactly the same way they supposedly apply the bicycle specific law. I have not seen any argument would indicate they would not do that (you and others merely take it as a given).


    Except your interpretation of "or" delimiting two equal choices is incorrect!

    The order of the two clauses matters.

    The slow moving vehicle is allowed to drive FRAP in any situation but FRAP is required if there is no left hand lane (going in the same direction).

    The first clause removes the FRAP requirement in the same way that "preparing for a left turn" removes the requirement for keeping to the right hand lane.


    Outside of clear-cases like "mandatory bike lane" laws, it doesn't seem that the bicycle specific laws are any different than the SMV laws. The "unfairness" is due to misunderstanding (deliberately or otherwise) the current law and there is no reason to expect that such misunderstanding would not occur with a non-bicyclist-specific SMV law.

    That is, the anti-cyclist bias exists in either case (and either set of laws is sufficient to act upon that bias).
    I have not argued that the operators of typically slow-moving vehicles should be sought at allies of cyclists. I see no reason why they would have any incentive to do so. Getting cyclists covered by the typical SMV law requires only the repeal of the cyclist-FRAP laws.

    While the newer versions of the cyclist-FRAP laws provide exceptions, the fact that they are based on cyclist-FRAP as the prime duty, only released by exceptions, allows law enforcement, as we have seen for decades, to act as if the exceptions don't exist, until brought up by a challenge. In short, the cyclist-FRAP laws being based on discrimination against cyclists, encourage such discrimination until an exception is raised by the cyclist.

    Njkayaker argues that if cyclists were covered only by the SMV law, the police would still insist on cyclist-FRAP. But the SMV law doesn't allow such enforcement, doesn't even encourage it, and it were attempted the courts would have to disallow it because the SMV law doesn't allow such enforcement. And if the courts, for some reason, attempted to interpret the SMV law to be a pure FRAP law, then they would have to have slow motor vehicles treated in the same way; that's what the legal system requires. That's when the operators of frequently slow motor vehicles would complain when they got cited for not operating FRAP when the statute doesn't require FRAP.

    Your argument about the order of choices given by "or" is incorrect, but that's irrelevant; the law doesn't take order into account unless so stated, not like a computer program. But your logic is correct, and exactly what I have been arguing. That is, on roads with lanes, slow drivers have the choice of right-hand lane or FRAP, but on roads without lanes slow drivers must FRAP.

    You argue that the anti-cyclist bias exists in police forces. OK, I have never disagreed with that; I have often so stated. However, the cyclist-FRAP law provides the means by which the police exercise their anti-cyclist bias, because that law is based on that bias. If that law did not exist, the police would have much greater difficulty in forcing FRAP upon cyclists because they would have no legal basis for such action.

    As you say, the unfairness with which cyclists are treated is due to misunderstanding (deliberately or otherwise), but the cyclist-FRAP laws encourage that misunderstanding. Without the cyclist-FRAP laws, there is nothing to misunderstand, either deliberately or otherwise. That's the legal protection that cyclists need.

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,423
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I have not argued that the operators of typically slow-moving vehicles should be sought at allies of cyclists. I see no reason why they would have any incentive to do so.
    No, you haven't but other people have. I have no idea why people are talking about operators slow-moving vehicles being allies of cyclists and you oddly interpreted my reply to that as suggesting that bicycle bias be applied to those operators. Which is as bizarre as people thinking they would be want to be allies of cyclists!

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Getting cyclists covered by the typical SMV law requires only the repeal of the cyclist-FRAP laws.
    Yes, that would be the case (as some states do). It's not at all clear that bicyclists would be treated any differently than they are now and it's not at all clear that bicyclists are treated better in states without bicycle-specific FRAP laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    While the newer versions of the cyclist-FRAP laws provide exceptions, the fact that they are based on cyclist-FRAP as the prime duty, only released by exceptions, allows law enforcement, as we have seen for decades, to act as if the exceptions don't exist, until brought up by a challenge. In short, the cyclist-FRAP laws being based on discrimination against cyclists, encourage such discrimination until an exception is raised by the cyclist.
    This could be true but it's not clear that it is true.

    It's also not clear whether the law enforcement bias is anything more than a rare occurrence.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Njkayaker argues that if cyclists were covered only by the SMV law, the police would still insist on cyclist-FRAP. But the SMV law doesn't allow such enforcement, doesn't even encourage it, and it were attempted the courts would have to disallow it because the SMV law doesn't allow such enforcement.
    So then bicyclists would routinely run afoul of the "impeding traffic" law.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Your argument about the order of choices given by "or" is incorrect, but that's irrelevant; the law doesn't take order into account unless so stated, not like a computer program. But your logic is correct, and exactly what I have been arguing. That is, on roads with lanes, slow drivers have the choice of right-hand lane or FRAP, but on roads without lanes slow drivers must FRAP.
    Again, you state this without any convincing argument. It's also exactly what you used to think but, for some reason, no longer do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    You argue that the anti-cyclist bias exists in police forces. OK, I have never disagreed with that; I have often so stated. However, the cyclist-FRAP law provides the means by which the police exercise their anti-cyclist bias, because that law is based on that bias. If that law did not exist, the police would have much greater difficulty in forcing FRAP upon cyclists because they would have no legal basis for such action.
    I am disagreeing with your point that the bias would be neutralized by eliminating the bicycle FRAP law since (in many states) the SMV law requires FRAP (and, sometimes, in a more restrictive way).

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    As you say, the unfairness with which cyclists are treated is due to misunderstanding (deliberately or otherwise), but the cyclist-FRAP laws encourage that misunderstanding. Without the cyclist-FRAP laws, there is nothing to misunderstand, either deliberately or otherwise. That's the legal protection that cyclists need.
    It's possible too that a change in the cycling law would motivate a change in the SMV law to clarify what "keeping right" means.

    Or, the SMV law already requires FRAP as the "default position" (as below).

    http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/Di...tatute=32-26-1

    32-26-1. Use of right half of highway required--Slow-moving vehicles--Overtaking and passing excepted--Violation as misdemeanor. Upon all highways of sufficient width, except upon one-way streets, the driver of a vehicle shall drive the same upon the right half of the highway and shall drive a slow-moving vehicle as closely as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of such highway, unless it is impracticable to travel on such side of the highway and except when overtaking and passing another vehicle subject to the limitations applicable in overtaking and passing set forth in 32-26-26 to 32-26-39, inclusive. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
    The SD bicycle FRAP law is more restrictive than the SD SMV FRAP law!

    http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/Di...atute=32-20B-5

    32-20B-5. Operation on roadway--Riding close to right-hand curb required--Violation as misdemeanor. Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. However, a person operating a bicycle may move from the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway to overtake and pass another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction, to prepare for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or roadway or to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 06-25-11 at 12:56 PM.

  23. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Njkayaker has made many different assertions in his last post. I will try to cover all of them in this.

    NJ doesn't understand the application of SMV laws to cyclists. Some people argued that that meant persuading SMV operators to ally themselves with cyclists. As I explained, that is false. But then NJ argues, as if in disbelief, that applying the anti-cyclist to SMVs would be bizarre. Of course it would be; that's the point of the argument. Because trying to apply the anti-cyclist bias to SMVs would be seen as bizarre, then it could not be applied to cyclists under the SMV law. It is a standard principle of law that persons subject to a law all be treated equally; it is unlawful to single out any person or group of persons for treatment different from that given to others in that group. Since the SMV laws apply to drivers of vehicles (cyclists being members of this class), then all drivers of vehicles must be treated similarly, and it is unlawful to single out cyclists for different treatment than tractor drivers.

    NJ argues that repealing the cyclist-FRAP laws would not get cyclists treated better. As explained above, without those laws the police have no legal power to insist that cyclists ride FRAP and for an officer to try to so insist would be an unlawful act.

    NJ quotes the South Dakota SMV law as the example demonstrating that SMV laws are more stringent about lateral position that are the cyclist-FRAP laws. Well, NJ, why do you think that Bek presented that law, rather than any other, or rather than the typical SMV law? The SD
    SMV law is the only state statute, to my knowledge, that is pure FRAP without the choice of using the right-hand lane.

    NJ asserts that if cyclists came under the SMV law, then the SMV laws might well be revised to "clarify what keeping right means." That is not correct, because those laws do not require "keeping right". They require either use of the right-hand lane or as close as practicable to the curb or edge of the roadway. Those are the requirements stated in those laws. I think that it is unlikely that other road users in most states would accept having the use of the right-hand lane removed from the SMV law, because that would allow them to be lawfully treated as bad as cyclist are.

    I don't know whether NJ accepts that the typical SMV law allows the choice of use of the right-hand lane or as close as practicable to the curb or right-hand edge of the roadway. By quoting the SD example, which is pure FRAP, he has not stated his belief about the typical SMV law.

  24. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,423
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    NJ doesn't understand the application of SMV laws to cyclists. Some people argued that that meant persuading SMV operators to ally themselves with cyclists. As I explained, that is false.
    So, it appears we agree about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    But then NJ argues, as if in disbelief, that applying the anti-cyclist to SMVs would be bizarre. Of course it would be; that's the point of the argument. Because trying to apply the anti-cyclist bias to SMVs would be seen as bizarre, then it could not be applied to cyclists under the SMV law.
    From this, then, the following (asked earlier) is bizarre.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    No? Would you risk applying the anti-cyclist bias in enforcement to the operators of slow-moving vehicles? These people do have political power because their livelihoods depend on their machines.
    No, of course not (it's a bizarre question).

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Since the SMV laws apply to drivers of vehicles (cyclists being members of this class), then all drivers of vehicles must be treated similarly, and it is unlawful to single out cyclists for different treatment than tractor drivers.
    SMV laws apply to drivers of slow moving vehicles (ones that cannot travel at "normal" speed). Motorcycle laws apply to operators of motorcycles. NEV (neighborhood electric vehicles) laws apply to operators of those vehicles. Tractor trailer laws apply to operators of those. Motor vehicle operators are required to have licenses and liability insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I don't know whether NJ accepts that the typical SMV law allows the choice of use of the right-hand lane or as close as practicable to the curb or right-hand edge of the roadway. By quoting the SD example, which is pure FRAP, he has not stated his belief about the typical SMV law.
    There must be two John Foresters, each contributing to the different threads!

    If you "don't know whether", then your ability to reply to what I said in the other thread is very remarkable (since you are implying that you haven't read or understood or remember what you are replying to!).

    Anyway, the following is a reasonable reiteration of what I "accept" what the typical SMV law says. While you no longer hold the following position (your prerogative), it's odd that you "don't know" it!

    Quote Originally Posted by john forester 1st thru 6th editions Effective Cycling
    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.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 06-25-11 at 02:44 PM.

  25. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    NJkayaker stated: "SMV laws apply to drivers of slow moving vehicles (ones that cannot travel at "normal" speed). Motorcycle laws apply to operators of motorcycles. NEV (neighborhood electric vehicles) laws apply to operators of those vehicles. Tractor trailer laws apply to operators of those. Motor vehicle operators are required to have licenses and liability insurance."

    The assumption stated above is incorrect; hence the rest is largely irrelevant. The slow-moving vehicle laws apply to all drivers of vehicles, not just to those which cannot travel at normal speed. That is, those laws do not apply to some defined class of vehicles, but to all drivers of vehicles and only when that driver is traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic. Hence the fact that while the great majority of laws controlling traffic movements are the rules of the road for all drivers of vehicles, there are a few additional laws for classes of vehicle that have clearly defined characteristics, such as being mechanically propelled, towing a trailer, or carrying dangerous substances.

    I wrote, largely irrelevant, because most of those special vehicle laws are designed for the public safety, such as those classes I mentioned above. The trouble with the special cyclist laws is that they were created to discriminate against cyclists for the convenience of motorists. There's a long history of that, not disputable in any reasonable way.

    I thank NJ for putting me straight about his particular belief about overtaking on two-lane roads, which is what I wrote in 1976, in the first-ever book devoted to bicycle transportation engineering. Well, technologies evolve with time. Even at the time, the assumption that the phrase "right-hand lane for traffic" was applicable to only multi-lane roads was clearly faulty; the law didn't say that then, nor more than it says it now. Furthermore, a better understanding of the conditions for safe overtaking, including lateral clearance distance, sight distance, and the movement into the adjacent lane, caused me to my present understanding. That is, on most two-lane roads, change lanes to overtake. Changing lanes is not necessary only for those roads with wide outside lanes, which are the minority. I wrote this up a year and a half ago, but The MIT Press has not scheduled publication of the seventh edition of Effective Cycling until next spring.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •