Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 101 to 120 of 120
  1. #101
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    right. these states actually don't require of bicyclists what the states' DOTs outline as requirements of bicyclists, right.


    Despite clear instructions to the contrary, some of the bicycle drivers still insist on pimping those counterfeits. Why is beyond belief.their parsed obtusity is only their opinions.

    That's unsubstantiated bluffery. A bicyclist or a horseman do not have absolute claim to take the entire lane on any laned roadway in these states. That's unsubstantiated, is not and would assuredly not be found to be the case in a court of law. This is echoed in all three states' DOT instructions to bicyclists.


    Here's what EC instructor # 60 had to say, in "how far right is right?", a discussion of road use and sharing by EC, vehicular bicyclists...




    the compelling opinion, the reasonable read of traffic laws and common law duties of road users, echoing the long standing tradition of road use by bicyclists, stands in stark contrast to the wild, unsubstantiated claims of some of the bicycle drivers.

    Those states regulatory instructions to bicyclists all have this quote or something like this.....
    "Bicyclists are constrained to operate FRAP when they act, and are treated, as drivers of vehicles."
    This is the engineering reply.
    Bek phrases American society's insistence on cyclist FRAP as being necessary to allow safe and easy overtaking by motorists. That is, American society assumes that cyclists cannot understand traffic operations and hence must be given childish instructions that suit motorists. Or, American society assumes that cyclist FRAP must be done because it always allows safe and easy overtaking. Well, that's what motorists think, because they have never had to seriously consider the facts; it was just easier and more agreeable to insist that cyclists do what motorists want. And that is precisely the line of arguments that Bek has been presenting.

    However, it has long been recognized that lanes need to be atypically wide, 14 feet or more (depending on speed of traffic) for it to be safe for a motorist operating at normal running speed (not in slow traffic) to overtake a cyclist. With sufficient width of lane, then a cyclist operating FRAP can allow safe overtaking within that lane. If the lane is of standard or lesser width, as is typical, then the motorist overtaking a cyclist, even a cyclist operating FRAP, cannot do so safely without intruding into the adjacent lane. By other laws, that motorist may not intrude into that adjacent lane unless there is no traffic in that lane approaching so close as to constitute a danger. If there is no such traffic, then the overtaking motorist might as well "Change lanes to overtake!", in which case the lateral position of the cyclist has no bearing on the opportunity to overtake. That opportunity is entirely determined by the traffic in the adjacent lane, the sight distance, and such, regardless of the cyclist's lateral position in his lane.

    That is the engineering insight which should be considered when discussing cyclist lateral position. Furthermore, it is the position strenuously advocated by Bek as an exception to the cyclist-FRAP laws, that is when he is not refusing to admit it without the cyclist-FRAP laws.

    In short, Bek is arguing the motorists' arguments about the necessity of universal cyclist-FRAP and its bikeways implementation even though he is known to know the truth.

  2. #102
    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
    This is the reply to the legalistic argument......
    the DOTs frequently state that cyclist-FRAP is required by law even though the relevant statutes do not require it..
    That is far out in left field.

    The compelling, uniform interpretations across state lines, john are that the relevant SMV-FRAP statutes DO, most definitely do require it.

    Those states all uniformly regulate bicyclists as drivers of vehicles, and require cyclists operate FRAP as vehicles on all roads pursuant to the SMV FRAP laws of those states. This interpretation crosses states lines and is a codification of long standing traffic conventions to turn out to the right.

    "Cyclists are constrained to operate FRAP when they operate and are treated as drivers of vehicles."
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  3. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    That is far out in left field.

    The compelling, uniform interpretations across state lines, john are that the relevant SMV-FRAP statutes DO, most definitely do require it.

    Those states all uniformly regulate bicyclists as drivers of vehicles, and require cyclists operate FRAP as vehicles on all roads pursuant to the SMV FRAP laws of those states. This interpretation crosses states lines and is a codification of long standing traffic conventions to turn out to the right.

    "Cyclists are constrained to operate FRAP when they operate and are treated as drivers of vehicles."
    We've been through this circle of faulty reasoning already. Bek argues that SMV laws uniformly require FRAP, while the majority of those laws allow use of the right-hand lane or FRAP.

  4. #104
    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,whose reasoning is faulty are those that think the laws do not apply the way the DOTs of those states interpret the duties of slowly driven vehicles.

    Semantic sophistry doesn't make fantasies about traffic regulations for slowly driven vehicles - "change lanes to overtake" somehow magically valid.

    the statutory construction of these laws, the laws intent, their basis, interpretation and direction by state DOTs are compelling and uniform to bicyclists in states with bike traffic regulated under general SMV-FRAP law.


    The compelling interpretation across state lines codifying the common courtesy of road users and made into law is that


    "cyclists must ride FRAP when they act, and and are treated, as drivers of vehicles."
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-30-11 at 08:35 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  5. #105
    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,whose reasoning is faulty are those that think the laws do not apply the way the DOTs of those states interpret the duties of slowly driven vehicles.

    Semantic sophistry doesn't make fantasies about traffic regulations for slowly driven vehicles - "change lanes to overtake" somehow magically valid.

    the statutory construction of these laws, the laws intent, their basis, interpretation and direction by state DOTs are compelling and uniform to bicyclists in states with bike traffic regulated under general SMV-FRAP law.


    The compelling interpretation across state lines codifying the common courtesy of road users and made into law is that


    "cyclists must ride FRAP when they act, and and are treated, as drivers of vehicles."
    Bek has some kind of overpowering ideological need to see that cyclists are treated as second-class roadway users who do not have the full rights of drivers of vehicles. Typical statutes, outside the relatively few cyclist-FRAP statutes, treat cyclists according to the rules for other drivers of vehicles, which require FRAP of vehicles only when moving slowly and no lanes are marked. This doesn't suit Bek, who wants cyclists to be considered and treated in the way that motorists like to consider and treat cyclists, as second-class roadway users whose prime task is to stay out of the way of real traffic, using bikeways whenever present. Hence Bek has given up considering what the statutes actually say; he now advocates the typical motorist views promulgated by DOTs, which rarely reflect the actual statutes.

    I have been fighting the typical American motorists' and legislators' anti-cyclist view of cyclists as second-class road users, with the laws and facilities that these views produce, for four decades. There is little difference between those views and those expressed by Bek's arguments.

  6. #106
    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)
    One more time- SMV-FRAP laws are not interpreted in the way john insists.

    it is more than abundantly clear that the uniform application of these laws across states lines is not how the bicycle drivers insist. the interpretation is uniform, and a codfication of courtesy made into law. SMV-FRAP laws do not state 'change lanes to overtake' - that would not be a duty of the slowly driven vehicle anyways! How ludicrous.

    SMV FRAP laws intent and clear purpose are different than the unsupportable claims of the bicycle drivers with their semantic foolishness about statutory wording somehow negating a statutes long standing intent and purpose.


    I fight for bicyclists right to the road and laws that allow bikes to take the lane for our safety. I'm not the bicyclist with the desire to restrict cyclists to the edge under applicable SMV FRAP laws, that would be you, john.

    All that 'second class' road user crap is worthless strawman sophistry that attempts to conceal furtive motives, and hide the intent of the bicycle drivers club to haplessly or duplicitously constrain cyclists to the edge under the SMV FRAP laws.

    Avoid hapless, hazardous bicycle advocacy that aims to take away cyclists rights with unsupportable arguments that SMV-FRAP laws

    Quote Originally Posted by john forester
    ...require FRAP of vehicles only when moving slowly and no lanes are marked.

    Avoid the hazards inherent in that puffery for indeed, "bicyclists, horsemen, wheelbarrow operators are ALL constrained to the edge when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 07-01-11 at 09:54 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    One more time- SMV-FRAP laws are not interpreted in the way john insists.

    it is more than abundantly clear that the uniform application of these laws across states lines is not how the bicycle drivers insist. the interpretation is uniform, and a codfication of courtesy made into law. SMV-FRAP laws do not state 'change lanes to overtake' - that would not be a duty of the slowly driven vehicle anyways! How ludicrous.

    SMV FRAP laws intent and clear purpose are different than the unsupportable claims of the bicycle drivers with their semantic foolishness about statutory wording somehow negating a statutes long standing intent and purpose.


    I fight for bicyclists right to the road and laws that allow bikes to take the lane for our safety. I'm not the bicyclist with the desire to restrict cyclists to the edge under applicable SMV FRAP laws, that would be you, john.

    All that 'second class' road user crap is worthless strawman sophistry that attempts to conceal furtive motives, and hide the intent of the bicycle drivers club to haplessly or duplicitously constrain cyclists to the edge under the SMV FRAP laws.

    Avoid hapless, hazardous bicycle advocacy that aims to take away cyclists rights with unsupportable arguments that SMV-FRAP laws

    Avoid the hazards inherent in that puffery for indeed, "bicyclists, horsemen, wheelbarrow operators are ALL constrained to the edge when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
    Bek claims: "One more time- SMV-FRAP laws are not interpreted in the way john insists." That depends on who says it and whether that saying is interpretation. The motoring establishment, including DOTs, says that the SMV laws require cyclists to ride FRAP. That's the standard American anti-cyclist superstition that the traffic laws require cyclist-FRAP. However, the official interpreters of laws are, first, the words of the statutes themselves and, secondly, the courts. Even though DOTs are agencies of government, they are not charged with interpreting the laws, and the courts can rule on the lawfulness, or unlawfulness, of their actions. The relevant words of the typical, and recommended, SMV statute (UVC 11-301(b)) are that slowly-moving vehicles "shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or [FRAP]". On roads with marked lanes, the words clearly allow the driver to choose between use of that lane or FRAP". Only if an appellate opinion holds that on laned roadways only FRAP is allowed can that view be supported. No such support has ever been advanced.

    Bek claims that only "semantic foolishness about statutory wording" can support the his claim of mandatory FRAP. There is semantic foolishness in this matter. Bek's claim requires that "right-hand lane" have some different meaning than its clear words, and that the word "or" does not offer a choice. Trying to argue that these terms have a different meaning than they clearly indicate is surely the semantic foolishness in this discussion.

    Bek opposes the idea that cyclists should operate with the full rights of drivers of vehicles. He desires that cyclists be subject to the standard American anti-cyclist superstition of cyclist-FRAP laws and the bikeways that implement them. Therefore, he has to oppose the vehicular cycling principle by arguing that operating with the full rights of drivers of vehicles restricts cyclists more than do the cyclist-FRAP laws and their bikeway implementations. Therefore he argues, against all the facts, that vehicular cyclists are acting in a duplicitous manner because they really want to restrict cyclists to FRAP operation as second-class road users. But to do that, he has to argue that the laws for drivers of vehicles generally require FRAP, which they rarely do, and also that advocates of vehicular cycling know that they are lying about the meaning of the laws.

    Bek's argument is false on both sides, what he opposes and what he advocates. Vehicular cyclists desire that cyclists operate with the full rights of drivers of vehicles; while they oppose general cyclist-FRAP, they consider that FRAP should be applied only when it increases the opportunity for safe overtaking. The idea that they want more FRAP requirements, making cyclists second-class road users subservient to those who are not required to operate FRAP, is plain ludicrous. Vehicular cyclists honestly say what they want and why they want it. On the other side, Bek clearly advocates cyclist-FRAP laws and the bikeways they implement, thus advocating cyclists' second-class status subservient to motorists, but he conceals this behind a smokescreen of acting for cyclists' rights. If duplicity is present in this discussion, that duplicity has been produced by those whose arguments promote cyclist-FRAP and bikeways.

  8. #108
    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)
    ....Despite johns ardent strawmen, personal attacks, contrived suffragism and unreasonable misframing of SMV FRAP law, SMV FRAP laws do not regulate traffic in the manner he and some of the rest of the bicycle drivers insist.

    Despite johns complaints about the 'motoring establishment', as if a man pushing a wheelbarrow or a horseman have no statutory duty to keep right unless the road is unstriped!

    how ludicrous.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    ....Despite johns ardent strawmen, personal attacks, contrived suffragism and unreasonable misframing of SMV FRAP law, SMV FRAP laws do not regulate traffic in the manner he and some of the rest of the bicycle drivers insist.

    Despite johns complaints about the 'motoring establishment', as if a man pushing a wheelbarrow or a horseman have no statutory duty to keep right unless the road is unstriped!

    how ludicrous.
    The ambiguity of your statement, which I conclude to be deliberate, makes it meaningless.

  10. #110
    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)
    Relentless and unsupportable claims about SMV-FRAP law are deliberate and lacking in reason, making them meaningless.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  11. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    Relentless and unsupportable claims about SMV-FRAP law are deliberate and lacking in reason, making them meaningless.
    I base my position on the clear wording of the typical and recommended SMV laws, wording which has not been further explained by appellate opinions. That is, slowly moving drivers are required to use the right-hand lane for traffic or to position themselves FRAP. That is a reasonable position. Bek's argument repeats that of the anti-cyclist motoring establishment, DOTs and such, that, where cyclists are concerned, only FRAP is allowed. Of course, that is the typical American superstition that cyclists are second-class road users required to ride FRAP, subservient to motorists. Motorists may think, as does Bek, that this is a reasonable view, but it is both not the meaning of the SMV statutes and is the great defect in American policy for bicycle transportation, the anti-cyclist policy that needs to be changed if cyclists are to be treated as equals of other road users.

  12. #112
    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)
    SMV FRAP laws are NOT interpreted the way the bicycle drivers suggest.

    Avoid "advocacy" that suggests throwing away cyclist rights granted under California and many other states BIKES FRAP laws for a fantasy of bicyclist lane positioning under SMV FRAP laws.

    A man on a horse, a wheelbarrow operator, a skateboarder, a moped operator and a bicyclist all have fairly uniformly ascribed duties to share the road while traveling slowly as road users.

    That duty is not 'change lanes to overtake' on the part of the passer "the clear wording of the typical and recommended SMV laws" .... hilarous in its deceit.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 07-04-11 at 09:06 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  13. #113
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    SMV FRAP laws are NOT interpreted the way the bicycle drivers suggest.

    Avoid "advocacy" that suggests throwing away cyclist rights granted under California and many other states BIKES FRAP laws for a fantasy of bicyclist lane positioning under SMV FRAP laws.

    A man on a horse, a wheelbarrow operator, a skateboarder, a moped operator and a bicyclist all have fairly uniformly ascribed duties to share the road while traveling slowly as road users.

    That duty is not 'change lanes to overtake' on the part of the passer "the clear wording of the typical and recommended SMV laws" .... hilarous in its deceit.
    Bek has gone through three stages of argument that cyclists must ride FRAP. First, he claims that the SMV laws require FRAP only; that failed because those laws allow use of the right-hand lane for traffic. Second, Bek has argued that the DOTs say that those laws require FRAP only; that is false because the statutes don't say that. Third, Bek now argues that it is a social duty for cyclists to ride FRAP; that is the anti-cyclist superstition of American motorists and motoring organizations, but it has no more validity than any superstition.

    Of course, Bek presents other falsities. He claims in his post quoted above that it is not the duty of an overtaking driver to change lanes; he calls that "hilarious in its deceit." However, that is the normal duty of an overtaking driver, and if the SMV statute allows the slower driver the use of the right-hand lane then the statute also requires that the overtaking driver use the next lane over.

    Bek's argument is clearly anti-cyclist, reducing cyclists to second-class road users by supporting the standard American superstition about bicycle traffic. His motive might puzzle one who is not familiar with the bicycle traffic controversy. Bek's driving motive is bicycling popularity, which generates several subsidiary motives.

    Note Bek's curious argument that the exceptions in the later version of the cyclist-FRAP law grant cyclists rights they otherwise would not have. That argument is believable only by people who first have the underlying belief that cyclists don't have the rights of drivers of vehicles. It is only the cyclist-FRAP laws that deny cyclists the rights of drivers of vehicles, and then pretend to give some of them back.

    Bek is one of those who believe that persuading into bicycle transportation people who believe that cyclists are inferior to motorists requires catering to that superstition. That requires FRAP cycling and bikeways to provide the feeling that cyclists are being protected from traffic dangers without the need for traffic skills, and which also, since both of these were invented by motorists, prevent opposition by carrying out the motorists' program for bicycle traffic.

    It seems perverse to believe that emphasizing cyclists' inferiority to motorists will produce much more bicycle transportation than would emphasizing cyclists' status equal to motorists, but that is one expectation. However, it is indubitable that the seven decades of American belief in cyclists' inferiority has produced only a minuscule amount of bicycle transportation; whether a stronger emphasis on that inferiority would reverse that trend is unknown.

  14. #114
    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's not even close to representing my position. I believe in cyclist rights to take the lane and share when safe, not constrained to an EC effective curbhug by SMV FRAP laws.

    A simple look at states official directions to bicyclists and their regulation as traffic in these states with SMV-FRAP laws, and the 'change lanes to pass' fantasy of the bicycle drivers exposes itself as counterfeit.


    Quote Originally Posted by jf
    I base my position on the clear wording of the typical and recommended SMV laws
    HARDLY! come on man, be reasonable. That statement is a total disconnect from the reality of common laws of traffic formed into statutory obligations for road users.

    Can't stick to simple facts, an honest representation of every road users' duty of care, and the reasonableness standard of statutory construction, eh, can ya john.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 07-05-11 at 09:22 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  15. #115
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    that's not even close to representing my position. I believe in cyclist rights to take the lane and share when safe, not constrained to an EC effective curbhug by SMV FRAP laws.

    A simple look at states official directions to bicyclists and their regulation as traffic in these states with SMV-FRAP laws, and the 'change lanes to pass' fantasy of the bicycle drivers exposes itself as counterfeit.




    HARDLY! come on man, be reasonable. That statement is a total disconnect from the reality of common laws of traffic formed into statutory obligations for road users.

    Can't stick to simple facts, an honest representation of every road users' duty of care, and the reasonableness standard of statutory construction, eh, can ya john.
    Bek's view as to cyclists' rights is that he advocates the motorist-created laws for bicycle traffic that declare cyclists to be second-class road users who must ride FRAP, for the convenience of motorists, but which will permit cyclists to avoid FRAP only if certain conditions exist. Bek then claims that my former view is more restrictive than his, which I do not believe to be accurate, but which, in any case, is no longer relevant because I have repudiated it over the last two years and have opposed the basic cyclist-FRAP laws for forty years.

    Bek's view as to cyclists' rights is also that of the motorists who prepare and issue the instructions for bicycle driving. That is, cyclists are second-class road users who must ride FRAP for the convenience of motorists. That is the typical American cyclist-inferiority superstition that I have opposed for forty years.

    Bek's opposition to the idea of "change lanes to overtake" can only mean that Bek approves of, indeed desires, motorists squeezing past cyclists with insufficient clearance.

    Bek can maintain these clearly traditional American, motorist-created, anti-cyclist positions only by arguing that the standard laws for drivers of vehicles are worse for cyclists. To do that he has to argue against the typical and recommended statute for slowly-moving vehicles which allows "use of the right-hand lane for traffic" or FRAP. I follow the words of the statute by saying that the words allow the typical slowly-moving cyclist to use the right-hand lane for traffic.

    Bek claims that my position is unreasonable because it "is a total disconnect from the reality of common laws of traffic formed into statutory obligations for road users." Normally, when a legal concept of common law is restated as a written statute, the words of the statute take precedence. By referring back to some concept from common law, Bek is arguing that the legislators and legal experts, clearly in the many hundreds by this time, omitted from the statute some part of common law that Bek thinks should still apply. If there were such an omission, then it may have been either intentional or an unintentional mistake. If intentional, then Bek has no legal argument availabie. If it were an unintentional mistake, then Bek has the burden of demonstrating the words, or at least the concept, to be inserted to correct that mistake, and supporting this with reasons why omitting that concept was an unintentional mistake. I suspect that no such omission exists, and I also suspect that Bek has no means of providing legal argument to support his claim.

    Bek also claims that relying on the words of the statute is refusal to "stick to simple facts". What could be simpler than my position? Make your case, Bek!

    Bek claims that my position represents dishonestly "every road users' duty of care". I rely on the words of the statute as defining the relevant standard of care. If Bek claims otherwise, then he should state both the definition of this standard of care and the superior legal source from which this comes.

    Bek claims that my position is not within the "reasonableness standard of statutory construction." I repeat my position: the standard laws for slowly-moving vehicles require use of "the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway". On roads with lanes, standard construction allows the slow driver the choice of using the right-hand lane or FRAP. On road without lanes, standard construction requires FRAP. Bek claims that this is not standard construction. Bek, demonstrate the standard construction that you think applies and provide the legal authority for that construction.

  16. #116
    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 do not need to prove how bikes are regulated as vehicles in states with SMV-FRAP laws, the states official operating instructions and interpretations of statute are crystalline - in states with SMV-FRAP laws,

    bicyclists are NOT regulated in the the unreasonable way john fantastically portrays.

    States withbikes regulated under SMV-FRAP laws regulate bikes FRAP on all roads, with limited cause to 'take the lane.'

    the clear statutory direction IS compelling, uniform across state lines, and the reasonable read of SMV FRAP laws, which john forester himself endorsed (when he was, perhaps, more attuned with the reasonableness standard of statutory construction) the only reasonable interpretation of how SMV FRAP laws regulate traffic.

    Perpetuating a wildly unsupportable and unreasonable interpretation of SMV FRAP regulation, as if slow moving narrow vehicles have no duty to FRAP, then suggesting cyclists fight to throw away more permissive bicyclist specific FRAP laws in favor of an EC effective curbhug under SMV FRAP laws is toxic advocacy that must be avoided.

    Bicyclists are advised to steer well clear of toxic bicycle advocacy that suggests states with SMV FRAP laws regulate bikes to be allowed any lane position and only have a duty to FRAP on unlaned roads, or that this fantasy is preferable to actual, more permissive and explicit lane allowances to take the lane in states with BIKES FRAP laws.

    That counterfeit sham is an effort to remove cyclists rights in a hapless fight to constrain cyclists to the EC effective curbhug under SMV FRAP laws.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 07-06-11 at 12:23 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  17. #117
    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 do not need to prove how bikes are regulated as vehicles in states with SMV-FRAP laws, the states official operating instructions and interpretations of statute are crystalline - in states with SMV-FRAP laws,

    bicyclists are NOT regulated in the the unreasonable way john fantastically portrays.

    States withbikes regulated under SMV-FRAP laws regulate bikes FRAP on all roads, with limited cause to 'take the lane.'

    the clear statutory direction IS compelling, uniform across state lines, and the reasonable read of SMV FRAP laws, which john forester himself endorsed (when he was, perhaps, more attuned with the reasonableness standard of statutory construction) the only reasonable interpretation of how SMV FRAP laws regulate traffic.

    Perpetuating a wildly unsupportable and unreasonable interpretation of SMV FRAP regulation, as if slow moving narrow vehicles have no duty to FRAP, then suggesting cyclists fight to throw away more permissive bicyclist specific FRAP laws in favor of an EC effective curbhug under SMV FRAP laws is toxic advocacy that must be avoided.

    Bicyclists are advised to steer well clear of toxic bicycle advocacy that suggests states with SMV FRAP laws regulate bikes to be allowed any lane position and only have a duty to FRAP on unlaned roads, or that this fantasy is preferable to actual, more permissive and explicit lane allowances to take the lane in states with BIKES FRAP laws.

    That counterfeit sham is an effort to remove cyclists rights in a hapless fight to constrain cyclists to the EC effective curbhug under SMV FRAP laws.
    Bek writes that he does "not need to prove how bikes are regulated as vehicles ... the state official operating instructions and interpretations of statute are crystalline." Bek is correct, but he supplies no new information. I didn't ask him for that demonstration, because we already knew that the official instructions require FRAP. The question I directed to Bek was to demonstrate that those official instructions are in accordance with the typical and recommended SMV statutes. Bek failed to even try that demonstration, because the official instructions are clearly not in accordance with those statutes.

    Bek now claims reasonableness. What I wrote thirty-five years ago in the infancy of this subject is no longer relevant because I repudiated it some two years ago. The reasonableness issue needs to compare Bek's view versus my current view. Bek's view is that drivers of vehicles moving slowly must have the duty to FRAP, which he contrast with what he considers to be my view of a "wildly unsupportable and unreasonable interpretation of SMV FRAP regulation, as if slow moving narrow vehicles have no duty to FRAP."

    My view is that FRAP should be required when FRAP positioning produces a new opportunity for safe, lawful overtaking by faster drivers, and should not otherwise be required. The typical and recommended SMV statute states this quite reasonably well. Which is more reasonable, a blanket requirement for FRAP simply because a person is riding a bicycle, or a reasoned requirement for FRAP only when it creates a new opportunity for safe and lawful overtaking?

    I need to reply to Bek's repeated claim that the motivation of vehicular cyclists, such as myself, is the desire to reduce cyclists to second-class, curbhugging road users. Considering that I have openly and publicly and procedurally opposed the cyclist-FRAP laws for the last forty years, the absurdity of Bek's claim simply demonstrates a peculiar state of mind. That is the internally conflicted state of mind produced by trying to argue that the governments' anti-cyclist program of cyclist-FRAP and the bikeways to enforce it is actually a program to benefit cyclists.

  18. #118
    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
    My view is that FRAP should be required when FRAP positioning produces a new opportunity for safe, lawful overtaking by faster drivers, and should not otherwise be required. The typical and recommended SMV statute states this quite reasonably well.
    exactly, john, and that is why states that regulate bikes under SMV FRAP laws constrain cyclists to the EC effective curbhug, the constant attendance to be as far to the right as is practicable at all times except in some extremely limited circumstances...... to facilitate passing, like you yourself had argued for inclusion into the UVC, and aligned with an effort to constrain cyclists to this EC facilitation.

    Far preferable for bicyclists to have greater enumerated rights to take the lane under BIKES FRAP laws, like in California and as ascribed in the UVC, than a constant adherence to the EC, effective curbhug as is dutifully expected of cyclists in states that regulate under SMV FRAP laws, like in Iowa.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  19. #119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    exactly, john, and that is why states that regulate bikes under SMV FRAP laws constrain cyclists to the EC effective curbhug, the constant attendance to be as far to the right as is practicable at all times except in some extremely limited circumstances...... to facilitate passing, like you yourself had argued for inclusion into the UVC, and aligned with an effort to constrain cyclists to this EC facilitation.

    Far preferable for bicyclists to have greater enumerated rights to take the lane under BIKES FRAP laws, like in California and as ascribed in the UVC, than a constant adherence to the EC, effective curbhug as is dutifully expected of cyclists in states that regulate under SMV FRAP laws, like in Iowa.
    Bek carries on his anti-Forester vendetta by repeatedly claiming that I instructed cyclists to hug the curb. I never did so, but that is not relevant to this discussion, only to Bek's vendetta.

    The relevant point for this discussion is Bek's claim that states such as Iowa dutifully expect cyclists to hug the curb because it regulates under the Iowa SMV statute. Bek's argument is false in two ways. If Iowa regulates under its own statute, then it must allow cyclists to use the right-hand lane for traffic, because that is the wording of its statute. But Bek's argument is that Iowa instructs cyclists to ride FRAP, which cannot be regulation under its own statute. The supposed (maybe Bek is correct in what Iowa says and maybe he isn't) Iowa instruction to cyclists is nothing more than the words of the motoring officials, instructions from motorists that Bek loves so strongly that he prefers them to the actual wording of the statute.

  20. #120
    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, it's the EC, effective curbhug. only as far to the right as is safe.

    its' just a whole lot more frequently required in states with SMV FRAP laws applicable, than in BIKES FRAP states.

    Which, by the way, I would never endorse the use of the words 'curbhugging' in any way shape or form as an advocacy or teaching technique, but it is an effective device for this discussion.

    the EC, effective curbhug. "cyclists must ride FRAP when they act, and are treated, as drivers of vehicles."
    Last edited by Bekologist; 07-08-11 at 02:18 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •