Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Vehicular Cycling (VC) (http://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/)
-   -   Irrate driver challanges family bicycle group. (http://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/789006-irrate-driver-challanges-family-bicycle-group.html)

Bekologist 01-06-12 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 13684459)
That "less" is standard American traffic law, which requires cyclists to stay out of the way of same-direction motor traffic, obviously for the convenience of motorists.

american traffic laws by and large don't require that. :rolleyes: bicyclists can ride in the lane of traffic avoid unsafe road or shoulder conditions in all 50 states when necessary for their safety. the laws do not require cyclists 'stay out of the way' for convenience of motorists, they generally regulate sharing the road only when safe to do so.

the amount of misinformation used by john to buttress his argument is staggering.

John Forester 01-06-12 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 13685746)
american traffic laws by and large don't require that. :rolleyes: bicyclists can ride in the lane of traffic avoid unsafe road or shoulder conditions in all 50 states when necessary for their safety. the laws do not require cyclists 'stay out of the way' for convenience of motorists, they generally regulate sharing the road only when safe to do so.

the amount of misinformation used by john to buttress his argument is staggering.

The misinformation is produced by Bekologist in his effort to maintain the American superstition that cyclists are not legitimate roadway users who are somewhat more limited than are normal drivers of vehicles. I have come to estimate that Bek is so active in maintaining cyclist inferiority to motorists for possibly two reasons. One, because he fears the political backlash if that cyclist-inferiority superstition is challenged. Two, the bikeways that he desires so much depend on this cyclist-inferiority superstition.

Whatever may be Bek's motives, the exceptions to the anti-cyclist discriminatory laws (and Bek has to rely on the exceptions to make his case) are rarely understood against the obvious principle that cyclists are supposed to stay out of the way of motorists. Being not understood, the basic discrimination stands. Moreover, motorists are never required to justify obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, while cyclists who obey those rules often have to prove that their safety demands that they obey the normal rules of the road instead of the discriminatory laws.

Bekologist 01-06-12 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnforester
...the obvious principle that cyclists are supposed to stay out of the way of motorists.

Quite inaccurate, quite misleading. jf furtively hides anti cycling at the core of his rhetoric.

the semantics about obeying general traffic rules are meaningless.

A bicycle bus of schoolchildren encountering an angry motorist could just as easily have occurred in North Carolina, Arkansas, or another state that regulates bikes under the general rules of the road, with no laws errantly portrayed as 'anti-cyclist.'

People might recall the man shot in the helmet by an off duty fireman for taking the lane on bicycles with his wife and child riding with him? That happened in North Carolina, a state where bicyclists obey the general traffic :rolleyes: rules of the road.

genec 01-06-12 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 13684491)
Please specify the differences in performance between motor vehicles and bicycles that are relevant to traffic movements, and explain how these differences affect traffic movements in such a way that motorists and cyclists should not make these movements according to the same rules of the road.

So what John Forester is stating here is that he doesn't understand the differences between a 4 wheeled, heavy, fast, fuel powered motor vehicle and a two wheeled, light, human powered vehicle. Any child can tell the difference, yet John Forester can not.

John Forester 01-06-12 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 13685846)
Quite inaccurate, quite misleading. jf furtively hides anti cycling at the core of his rhetoric.

the semantics about obeying general traffic rules are meaningless.

A bicycle bus of schoolchildren encountering an angry motorist could just as easily have occurred in North Carolina, Arkansas, or another state that regulates bikes under the general rules of the road, with no laws errantly portrayed as 'anti-cyclist.'

People might recall the man shot in the helmet by an off duty fireman for taking the lane on bicycles with his wife and child riding with him? That happened in North Carolina, a state where bicyclists obey the general traffic :rolleyes: rules of the road.

These are all examples of discrimination against cyclists, but none of them are examples of governmental discrimination through discriminatory laws. However, Americans of many stripes believe that the laws require cyclists to stay out of the way of motorists, which reflects the laws of the great majority of states, and, of course, the reverse occurs, that the laws reflect the views of the public.

Therefore, Bek's latest conveys no new information.

John Forester 01-06-12 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 13686022)
So what John Forester is stating here is that he doesn't understand the differences between a 4 wheeled, heavy, fast, fuel powered motor vehicle and a two wheeled, light, human powered vehicle. Any child can tell the difference, yet John Forester can not.

The subject under discussion was obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Here is my statement to which genec has ... well, he has done something of a literary nature, but I don't know what to call it, for it is neither comment nor answer to my statement. Here are my words: "Please specify the differences in performance between motor vehicles and bicycles that are relevant to traffic movements, and explain how these differences affect traffic movements in such a way that motorists and cyclists should not make these movements according to the same rules of the road."

Genec's words must needs be taken to say that he believes that the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates as fuel mandates, for safety, differences in the appropriate rules of the road. However, he has supplied no explanation to support his belief, apparently thinking that only childish mental processes are required to support his belief. Well, childish thinking has long been the bane of American bicycle policy.

ChasH 01-06-12 06:54 PM

I only just returned to this thread after making my last post and see that hagen2456 is doing an excellent job of responding to questions directed my way. You tell 'em 56 .....

John: I don't consider that cyclists are "inferior", a perjorative term that has no place in the discussion imo. They are DIFFERENT to drivers/riders of motorized vehicles, and therefore should be subject to different regulations - for their own benefit as well as the benefit of other road users.

Are you seriously asking me to describe the differences between a road bike and an M Roadster or a Navigator? IYO, should these vehicles have equal access to I-5, for example?

hagen2456 01-06-12 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 13686325)
The subject under discussion was obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Here is my statement to which genec has ... well, he has done something of a literary nature, but I don't know what to call it, for it is neither comment nor answer to my statement. Here are my words: "Please specify the differences in performance between motor vehicles and bicycles that are relevant to traffic movements, and explain how these differences affect traffic movements in such a way that motorists and cyclists should not make these movements according to the same rules of the road."

Genec's words must needs be taken to say that he believes that the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates as fuel mandates, for safety, differences in the appropriate rules of the road. However, he has supplied no explanation to support his belief, apparently thinking that only childish mental processes are required to support his belief. Well, childish thinking has long been the bane of American bicycle policy.

Genec also used the words "heavy" and "fast" as part of his description. Are you not familiar with them?

hagen2456 01-06-12 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 13684459)
That "less" is standard American traffic law, which requires cyclists to stay out of the way of same-direction motor traffic, obviously for the convenience of motorists.

...as well as the convenience of cyclists, whenever traffic is fast and heavy. Can't say I envy the cars their lanes :P

B. Carfree 01-07-12 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChasH (Post 13686532)
I only just returned to this thread after making my last post and see that hagen2456 is doing an excellent job of responding to questions directed my way. You tell 'em 56 .....

John: I don't consider that cyclists are "inferior", a perjorative term that has no place in the discussion imo. They are DIFFERENT to drivers/riders of motorized vehicles, and therefore should be subject to different regulations - for their own benefit as well as the benefit of other road users.

Are you seriously asking me to describe the differences between a road bike and an M Roadster or a Navigator? IYO, should these vehicles have equal access to I-5, for example?

So there are differences in mass, torque and horsepower between different road users. Have you ever hauled 105,500 pounds of lumber up a 10% grade in a motor vehicle? I have, and let me tell you that I wasn't going any faster up that hill in my commercial vehicle than I would have been on my bicycle. I was taking the lane and the folks driving their four-wheelers waited behind until they could safely pass. Note that the ratio of mass differences between my rig and those pesky four-wheelers was larger than the ratio between the four-wheelers and the cyclists. Yet, we truck drivers follow the same rules of the road (well, some of us do) as four-wheelers. There are many different sorts of vehicles using the roadways, but there is really no need to create extra and unnecessary rules for each type or build completely separate roadways for every sort of road user. What is really needed is more effective enforcement of a standard set of rules, in my opinion. Feel free to differ, but I just don't see folks in cars surviving a collision with a rogue fully loaded truck any better than a cyclist will survive a collision with a rogue four-wheeler, yet no one is calling for separate roadways for trucks and cars (the MacArther freeway notwithstanding).

Bekologist 01-07-12 04:26 AM

What in the world do trucks and planning for roadway bicycle traffic via separate roadways(?) have to do with a motorist endangering a bicycling bevy of children en route to school on a low speed residential street?

Regardless if the local laws mention bicycles or not and independent of the presence of a bikelane, improved shoulder or path, some motorists in america are going to get uppity when encountering a bunch of cyclists.

Evidence suggest these interactions are smoother and safer when bikes ARE planned for in the transportation mix.

mconlonx 01-07-12 09:47 AM

Um...

In the OP, there was one driver cited as being aggressive and causing problems. How many drivers patiently wait behind the kiddie peloton along that same stretch of road, all the time? And pass safely when safe to do so?

In my experience, it's 1 in 20 to 50 drivers who do something boneheaded on the road and I give them the benefit of the doubt -- might have been merely inattention or accidental, not something they do normally. It's when the same driver tries to kill me a second time in the same short span of an encounter that I take issue.

Truly aggressive drivers like the one in the OP, are in my experience, a rarity, maybe 1 in 1,000.

And guess what? Where are prime jerks in every walk of life -- why should the roads be any different?

The OP story is really great: driver thought they were in the right, took action, found out they were wrong, and the school made an issue -- a teaching opportunity -- about it.

John Forester 01-07-12 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChasH (Post 13686532)
I only just returned to this thread after making my last post and see that hagen2456 is doing an excellent job of responding to questions directed my way. You tell 'em 56 .....

John: I don't consider that cyclists are "inferior", a perjorative term that has no place in the discussion imo. They are DIFFERENT to drivers/riders of motorized vehicles, and therefore should be subject to different regulations - for their own benefit as well as the benefit of other road users.

Are you seriously asking me to describe the differences between a road bike and an M Roadster or a Navigator? IYO, should these vehicles have equal access to I-5, for example?

It doesn't matter whether you think that cyclists are inferior to other drivers; that is the typical American traffic law.

You fail to understand the legal difference between drivers of vehicles and drivers of motor vehicles. Drivers of vehicles are not permitted to use freeways unless they are also driving a motor vehicle; I have no problem with that as a general principle.

You have failed to provide evidence that the differences between bicycles and other vehicles should require them to operate according to different rules of the road.

John Forester 01-07-12 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hagen2456 (Post 13687048)
Genec also used the words "heavy" and "fast" as part of his description. Are you not familiar with them?

Please inform us of why the mass of a vehicle determines the way in which its driver should, for example, make a left turn, or should act with regard to a traffic signal, or any other of the rules of the road. I know of no way in which mass makes that difference, either physically or by law.

Your comment is therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

John Forester 01-07-12 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 13687731)
What in the world do trucks and planning for roadway bicycle traffic via separate roadways(?) have to do with a motorist endangering a bicycling bevy of children en route to school on a low speed residential street?

Regardless if the local laws mention bicycles or not and independent of the presence of a bikelane, improved shoulder or path, some motorists in america are going to get uppity when encountering a bunch of cyclists.

Evidence suggest these interactions are smoother and safer when bikes ARE planned for in the transportation mix.

The interactions between cyclists and motorists are of several types: overtaking, turning, crossing. American bikeways and American bike planning consider only the overtaking type, with the result that the more dangerous types of turning and crossing movements are made more dangerous.

hagen2456 01-07-12 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 13688291)
It doesn't matter whether you think that cyclists are inferior to other drivers; that is the typical American traffic law.

You fail to understand the legal difference between drivers of vehicles and drivers of motor vehicles. Drivers of vehicles are not permitted to use freeways unless they are also driving a motor vehicle; I have no problem with that as a general principle.

That's not "a general principle". It's DISCRIMINATION!!!!

hagen2456 01-07-12 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 13688298)
Please inform us of why the mass of a vehicle determines the way in which its driver should, for example, make a left turn, or should act with regard to a traffic signal, or any other of the rules of the road. I know of no way in which mass makes that difference, either physically or by law.

Your comment is therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

Mass, speed (and for some reason you "forgot" the "speed" part), impact.
Vulnerability, too. Remember the parable of the heavy weight champion vs. me? I may dodge and duck for a while, but once I'm hit, it's aaaaall over.

It's not bike vs. car, nor cyclist vs. driver. Drivers are protected inside their cars. Cyclists are not protected. So they're a lot more vulnerable. Cars are on an equal footing with each other, but not with cyclists. They are different, and the laws must recognize this as far as possible.

Was this really necessary?

John Forester 01-07-12 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hagen2456 (Post 13688932)
Mass, speed (and for some reason you "forgot" the "speed" part), impact.
Vulnerability, too. Remember the parable of the heavy weight champion vs. me? I may dodge and duck for a while, but once I'm hit, it's aaaaall over.

It's not bike vs. car, nor cyclist vs. driver. Drivers are protected inside their cars. Cyclists are not protected. So they're a lot more vulnerable. Cars are on an equal footing with each other, but not with cyclists. They are different, and the laws must recognize this as far as possible.

Was this really necessary?

Very necessary, hagen. You, hagen, are advancing the very same arguments of mass and speed that have been used in America to discriminate against cyclists by making them subservient to motorists, to being required to stay out of the way of motorists, all for our own safety. Nobody has been able to demonstrate that the American actions (restrictive laws, bikeways) reduce car-bike collisions. Indeed, the American system of discrimination against cyclists in all probability has increased the rate of car-bike collisions, by reducing the competence of cyclists and by making driving more complicated. Just as no American has been able to demonstrate that restricting cyclists' rights to use the road according to the normal rules of the road either does, or might be presumed to, reduce car-bike collisions, you, hagen, speaking from your European view, have equally failed. I suspect that you don't realize what the issue is, for you haven't even tried to answer the question.

genec 01-07-12 04:58 PM

Oh poor "Hagen," speaking from a "European view..." Never mind that the ride share for cyclists in several of those aforementioned European cities is many times greater than that of almost any city in America; America where the car rules, where roads are designed with high speed motor traffic in mind, and where "following the rules of the road" has done nothing to encourage people to bicycle where it is practicable. (never mind that so many American motorists bend those very rules of the road any chance they have).

America, where the "father" of effective cycling believes that the automobile is one of the best inventions of the last century. And where even his beloved England is toying with bike lanes to encourage the use of the bicycle on already over crowded streets.

Sigh. Good luck Hagen... you are debating with a brick wall.

John Forester 01-07-12 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 13689532)
Oh poor "Hagen," speaking from a "European view..." Never mind that the ride share for cyclists in several of those aforementioned European cities is many times greater than that of almost any city in America; America where the car rules, where roads are designed with high speed motor traffic in mind, and where "following the rules of the road" has done nothing to encourage people to bicycle where it is practicable. (never mind that so many American motorists bend those very rules of the road any chance they have).

America, where the "father" of effective cycling believes that the automobile is one of the best inventions of the last century. And where even his beloved England is toying with bike lanes to encourage the use of the bicycle on already over crowded streets.

Sigh. Good luck Hagen... you are debating with a brick wall.

Genec has presented an ideological spiel that is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. That issue is whether the difference between the vehicles used by cyclists and motorists justifies the anti-cyclist discrimination built into American traffic law and bikeways.

WPeabody 01-07-12 11:06 PM

Thing is, the streets the kids on bikes are taking to school have a 25 mph speed limit on Rio Road, and on Lasuen drive (the road leading behind the mission) has two very sharp turns that you cannot navigate over 15 mph. Plenty of cyclists and joggers use this road, and it is very narrow so that you cannot pass if someone is coming in the other direction. Drivers are notorious for taking those corners way too fast. My son used to ride his bike through there, but he and other cyclists-- and joggers-- were able to cut through the schoolyard on the other side of the mission before they put gates up. There also used to be a path but the school got into a snit about people using it and closed it off. They should lobby for right of way and open that path up again... or start coming down on people driving too fast through that neighborhood...

Doane 01-07-12 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WPeabody (Post 13690918)
Thing is, the streets the kids on bikes are taking to school have a 25 mph speed limit on Rio Road, and on Lasuen drive (the road leading behind the mission) has two very sharp turns that you cannot navigate over 15 mph. Plenty of cyclists and joggers use this road, and it is very narrow so that you cannot pass if someone is coming in the other direction. Drivers are notorious for taking those corners way too fast. My son used to ride his bike through there, but he and other cyclists-- and joggers-- were able to cut through the schoolyard on the other side of the mission before they put gates up. There also used to be a path but the school got into a snit about people using it and closed it off. They should lobby for right of way and open that path up again... or start coming down on people driving too fast through that neighborhood...

I agree and that "shortcut" would be really nice, it comes out just West of the old Mission house. But wait.. we might be creating a bike path! :twitchy:

WPeabody 01-09-12 02:09 PM

I doubt the Junipero Serra school will want a bike path through there, anyway. I'd say signage and some bike sharrows on Lasuen and Rio road would be more feasible. (And watch the fun begin when school lets out in the afternoons...) And then there's Clint Eastwood in his massive F-350 diesel driving through there from Mission Ranch, though he's a lot more considerate than his TV anchor wife (almost collided with her one day when she went flying out of the driveway), but I'm digressing here.
Then again, maybe if he did a local PSA for kids walking and cycling to school... would he do that? :D

Doane 01-10-12 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WPeabody (Post 13696910)
I doubt the Junipero Serra school will want a bike path through there, anyway. I'd say signage and some bike sharrows on Lasuen and Rio road would be more feasible. (And watch the fun begin when school lets out in the afternoons...) And then there's Clint Eastwood in his massive F-350 diesel driving through there from Mission Ranch, though he's a lot more considerate than his TV anchor wife (almost collided with her one day when she went flying out of the driveway), but I'm digressing here.
Then again, maybe if he did a local PSA for kids walking and cycling to school... would he do that? :D


Haven't you heard.. Clint got a Prius. The bumper sticker: Make My Day!

DX-MAN 01-11-12 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 13689532)
Oh poor "Hagen," speaking from a "European view..." Never mind that the ride share for cyclists in several of those aforementioned European cities is many times greater than that of almost any city in America; America where the car rules, where roads are designed with high speed motor traffic in mind, and where "following the rules of the road" has done nothing to encourage people to bicycle where it is practicable. (never mind that so many American motorists bend those very rules of the road any chance they have).

America, where the "father" of effective cycling believes that the automobile is one of the best inventions of the last century. And where even his beloved England is toying with bike lanes to encourage the use of the bicycle on already over crowded streets.

Sigh. Good luck Hagen... you are debating with a brick wall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 13689758)
Genec has presented an ideological spiel that is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. That issue is whether the difference between the vehicles used by cyclists and motorists justifies the anti-cyclist discrimination built into American traffic law and bikeways.

genec has produced a short prose that kicks the chair out from under the empty soapbox of Mr. Vehicular. . . and is thus dismissed as irrelevant. I think, more likely, his TARGET is irrelevant. ANYONE who marginalizes another point of view when he cannot effectively reply to it cannot be taken seriously.

genec, don't insult brick walls, they serve a purpose.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:39 PM.