Originally Posted by Serge *******
The source of the standard and universal vehicular rules of the road is a very interesting question, and I've been wondering about it myself. One thing is for sure... they're not from Forester! These rules have been around since before he was born! Just this morning I was reading John Franklin's Cyclecraft, which I highly recommend. You have to do the right/left orientation flip since he's writing for Britain, but that's actually a good thing... I think it forces you to think about each situation a bit more. The amazing thing is how radically different this book is in style from Forester's Effective Cycling, yet how remarkably similar it is in terms of advise and recommended techniques for traffic cyclists. In a lot of ways Cyclecraft is a much better explanation of vehicular cycling than is EC. But I would recommend reading both books to any cyclist who spends any time riding on the streets with motor vehicles.
Anyway - as to the source of the "standard rules" - I think they were devised and adopted in the late 19th century, perhaps earlier, and evolved in detail ever since into the particular laws we have in all the different jurisdictions of the world today. But the fundamentals - the "standard" rules, are the common denominator, if you will, of all the laws governing vehicular traffic in the world.
Before you will be able to convince me that I need to examine my "separtist" attitude about pedestrians, you will have to examine and address what I already said about it, instead of quoting it without comment.
OK, I read it. More of the same pseudo-intellectual drivel. Gawd, how to respond? You seem to be equating a "separatist" attitude with non-VC cycling. OK. I was trying to point out the absurdity of your position with the example of pedestrians, ie. if cyclists and motorists can mix, why not pedestrians and motorists? Given your "all inclusive" philosophy, that seems logical. You responded that cyclists actually fare better when acting like motorists while pedestrians do not, or something to that effect, alluding to these fictional "standard rules". Of course, the backdrop to all this is "bicycle lanes" and you are really contending that those who use or are in some cases in favor of bicycle lanes are also "separatist" and "non-VC". You would like to lump all these concepts together and condemn them all. I don't see it that way. I think one can generally follow the principles of VC and still use a bike lane when present. I think one can generally follow the principles of VC and not think bike lanes are of the devil. Regarding the alleged attitude of "separatism", I just don't see it. What you call separatist attitudies are simply ways to organize different modes of transportation on the common roadway. We have motorized vehicles and we have slow-moving vehicles, and we have pedestrians. The three do not always mix. We may need extra facilities and laws to govern the interaction among the three, eg. pedestrians using a striped crosswalk, cyclists using a striped lane. Of course, one may argue the pros and cons of these facilities, but this is different than some underlying concept of separatism. Yes, it IS separatism, but only to the extent implied by the inherent differences in the modes of transportation. You concede at least that bicycles are "low-powered" and want to force everyone into "my way or the highway", no pun intended. Maybe there are other ways to accommodate all users of the road that do not fit into your narrow paradigms. I agree that cyclists fare best when they act and are in turn treated like drivers of other vehicles, but maybe there are some transportation designs out there in which cyclists would fare BETTER than they do now. This is not separatism, it is progress.