Originally Posted by
Bekologist
'getting uppity?'
John, its YOUR interview. YOU state bikes should ride FRAP to facilitate overtaking when safe for both drivers. when was that interview, by the way?
The entirely rational reasoning that when it is unsafe for bikes and cars to share lanes, bikes should be allowed to take the lane for safety is what led to BIKES-FRAP protections in states like california, which recognized the value in adding cyclist specific protections so cyclists would not be endangered to share roads unsafely, under SMV-FRAP law, which predicates FRAP without allowance for lane width.
arguing that slowly driven vehicles can't, shouldn't facilitate safe overtaking on two lane roads by operating FRAP, and have no obligation to share two lane roads?
what in the world???? contrary to all obligations spelled out under the law.
Bek, you are lying by selective and partial quotation when you discuss my interview. You are both omitting consideration of the conditions that make overtaking safe and the compliance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It doesn't matter when that interview took place, I stand by my full statement that I provided a few posts ago.
When Beck argues about the motivation for the modern version of the cyclist FRAP law, created by a governmental highway committee on which I was the only cyclist representative, he is also inaccurate, because he wasn't there and his supposed motivation is contrary to the historical record. The exceptions to both the cyclist FRAP law (CVC 21202) and the mandatory-bike-lane law (CVC 21208) were not created to protect cyclists from the evil effects of the cyclist FRAP law. If that were desired, the obvious way to protect cyclists from the cyclist FRAP law would be to repeal that law, which is what I was arguing for when I still believed that the purpose of the committee was to benefit cyclists by rationalizing the law for bicycle traffic. Of course, the actions of the committee convinced me, along with documentary evidence that I discovered, that the purpose of the committee was to restrict cyclists as much as possible by forcing them to operate in the cyclist-inferiority manner both on normal roads and where bike lanes and side paths would be created. Bek argues as if this were not both accurate and long on the historical record. That makes his argument either one from ignorance or, if he is not as ignorant as he might claim, by lying.
The exceptions in both the cyclist FRAP law and the bike-lane law were created to preserve the laws based on the principle that cyclists should be subservient to motorists. I repeat: the proper way to save cyclists from the legal jeopardy created by cyclist FRAP and bike-lane laws is to not have those laws in the first place. One would think that Bek was sufficiently intelligent to understand that.
Therefore, Bek is reduced to trying to argue that the standard slow-moving vehicle law (CVC 21654), which gives cyclists the right to use the outside through lane, is more restrictive than the cyclist FRAP law which is based on the principle that cyclists should ride FRAP unless certain conditions are met. Of course, nobody would accept that argument as stated, so Bek has to argue, without substantiation, that the slow-moving vehicle law provides that right only on multi-lane roads. That's the pickle into which Bek's ideological dogma has forced him. He really should be questioning his own ideological dogma, whatever it may happen to be.