Old 06-06-07, 03:07 PM
  #15  
invisiblehand
Part-time epistemologist
 
invisiblehand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 5,870

Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday triplet, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Hollands Tourer

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
In regards to a cyclist right-of-way ...

If you mean this in a global sense, then I agree with John on this one. My experience with pedestrians on MUPs is that many feel that they can act with impunity due to ROW. Since we believe that bicycles have a right to the entire road, we should expect cyclists to behave according to the rules of the road. In my opinion, giving cyclists' a global ROW would encourage risky behavior that is probably not in the best interests of cyclists nor society in general. Moreover, I suspect that there would be a public backlash since under several scenarios I can see more people cycling but find it likely that motoring (cars) will remain king of the road for a while.

If instead, Bek means that in particular situations where transportation officials have encouraged the cyclist into a disadvantageous position for improved traffic flow--say in those areas where the bike lanes are painted purple--and that cyclists are given ROW in compensation, then I think that is more palatable.

I understand and sympathize with Genec's discussion regarding the asymmetric outcomes of an auto-cyclist collision, but if we push for a strategy more appealing to the general public--specifically, points #8 and #9-- then we address the underlying inattentiveness which increases the risk to law-abiding cycling.
invisiblehand is offline