Originally Posted by
The Human Car
Your assertion is that a VC has to disobey the rules of the road only when a bike lane is present. And these rules of the road exist in the mind of the public. So therefore anytime a cyclists is riding where the general public does not expect/desire a cyclist, it is the cyclists alone who is contradicting/disobeying the rules of the road. Sorry but I am not buying this argument.
You seem to confuse "rules of the road" as outlined by laws and driver of vehicle instructions with the desire of the motoring public to see us out of their way. You seem to conveniently switch definitions to suite whatever purpose you have in mind. My apologizes to comprehend such a convoluted argument.
Rules of the road as outlined by laws and driver of vehicle instructions allow a cyclist to leave the right side of the roadway whether a bike lane is present or not.
Rules of the road as defined by what the general public expects/desires a cyclist to stay to the far right whether a bike lane is present or not.
Please pick a definition and stick with it.
Using the former definition a VC can ride safely while obeying the rules of the road whether a bike lane is present or not.
Using the latter definition a VC can only ride safely while disobeying the rules of the road whether a bike lane is present or not.
Summary: No difference in regards to "rules of the road" with bike lanes or without.
My original statement was: "That argument is more illogical malarkey. Claiming that the operating instructions produced in drivers' minds by the bike-lane stripe agree with the rules of the road, when simultaneously arguing that vehicular cyclists have to disobey those instructions, is clear proof that bike-lane stripes contradict the rules of the road."
It is quite clear that I was stating your argument, not mine, up to the conclusion. I concluded that if you (or whoever it was) are confused about the effect of the bike-lane stripe, that is pretty good proof that the concept produced by the stripe violates the rules of the road.
And I am utterly astonished by the first part of your argument, that I confuse the rules of the road with the publics' desire to have us out of their way. I can say only that such a thought has never crossed my mind.
But I do understand the argument that you are making. You argue that, in the mind of the public, the bike-lane stripe has no greater significance than the mythical zone that demarcates being "as close as practicable" to the edge of the road. OK, I'll bite, but whether I bite on your bait or bite you and your argument remains to be seen.
I think that your argument is more malarkey. Just visually, the bike-lane stripe is clearly obvious, while the individual member of the public has no clear idea of what constitutes as close as practicable, and the sum of all the individual views is even more diffuse. Furthermore, that stripe was put there by a government organization that is charged with the responsibility of acting properly, according to standards applied with good judgment. As such, the stripe must be given, and treated with, the respect appropriate to such official products. Also, the stripe provides a clear and precise demarcation between the area in which a cyclist is safe and the area in which he is in danger. Any item with that function is granted a great deal of respect. Still more, bike-lane stripes were placed there as the result of considerable effort exercised by the public toward the government. Since so many people believe that bike-lane stripes are worth exerting such personal effort, a bike-lane stripe must carry great significance. Since so many people believe that bike-lane stripes make cycling safe, there must be a great deal of truth in that belief.
For all of these reasons, I think that a bike-lane stripe carries much more significance in the mind of the general public than does the rather vaguely defined zone that is "as close as practicable" to the edge of the road.