No right to the road
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by randya
Public roads = Public access. Banning bicycling on public roads = fascist police state.
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 566
Bikes: Vision R40 - recumbent, Gunnar Crosshairs
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by phinney
I'm not advocating cycling be banned. I'm trying to point out that it could be and that we should all act accordingly and promote a positive image.
Barring bicycles from the road won't happen.
That said, it is worthwhile for cyclists to conduct themselves in a law-abiding and polite manner, if only because it is the right thing to do. Vehicles who are obstructing traffic must give way when safe. Do so. Getting into a yelling match with an aggressive driver is a bad idea. It is better to call the police. The list goes on.
I do not advocate that people act like jackalopes. I do my best to be polite to those I share the road with. Many respond in kind, and occasionally some do not. I shrug my shoulders and move on; it's easier on my digestive tract.
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by FOG
When the roads are a public good, that implies that my use of the resource has little or no adverse impact on your use, then this formulation might be right, but as a resource becomes scarce we will have an allocation method, whether implicit, such as queues, or explicit, such as congestion pricing. Banning bicycles could be a good, non-fascist, policy decision, especially if we don't act to keep bicycling safe and friendly toward other highway users.
Bicycles don't cause congestion, they help relieve it.
Motorists kill 40K+ of their own each year. How safe and friendly is that?
https://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
#55
Arizona Dessert
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times
in
1,288 Posts
Originally Posted by Seanholio
Barring bicycles from the road won't happen.
Al
#56
1.9lb/in
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Susquehanna shoreline
Posts: 1,360
Bikes: LeMond, CAAD9/1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by phinney
Don't think for a minute a case couldn't be made that the world would be better off without bicycles on the road. Depending on traffic a two hour bike ride may require a good number of motorists to slow down while passing. At one motorist overtaking a minute that would be well over 100 motorists taking action during their drive for one bicycle ride! Even though it's a small inconvenience for each motorist it adds up. The argument could certainly be made that banning cyclists from roads would save lives.
Bicycles are really not more defensible than mopeds, atv's, skateboards, roller skaters, unicycles, golf carts, etc.. The use of public roads is already heavily restricted.
The 'right' to use the road isn't taken away, just your privilege to ride a bicycle on it.
I'm not advocating cycling be banned.
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by randya
What a bunch of BS
Bicycles don't cause congestion, they help relieve it.
Motorists kill 40K+ of their own each year. How safe and friendly is that?
https://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
Bicycles don't cause congestion, they help relieve it.
Motorists kill 40K+ of their own each year. How safe and friendly is that?
https://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
A better reference: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/index.htm
Last edited by FOG; 06-02-05 at 03:01 PM.
#58
My Duty to Ride
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 273
Bikes: Giant Iguana 650 utility bike, Surly LHT, Trek TopFuel 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by phinney
Bicycles are really not more defensible than mopeds, atv's, skateboards, roller skaters, unicycles, golf carts, etc.. The use of public roads is already heavily restricted. The 'right' to use the road isn't taken away, just your privilege to ride a bicycle on it.
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by powertoold
All right, time to ban alcohol and cigarettes folks.
#61
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Phinney
If enough people would rather not see cyclists on the road then cycling could certainly be outlawed. That's the power of the majority.
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by FOG
A better reference: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/index.htm
Anything written by an agency that serves as the governments official lobbyist for motoring is automatically suspect...the word 'bicycle' doesn't appear once anywhere in the table of contents. Anyway, we're mostly talking about local streets here, and not the interstate highway system.
#63
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FOG
Not only is driving a privilege, not a right, but so is bicycling. This privilege is regulated by your state.
I believe the state has no more right to take away your right to bicycle on the public ways, than it has to take away your right to walk on the public ways.
Freeways are a special case where there is no private ROW infringement alongside, and hence, do not constitute public ways of travel, and, so can be subjected to fundamental restrictions, including no pedestrians.
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by FOG
Banning bicycles could be a good, non-fascist, policy decision, especially if we don't act to keep bicycling safe and friendly toward other highway users.
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by randya
It sounds like you think keeping bicycling safe and friendly towards other users means getting the hell out of their way, e.g. ride in the gutter or else. Maybe Serge has something to say about whether or not this is compatible with vehicular cycling...
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
So what in your opinion are the 'societal costs' of bicycling? And how are they greater than the societal costs of motoring (death and injury, lost time due to traffic congestion, etc., air and water pollution, etc., etc.)? And how in your viewpoint is vehicular cycling an improvement, if vehicular cyclists cause 'delays' to motorists who don't know or understand that the cyclist in front of them is riding 'vehicularly'?
#67
Arizona Dessert
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times
in
1,288 Posts
I see far more cars delayed by bike riders crossing at sidewalks or to the right or traffic from a straight/right lane that I do by vehicular cyclists who intergrate into the flow.
Al
Al
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by digger
Two Letters To The Editor appeared in our local paper yesterday (Wed June 1). One of them is from a guy right in my area, makes me worried about going out there now, he seems angry.....
I have thought many times, perhaps we should pay a registration fee, BUT that is not the only problem they have, bicycles are slow moving and cause them inconvienence, THAT won't change.
Our local cycling group is planning a reply letter. Suggestions?
I have thought many times, perhaps we should pay a registration fee, BUT that is not the only problem they have, bicycles are slow moving and cause them inconvienence, THAT won't change.
Our local cycling group is planning a reply letter. Suggestions?
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by randya
So what in your opinion are the 'societal costs' of bicycling? And how are they greater than the societal costs of motoring (death and injury, lost time due to traffic congestion, etc., air and water pollution, etc., etc.)? And how in your viewpoint is vehicular cycling an improvement, if vehicular cyclists cause 'delays' to motorists who don't know or understand that the cyclist in front of them is riding 'vehicularly'?
#70
Huachuca Rider
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 4,275
Bikes: Fuji CCR1, Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I don't think that's accurate.
I believe the state has no more right to take away your right to bicycle on the public ways, than it has to take away your right to walk on the public ways.
Freeways are a special case where there is no private ROW infringement alongside, and hence, do not constitute public ways of travel, and, so can be subjected to fundamental restrictions, including no pedestrians.
I believe the state has no more right to take away your right to bicycle on the public ways, than it has to take away your right to walk on the public ways.
Freeways are a special case where there is no private ROW infringement alongside, and hence, do not constitute public ways of travel, and, so can be subjected to fundamental restrictions, including no pedestrians.
Freeways are a form of "limited access highway" thus access is indeed limited.
The state limits rights of access frequently. Try taking a 120-foot vehicle on the highway or for that matter, a dog sled.
__________________
Just Peddlin' Around
Just Peddlin' Around
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by FOG
Societal costs include externalized and internalized costs. The externalized costs are those that do not accrue to the individual occasioning them. Thus, a fatal accident imposes a societal cost of the lost value of the life lost, and can be estimated by how much society is willing to pay to avoid a fatality. The amount the decedent would have been willing to pay, the internalized amount, is likely to be less, so the balance is imposed on other members of society,and is externalized, and includes things like terminal care and lost value to other members of society. The societal costs of bicycle fatalities per mile will overwhelm the other societal costs, because, per mile, bicyclists are killed at an alarming rate. Vehicular cycling will dramatically reduce that rate. Vehicular cyclists will impose delays on traffic, but no more, and likely much less than cyclists who weave onto and off of the shoulder. Cyclists accrue massive societal costs by taking up the lane mile hours it takes to travel. At any given time the cyclist is taking up about half the lane miles that a car would take (unless cars are piled up behind him) but the cyclist moves about one fourth as fast as cars on the average. Thus the cyclist may take twice as much highway up to accomplish the same trip. If the cyclist were to improve his speed, he would take up much less higway, so experienced cyclists are much less burdensome to society. The pollution costs of a cycle are not zero either, because the vehicles delayed behind him are running at very ineffiecient speeds, and producing more pollutants per mile when they follow a bike.
#72
Ride the Road
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 4,059
Bikes: Surly Cross-Check; hard tail MTB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by FOG
The societal costs of bicycle fatalities per mile will overwhelm the other societal costs, because, per mile, bicyclists are killed at an alarming rate.
Originally Posted by FOG
Cyclists accrue massive societal costs by taking up the lane mile hours it takes to travel. At any given time the cyclist is taking up about half the lane miles that a car would take (unless cars are piled up behind him) but the cyclist moves about one fourth as fast as cars on the average.
Last edited by Daily Commute; 06-02-05 at 06:09 PM.
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Seanholio
And vice versa! It's amazing how many big government loving cyclists get VERY libertarian when the rules are to be applied to them.
BTW, I'm a fairly libertarian dude. I believe that small, distributed government is best.
BTW, I'm a fairly libertarian dude. I believe that small, distributed government is best.
oh and once the end goal of makign cycing a feasible means of alternate transport is achieved--be prepared for the same level of taxation and regulation that applies to automobiles----i can just see some politician raving of the need for GPS systems in bikes so parents know where their kids are
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Brownsville, TX
Posts: 2,174
Bikes: Surly CC
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think the point FOG is missing is two-fold.
Cagers can not follow their own laws, so the reality is, even if an 'alternative' that was acceptable enough by some to pass was found, they would still find a way to kill cyclists.
There is no grey area with this, 99% of the people you see on the roads in the morning or mid-day would kill their own grandparents to get back to wherever their destination is 5 minutes faster, and 100 MPH faster.
I agree, we should not draw attention to ourselves, simply because he is right - if it means they can get the 5/100 theory through, cagers would sell cyclists down the river. Where the logic fails is that by forcing cyclists to get into cages alongside the already overwhelming numbers, they'd lose that 5/100 pretty fast to congestion that would overwhelm them.
So ultimately, they'll do nothing but continue believing that were riding down the wrong side of the road, and belong on the sidewalk.
Cagers can not follow their own laws, so the reality is, even if an 'alternative' that was acceptable enough by some to pass was found, they would still find a way to kill cyclists.
There is no grey area with this, 99% of the people you see on the roads in the morning or mid-day would kill their own grandparents to get back to wherever their destination is 5 minutes faster, and 100 MPH faster.
I agree, we should not draw attention to ourselves, simply because he is right - if it means they can get the 5/100 theory through, cagers would sell cyclists down the river. Where the logic fails is that by forcing cyclists to get into cages alongside the already overwhelming numbers, they'd lose that 5/100 pretty fast to congestion that would overwhelm them.
So ultimately, they'll do nothing but continue believing that were riding down the wrong side of the road, and belong on the sidewalk.
#75
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Keith99
Dream on. Everything said about rights of cyclists based on the constitution would also hold for pedestrians. Public rights of way hold only for the intended use. Bikes and other vehicles are already prohibited on some roads. It can easily be extended to most if not all roads.
Imagine that! All citizens in the US, required by law to buy a car.
BR
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter